Norm Of Customary International Law Research Articles

Limitation of jurisdictional immunity of russia in the judicial practice of Ukraine

The article focuses on the latest trends in judicial practice in Ukraine regarding the limitation of judicial immunity of the russian federation in disputes related to compensation for damage caused to the life or health of natural persons on the territory of Ukraine, in the context of the aggression of the russian federation since 2014. The article analyzes the provisions of the national legislation of Ukraine and key international legal documents in the field of jurisdictional immunities - the European Convention on State Immunities of 1972 and the UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their Property of 2004. In particular, the possibility of applying the “tort exception” stipulated by international law is analyzed, considering cases regarding compensation for damage caused to the life or health of natural persons on the territory of Ukraine, as a result of the aggression of the russian federation. The issue of whether the actions of the russian federation and its armed forces on the territory of Ukraine fall under the understanding of the state’s implementation of its sovereign rights is considered separately, since the establishment of such a fact directly affects the extension of jurisdictional immunity to the state during the consideration of cases regarding the consequences of actions committed by the armed forces of this state on the territory another state. The practice of the Supreme Court in the above­mentioned categories of cases and its role in the formation of the tendency of international law to limit the jurisdictional immunities of states and the potential formation of new customary norms of international law regarding the limitation of jurisdictional immunities of states and the application of the concept of “delict exception” in the consideration of relevant cases are also analyzed. The article also analyzes the prospects for the implementation of decisions made by Ukrainian courts against the russian federation in disputes regarding compensation for damage caused to individuals on the territory of Ukraine as a result of the aggression of the russian federation.

Healthcare workers’ freedom of movement in times of pandemics: an emerging norm of customary international law

BackgroundA shortage of healthcare workers can hinder the ability to prepare for and respond to global security threats caused by diseases that are prone to pandemics. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the shortage of healthcare workers became a growing concern worldwide. Recognizing these challenges, countries adopted measures to ensure healthcare workers’ freedom of movement in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. As the WHO continues the negotiation process to reform the 2005 International Health Regulations and to adopt a new Pandemic Treaty, with one key provision relating to healthcare workers’ mobility, questions remain as to whether States will actually adopt a binding international legal instrument or whether its effectiveness will be watered down by the intrinsic vulnerabilities of an international legal system that has (too) often been unable to tame geopolitical interests. Considering these challenges, we assessed the emergence of a norm of customary international law allowing the free movement of healthcare workers during pandemics.MethodsOur study examined the laws and policies adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic concerning healthcare workers’ mobility in 10 countries, representing all continents. The country selection was based on regional representation and a preliminary analysis indicating their early adoption of measures related to healthcare workers’ mobility. Temporal limits were set. To gather relevant data, we employed various methods including research databases, media sources, and the COVID-19 Law Lab database.ResultsOur research identified and assessed instances of state practice and evidence of opinio juris to determine whether a norm of customary international law mandating states to ensure healthcare workers’ freedom of movement during pandemics exists.The findings indicate a strong consensus towards ensuring the free movement of healthcare workers in times of pandemics as a way to respond to outbreaks of disease. Within months, Argentina, Colombia, Kenya, South Africa, India, Japan, Spain, the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States, ten nations representing most regions of the world, recognized, as law, the practice of excluding healthcare workers from prohibitions on movement.ConclusionUltimately, this discussion is critical for global health because if a norm does exist in this regard, it will further strengthen pandemic legal preparedness efforts. As such, it becomes clear that the reform of the 2005 International Health Regulations and/or the adoption of a new pandemic treaty will bolster the strength of this emerging norm of customary international law and crystallize it. These legal instruments would propel a norm that is already in the process of formulation into existence. Thus, crystallizing a norm that is otherwise emerging among states.

