Abstract A key issue in contemporary debates on business and human rights concerns the corporate responsibility of the arms industry to respect human rights and international humanitarian law. The nature of the products supplied by the arms industry makes it inherently at high risk of these violations. However, arms corporations tend to hide their responsibility behind the export licences granted by public authorities. In this paper, the authors examine the human rights due diligence duties of arms corporations under the international business and human rights framework, as well as their interaction with the obligations set by arms export frameworks. Taking into consideration the specific risk profile of the arms sector, the close relationship between the arms industry and the states, and the recent international and domestic litigation on arms export, the analysis emphasises the necessity of a more coherent and effective regulatory approach based on a shared responsibility between states and corporations.
Abstract Cross-border investment and trade in arms and dual-use technologies have grown significantly in recent years and are expected to expand further in response to the rearmament initiatives adopted by many states and international organisations. While this trend may foster the development of strategic industries, it also increases the risk of the relevant international, European Union and domestic arms transfer control regimes being circumvented. Against this backdrop, the article examines the role of international investment agreements in facilitating the implementation of obligations governing the transfer of arms and dual-use items. Although these agreements are not primarily intended for arms-transfer governance, the article illustrates that certain treaty provisions may support the application of arms-transfer regulations and help prevent their circumvention, ultimately contributing to respect for human rights and international humanitarian law.
Abstract The article examines the relationship between reservations and customary international law. The relationship was discussed at length by the International Court of Justice ( ICJ ) in North Sea Continental Shelf , the leading decision on the relationship between treaty and custom. The Court’s views on reservations were, however, subject to significant dissent, and neither academics nor the International Law Commission ( ILC ) have endorsed the Court’s approach. As the present article argues, however, there remain persistent unresolved issues and uncertainties arising from the approaches taken in the literature and by the ILC . Despite clear formal distinctions made in the literature, such distinctions blur in practice. The article suggests that State practice does not reflect a uniform approach to the relationship, practice indicates that the interaction between reservations and custom is a relevant factor both for the formation of custom and the permissibility of reservations, though the extent of relevance can only be determined on a case-by-case basis. Ultimately, however, State practice does not support any suggestion that reservations to custom are prohibited or that the existence of a faculty of making reservations or the existence of reservations operates as a presumption against the possibility of a rule in a treaty from passing into the corpus of customary international law.
Abstract The intersection of poverty and sea migration is underexplored in legal scholarship. This contribution investigates some of the discriminatory practices faced by maritime migrants, advancing the argument that poverty should be recognised as a legally cognisable ground of discrimination. By conceptualising poverty as both a contextual and causal factor in human rights violations, the analysis traces the maritime journeys of migrants, examining the legal implications under the law of the sea and international human rights law. The viability of poverty as a permissible ground of discrimination is assessed focusing on the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. The article contends that poverty is not merely a driver of migration; rather, it is a structural determinant that shapes the vulnerability and legal treatment of sea migrants, thus revealing the class-based dimensions of discriminatory practices rooted in socio-economic status.
Abstract In early 2026, renewed geopolitical attention was given to Greenland after U.S. President Donald Trump announced his intention to purchase and annex the island, citing national security concerns and the strategic value of its natural resources. Greenland currently operates under a self-government arrangement that grants it extensive autonomy while it remains under the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Denmark. Initial proposals to purchase the territory were firmly rejected by Greenlandic and Danish authorities, who emphasized that Greenland’s future should be determined by its people. However, escalating rhetoric from the U.S. administration, including suggestions of alternative means, including the threat to use force, to acquire the territory, has reignited debate about the tension between geopolitical ambitions and the principles of the international legal order. The following paper examines Greenland’s legal status under international law. It argues that, despite shifting geopolitical pressures, the island’s status is ultimately determined by its people’s right to self-determination within Denmark’s existing sovereignty framework, thereby rendering President Trump’s intention to change the ownership title contrary to the rule-based order under international law.