«Aggression» as an imperative norm of international law: genesis of development

The article reveals the essence of «aggression» as an imperative norm of modern international law. Attention is focused on the fact that despite the prohibition of aggression by the imperative norms of international law and its recognition by the international community as an international crime, a universal definition of aggression has not yet been adopted. Consideration of the essence of aggression by analyzing the provisions contained in the UN Charter, the Declaration of Principles of 1970 and the Helsinki Final Act of 1975 require some clarification and expansion. The definition proposed by the UN General Assembly Resolution No. 3314 needs to be confirmed by convention, as the resolutions of the UN General Assembly have the nature of soft law. The provisions of the Resolution can be transformed into customary norms of international law, however, the fact of the transformation of the provisions of this resolution into customary norms at the current stage is debatable and requires additional justification. It is noted that the definition of aggression is also contained in the ICC Statute, however, this statute has been adopted by a relatively small number of states, so these provisions are not mandatory for non-participating states. In addition, the Court has jurisdiction to administer justice and render appropriate judgments only in relation to natural persons. Therefore, today there is an urgent need to adopt a definition of aggression at the universal convention level, which will contribute to the prevention of the international crime of aggression and increase the effectiveness of combating it. It is indisputable that the prohibition of aggression acquires its imperative status through its inherent rationalism and moral authority instead of state consent.

Peculiarities of consideration of court cases related to the limitation of jurisdictional immunity of the state

The article examines the issue of defining the specifics of the procedure for consideration of civil cases by a court of claims against a foreign state, which are related to the limitation of the jurisdictional immunity of the state. The authors analyzed the content of the European Convention on State Immunities of 1972 and the UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property of 2004, the provisions recognized by international and national courts as reflecting norms of customary international law. Attention is drawn to the fact that, in addition to defining the form in which the state may waive immunity, the list of categories of cases in which the state does not enjoy immunity in the court of another participating state, the specified international acts also establish the procedural rules for the trial of relevant cases, in particular requirements for mandatory informing of a foreign state about a lawsuit filed against it and the results of its consideration. It is noted that by the norms of customary international law, in the case of non-application of the jurisdictional immunity of the defendant foreign state, one of the mandatory components of the procedure for consideration of the claim against the defendant foreign state by the court is the proper notification of the defendant foreign state about the allegations presented to it and about the results of their consideration by the court. Failure to comply with the above procedural requirements may create obstacles to the further implementation of court decisions in relevant cases regarding the possibility of applying these court decisions for enforcement on the territory of other states. It is noted that in cases of compensation for damage caused to the life, health, and property of natural persons because of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation, the position of the Civil Court of Cassation as part of the Supreme Court on the lack of need to notify the defendant country of legal proceedings on the relevant claims is controversial. Attention is drawn to the fact that the relevant practice of national courts is carried out in violation of the rules of formal, substantive, and procedural justice institutionalized by the international community, limits the legitimate interests of persons who have suffered damage from military aggression, transferring their rights to the status of legitimate expectations, as it can have negative consequences for the implementation of judicial decisions, taking into account the analyzed provisions of international law. A conclusion was drawn on the need to settle the issue of notification of the respondent state in cases of compensation for damage caused to the life, health, and property of individuals because of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation.

Specifics of the legal status of the enemy’s property in war in light of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine

The adoption of the Law of Ukraine “On the Basic Principles for the Compulsory Seizure in Ukraine of Objects of the Property Rights of the Russian Federation and its Residents” is a reaction not only to the Russian aggression that began on February 24, 2022, but also to the systematic violations by this state of the principles and norms of international law. The provisions of the Law are unconventional for the private law of Ukraine, since they provide for a mechanism for forced, gratuitous nationalization of property belonging to a foreign state and its residents. It should be noted that this Law does not yet launch this mechanism, for this it is necessary that public authorities take a number of administrative and administrative-economic actions. However, in the case of practical implementation of the provisions of the law, the norms of customary international law on the immunity of property of a foreign state, as well as the provisions of the Agreement on Mutual Protection of Investments concluded in 1999 between Ukraine and Russia, will be violated. In this regard, the article examines the possibility of unilateral termination of this Agreement in connection with a fundamental change in circumstances. After all, in the conditions of aggression by the Russian Federation and the systematic violation of the latter norms of international humanitarian law, in particular, in relation to the civilian population and civilian objects, Ukraine cannot provide either Russia or its residents with the same favourable regimes that it provided under the conditions of the regime friendship, cooperation and partnership. The article also draws attention to the need to fi nd alternative ways of such treatment of the property of Russia and its residents, which would not allow its owners to receive profi t in Ukraine. Key words: nationalization, immunity of property of a foreign state, foreign investment, termination of an international treaty, rebus sic stantibus.

Territorial Claims in North Polar Maritime Zone in View of International Security

The main feature of the political relations, developed among the coastal states with strong interests over the North Pole region and the Arctic Ocean, have been the frequent interstate disputes over the last fifty years, as well as the efforts of these Arctic states during this period to cooperate in so that the sovereignty and sovereign rights of each coastal state over this region turn into a common benefit for the entire international community. Consequently, sovereignty and sovereign rights are considered fundamental factors for interstate relations in the Arctic Ocean region, for which coastal states have historically been willing to engage in political or military conflicts. The Arctic Ocean, including North Pole maritime region, is governed by customary international law and the law of the sea, which are largely represented by UNCLOS (1982) and the Geneva Conventions on the Law of the Sea (1958). Four Arctic coastal states, Canada, Norway, Denmark, and Russia have ratified these international conventions, while the US accepts its main provisions as norms of customary international law, but is also in the process of ratifying UNCLOS. The purpose of this article is to analyze and discuss the legal, practical, and political situation regarding the delimitation of maritime zones in the North Pole region and the Arctic Ocean, addressing interstate disputes over the major economic, strategic and geopolitical interests of this maritime area in the context of international security.

Podstawy prawne zbiorowej odmowy uznania państw na forum organizacji uniwersalnych - studium przypadków

The article aims to study the cases of collective non-recognition of certain States by the League of Nations and the United Nations, and to determine the legal basis of the measures adopted. The author divides the legal grounds for non-recognition into substantive and formal ones. In the course of the case study, four substantive grounds are identified, more than one of which was violatedduring the process of creation of each non-recognized State: the ban on the use of force, the territorial integrity of States, the right to self-determination and the prohibition of apartheid andracial discrimination. The examination of formal grounds reveals that the virtually universal compliance with UN calls might have been driven not only by binding resolutions but also by thetreaties, customary norms and peremptory norms, binding different UN members and nonmembers to a varying extent. Still, since the non-recognized States were neither members of the UN nor were bound by respective treaties, the illegality of their creation may only be explained with reference to violation of the peremptory norms and, in some cases, of the customary norms of international law.

Retroactivity in international treaty law

Problem setting. Due to the fact that the constitutional norms determine the status of an international treaty, the binding nature of which has been approved by the parliament as part of national legislation, it is important to study the temporal effect of international treaties, namely their retroactivity. In general, the Vienna Convention contains a provision according to which an international treaty has no retroactive effect in respect of the States which are parties to it, except where the intention to give retroactive effect to the treaty follows from the treaty itself or the agreements of its parties. These exceptions to the general rule indicate the non-absoluteness of the latter, so it is appropriate to study the factors that determine the existence of retroactive agreements, as well as controversial and controversial issues that arise in this regard. Analysis of recent researches and publications. Scholars such as S.N. Ivanov, RA Kalamkaryan, M.A. Kapustina, II Lukashuk, OV Pushnyak and others. However, this area needs further study and analysis, given the existence of exceptions to the general provision on the lack of retroactive effect of international agreements. Target of research. Тo consider the conditions under which an international treaty has retroactive effect, to investigate the factors influencing the decision to grant retroactive effect and the issues arising in connection with the retroactivity of international treaties. Article’s main body. This study examines the non-absoluteness of the provision on the absence of retroactive effect of international agreements. Among the reasons that encourage states to anticipate retroactive effect – the interpretive or additional nature of the international agreement or the need to resolve the situation that arose before its conclusion. It should be emphasized that some agreements have retroactive effect by virtue of their object, which provides this retroactive effect, as agreed by the parties, although not explicitly stated in the contract. It is also not uncommon for certain rights and obligations to arise not because of an international treaty that has not yet entered into force, but because of customary norms that are enshrined in it. Conclusions and prospects for the development. The principle of no retroactive effect of an international agreement is not absolute. In each case, the reasons for the application of retroactivity must be decided by a judicial authority in the process of interpreting the contractual obligations. An important role in the possibility of retroactive application of an international treaty is played by its object or the co-existing customary norms of international law and the principles recognized by civilized nations as binding.

Wprowadzenie dyktatury wojskowej w wyniku zamachu stanu a kwestia międzynarodowego uznania rządu na przykładzie przewrotu wojskowego w Mjanmie z 1 lutego 2021 roku

The article reflects on the question of recognizing a government in international law in relation to the coup that took place in Myanmar on 1 February 2021. First, the author defines the recognition of a government, emphasizing that the institution of recognition applies exclusively to unconstitutional changes of governments. The circumstances of the coup in Myanmar are recounted, exhibiting that the authoritarian regime of the junta has been established in a manifest violation of provisions established in the Constitution adopted in 2008. Second, the competing criteria for recognition of a government in international law are discussed with reference to Tobar (favoring legitimacy) and Estrada doctrines (according to which effectiveness shall prevail). The author presents the evolution of opinions in scholarship and in the practice of states that occurred over the course of decades and led to the dominance of the latter concept. It is demonstrated that upon the application of the criterium of effectiveness with regard to the junta in Myanmar, it should be recognized as a body entitled to represent the state. Finally, acknowledging the tendency that originated in the 1990s to take into account the democratic norm as an alternative basis for recognition of a government or its denial, the author claims that in the lack of coherent and uniform state practice in that field, such a norm cannot create a normative obligation as a norm of customary international law, and therefore does not justify nonrecognition of junta. 

Albanian National Museums: How to Overcome the Digital Gap Towards a Better National Heritage Promotion

Article 53 of the Vienna Convention of 1969 states that a treaty is considered invalid if it is in conflict with existing norms of jus cogens, and under Article 64 of the treaty becomes invalid if it conflicts with a norm youngest of the same nature. The case Nicaragua against the United States made clear that the notion of jus cogens is steadily entrenched in international law, however, is still necessary to determine accurately that power rates referred to in Articles 53 and 64 of the Vienna Convention. Jus cogens norms include more those norms relating to morality or natural law than with traditional positivist rates derived from State practice. In general, this includes making aggressive war, crimes against humanity, war crimes, sea piracy, genocide, apartheid, slavery, and torture.Jus cogens norms are norms of customary international law which are so important, it can not be changed through treaties. Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, any treaty that is contrary to jus cogens norms is invalid. Jus cogens norms are not listed, there is no catalog , their determined by any authoritative body, but these rates come from judicial practices and political and social attitudes, which are not values static. Jus cogens norm of unconditional right international, accepted and recognized by the international community norm from which no deviation is permitted. Unlike the common law, which traditionally requires the consent and It lets change obligations between states through treaties, norms jus cogens can not be violated by any state "through treaties international or local regulations or special customary, or even through general rules of customary not have the same normative force.

State Immunity and the Rights of Employees: Lights and Shadows of the Strasbourg Court’s Jurisprudence

This paper analyzes the case law of the European Court of Human Rights on the relationship between state immunity and the foreign state employees’ right of access to a court, protected under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. While acknowledging that the case law of the Strasbourg Court has in many respects contributed to providing employees of foreign states with broader access to the courts of the receiving states, the paper submits that the Court’s handling of labor cases presents some major flaws. Namely, it is argued that (i) the Court’s assessment of the norms of customary international law in the area of state immunity from employment lawsuits is ill-proven and largely unconvincing; (ii) this flawed assessment of custom has had a negative impact on the scope of the employees’ right of access to a court; and (iii) under the approach followed by the Strasbourg Court, certain categories of state employees may be left without any judicial means of obtaining redress. It appears crucial that the Court addresses such flaws in future cases.

Examining a Norm of Customary International Law that Criminalises the Intentional Use of Starvation of the Civilian Population as a Method of Warfare

The criminalisation of intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare has been laid down in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as a matter of treaty law. The application of treaty law, however, is restricted and states in which current emergency situations of starvation are unfolding are often non-party States to the Rome Statute. To allow for accountability in such situations, this research seeks to contribute to the discussion whether the criminalisation of intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare could qualify as a rule of customary international law. As such, the provisions could apply to contemporary situations of intentional starvation - not on the basis of the Rome Statute, but on the basis that the content of those Rome Statute provisions have gained the status of customary international law. Ascertaining a rule of customary law conclusively may be hard to do. This paper intends to offer a valuable contribution, relying on the International Law Commission’s draft conclusions on the identification of customary international law, and more particularly the valuable guidance it offers in relation to the identification of both opinio juris and general (state) practice. As such this paper also aims to take part in the discussion on the identification of customary international law rules generally. In the process, the connection between the customary IHL rule on the prohibition of using starvation of the civilian population on the one hand, and the framework of international criminal law on the other is explored.

Значение правовых позиций международных и внутригосударственных судебных органов для предотвращения сецессии: теоретико-исторический аспект

The legal regulation of secession – the unilateral withdrawal of a part of territory from the parent state, is carried out at the junction of two branches of law – international and constitutional. Due to the absence in most of written constitutions of norms directly related to secession, and the laconic nature of relevant principles of international law, allowing for the possibility of ambiguous interpretation, decisions of international and domestic judicial authorities on the admissibility of secession play a special role in the legal mechanisms for its prevention, which determines the relevance of the chosen themes. Based on the analysis of the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice of the United Nations of July 22, 2010 “On compliance with international law of the unilateral declaration of independence of Kosovo”, we formulate a conclusion about the absence of uniform international legal criteria to determine the admissibility of secession. In our opinion, the Inter-national Court of Justice has not resolved the legal issue underlying the pro-tracted political conflict, has not created a new norm of customary interna-tional law, but has not provided the supporters of the unilateral declaration of independence with the necessary and sufficient arguments for the legal justification of their position. This allows us to speak about the importance of this decision in the international legal mechanisms for the prevention of secession, which, however, are at the stage of formation. Their development should take place synchronously with the constitutional and legal intrastate mechanisms, which in modern conditions should be aimed at finding a bal-ance between the interests of the center and regional communities, establish-ing a dialogue with supporters of independence and protecting the national and cultural identity of population.

Щодо особливостей формування міжнародно-правових звичаїв

The article is devoted to the peculiarities of the formation of international legal customs in modern international law. The growing role of contractual relations has not been able to transform customary law into exclusively contractual law. The existing system of international law could not be imagined without international custom for several reasons: first, various branches and institutions in modern international law partially or even completely consist of customary norms, and secondly, in those areas where treaty regulation is impossible for various reasons, more and more new norms of customary law continue to arise. There are many opinions on the issue of creating customary norms of international law in international legal Science. The main question is whether these norms are formed through the interaction of the will of states or whether their appearance is not due to the participation of the will. In its historical development, custom as a source of international law has long been the most important procedure for forming international legal norms. This was due to the fact that the interstate system has never had a legislative body that would adopt such legal norms. For this reason, many international legal norms were created on the basis of the Customs and practices of states, which is why they had the character of customary legal norms. The main approach to the formation of an international legal custom is studied. The main components of international custom are considered and their exhaustive characteristics are given. The role of international custom for modern international law is clarified, as well as the indication of the need for further development of this issue in the domestic legal field for its effective use in international relations. Theoretical foundations of substantiation of nature of international custom are determined.

Peoplehood Obscured? The Normative Status of Self-Determination after the Chagos Advisory Opinion (Advance)

In international law the right of every people to self-determination is well established. Yet in terms of substance and process this right incident to ‘peoplehood’, on its face the paradigmatically collectively held right, is inadequately articulated. This paper interrogates the normative status of self-determination in the context of colonial domination, after the Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965 (‘Chagos Advisory Opinion’) issued by the International Court of Justice (‘ICJ’) in 2019. Self-determination is investigated both as a putative norm of customary international law (‘CIL’) and a putative norm jus cogens. The CIL status of self-determination in the post-colonial setting is well established by the ICJ and a higher, peremptory status is strongly implied. In either case territorial integrity is of the essence of the rights conveyed by the norm. Here it is argued that while the formal status of a norm of self-determination is thus to some extent clarified by the Chagos Advisory Opinion, the substance of such a norm remains insufficiently articulated. If anything, the emphasis on territorial integrity compromises the status of peoplehood and conveys that the incidents of statehood take precedence over the collective rights of distinct populations.

Binding International Norms, Jus Cogens

Article 53 of the Vienna Convention of 1969 states that a treaty is considered invalid if it is in conflict with existing norms of jus cogens, and under Article 64 of the treaty becomes invalid if it conflicts with a norm youngest of the same nature. The case Nicaragua against the United States made clear that the notion of jus cogens is steadily entrenched in international law, however, is still necessary to determine accurately that power rates referred to in Articles 53 and 64 of the Vienna Convention. Jus cogens norms include more those norms relating to morality or natural law than with traditional positivist rates derived from State practice. In general, this includes making aggressive war, crimes against humanity, war crimes, sea piracy, genocide, apartheid, slavery, and torture.Jus cogens norms are norms of customary international law which are so important, it can not be changed through treaties. Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, any treaty that is contrary to jus cogens norms is invalid. Jus cogens norms are not listed, there is no catalog , their determined by any authoritative body, but these rates come from judicial practices and political and social attitudes, which are not values static. Jus cogens norm of unconditional right international, accepted and recognized by the international community norm from which no deviation is permitted. Unlike the common law, which traditionally requires the consent and It lets change obligations between states through treaties, norms jus cogens can not be violated by any state "through treaties international or local regulations or special customary, or even through general rules of customary not have the same normative force.

All that Glitters is Not Always Gold or Silver: Typical Bilateral Investments Treaties (BITs) Clauses as Peril to Third World Economic Sovereignty

Modern BITs habitually begin with a preamble, whereupon basic concepts such as what constitutes an investment and an investor for the purpose of the treaty are somewhat defined. The effectiveness and manner in which BITs pursue their objectives are remarkably uniformed, thanks to their vigorous investors-friendly provisions (although they sometimes use slightly varied expressions), which are also highlighted at length. The most common provisions include National treatment (NT), Most Favoured Nation clause (MFN), Fair and Equitable Treatment (FET), and Disputes Settlement Mechanisms (DSM). These clauses together constitute the core of the treaty rights, thus, they end up affecting the general equilibrium of the treaties. The uniformity of the provisions is primarily due to model BITs by developed countries and standard BITs developed by International Organisations such as the OECD, both of which are a codification of longstanding disputed norms of customary international law.

All that Glitters is Not Always Gold or Silver: Typical Bilateral Investments Treaties (BITs) Clauses as Peril to Third World Economic Sovereignty

Modern BITs habitually begin with a preamble, whereupon basic concepts such as what constitutes an investment and an investor for the purpose of the treaty are somewhat defined. The effectiveness and manner in which BITs pursue their objectives are remarkably uniformed, thanks to their vigorous investors-friendly provisions (although they sometimes use slightly varied expressions), which are also highlighted at length. The most common provisions include National treatment (NT), Most Favoured Nation clause (MFN), Fair and Equitable Treatment (FET), and Disputes Settlement Mechanisms (DSM). These clauses together constitute the core of the treaty rights, thus, they end up affecting the general equilibrium of the treaties. The uniformity of the provisions is primarily due to model BITs by developed countries and standard BITs developed by International Organisations such as the OECD, both of which are a codification of longstanding disputed norms of customary international law.

Reject and Eject: Arresting the Vanishing Relevance of <i>Non-refoulement</i> Obligations in the United Kingdom

This paper argues that expulsion decisions in the United Kingdom are sometimes at variance with the very important non-refoulement obligations in international law and raises fundamental issues of concern. However, recent legal developments in the Strasbourg jurisprudence and the Court of Justice of the European Union seem to halt this trend of the vanishing relevance of non-refoulement obligations-a Daniel has come to judgment. This paper, applying the documentary analysis methodology argues that except this nascent development is maintained and sustained, non-refoulement obligations may still remain ‘theoretical and illusory rather than practical and effective’. The bottom line is that a State is not excused from its human rights obligations by transferring, returning or removing a migrant to another State even on the basis of agreement without actually determining whether there will be violations of the individual’s rights under international refugee law or international human rights law. It has therefore been shown that there is overwhelming evidence pointing to the establishment of non-refoulement as a norm of customary international law with wide acceptance by the international community of the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, as jus cogens.

Knowledge Production, Big Data and Data-Driven Customary International Law

This chapter investigates the role of “Big Data” analysis and data crowdsourcing in shifting power relations with respect to the identification of customary international law. Evidence of states’ practice and legal positions is required in order to determine that a new norm of customary international law has crystallized. And yet, international courts have often settled for anecdotal evidence and impressionistic analysis. However, recent academic works have crowdsourced data collection, compiled big datasets and applied computerized analysis methods to make comprehensive and systematic evaluation of the development of customary norms. I argue that this new mode of knowledge production may democratize both the data collected (giving greater weight to smaller states from the global periphery) and the potential contributors to the production process (including lawyers from different countries and language capabilities). Nevertheless, such production requires scientific sophistication and resources, which once more give actors from rich, developed countries a greater role in developing the law.