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.
Abstract The right to property constitutes the primary point of intersection between international investment law and human rights law. While much of the debate has focused on how States invoke human rights to justify regulatory measures, comparatively little attention has been paid to investors’ reliance on human rights arguments in arbitral proceedings. This article addresses that gap by examining how claimants have invoked property rights, most prominently under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights, in support of expropriation claims. After outlining the broader legal framework of property protection under both investment treaties and human rights instruments, the analysis turns to arbitral practice. Three categories of case law are identified: disputes concerning indirect expropriation and legal certainty, cases involving physical interference with investments, and broader patterns of systemic expropriation. Across these contexts, tribunals have admitted human rights arguments only when procedurally relevant, treating them as interpretative background rather than as self-standing claims. The study highlights both the potential and the limits of such arguments in shaping expropriation jurisprudence, situating these developments within the evolving treaty practice that increasingly incorporates explicit human rights provisions.
Abstract This study critically assesses the effectiveness of international legal frameworks in safeguarding international personnel from risks and attacks. While treaties such as the Vienna Conventions and the Rome Statute provide certain immunities, their enforcement remains significantly challenging. By analysing historical and contemporary cases, including the Iranian Hostage Crisis, the assassination of Count Bernadotte, and the 2003 bombing of the UN Headquarters in Baghdad, the study evaluates the efficacy of existing legal mechanisms. Employing an analytical approach that integrates legal analysis with case studies, the research identifies deficiencies within the current international protection framework. The findings underscore the urgent need to enhance preventive security measures for international personnel operating in high-risk areas, strengthen state accountability, and modernise international protection mechanisms to ensure the effective implementation of legal safeguards.
Abstract The aim of the paper is to examine disinformation from the perspective of well-established norms of international law, such as the principles of sovereignty and non-intervention, the right to self-determination and some human rights (right to freedom of opinion and expression and right to free and fair elections). The paper investigates whether these norms may be violated by disinformation campaigns and if so, under what circumstances. The paper focuses on cases of disinformation employed at the inter-State level, i.e. disinformation campaigns started by one State to influence public opinion in another.
Abstract This study highlights the pressing need to address environmental destruction through international legal frameworks. While efforts like the Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statute signify progress in this area, their limitations in scope and enforcement underscore the necessity for innovative approaches such as the criminalisation of ecocide. Conducted using a descriptive-analytical method, this research examines ecocide as a response to existing legal gaps, emphasising its potential to address deliberate and widespread environmental harm regardless of context. However, the complexity of amending the Rome Statute, coupled with political resistance and definitional ambiguities, presents significant challenges. The involvement of civil society, countries like the Maldives and Vanuatu, and international resolutions advocating for the recognition of ecocide as a crime reflect growing momentum in this area. Despite this progress, the study concludes that the International Criminal Court ( ICC ), due to its inherent characteristics and limitations, is not a suitable mechanism for addressing the multifaceted challenges of climate change, and a more universal and comprehensive approach is essential for meaningful progress.
Abstract This article examines the confrontation between two jurists from the Central and Eastern European region, Raphael Lemkin and Andrey Vyshinsky, from the 1930s to the 1950s, revealing how their competing visions shaped the international response to genocide. It highlights how Lemkin’s anti-imperialist and anti-totalitarian concept of genocide, rooted in the region’s tragic history, was ultimately redefined by the post–World War II superpowers, with the USSR , under Vyshinsky’s considerable influence, playing a pivotal role in this process. It argues that the ideological patterns of legal reasoning rooted in the thought of Lemkin and Vyshinsky continue to resonate within contemporary legal discourse surrounding the Russian Federation’s current practices. This is particularly evident in efforts to rehabilitate Soviet imperialism and promote the ideology of Russkiy Mir (“Russian World”), as manifested in Russia’s neo-imperial policies in the occupied Ukrainian territories, including the forcible transfer of children. Lemkin and Vyshinsky thus emerge as enduring symbols of divergent trajectories in law and politics.
Abstract This paper aims to navigate the complex terrain of refugee law with a child-centric approach, evaluating whether the UK adequately safeguards the rights of unaccompanied children. Section One introduces the international legal framework and appraises the strengths and caveats of the UNCRC and 1951 Refugee Convention (‘the Convention’). Sections Two- Four focus on the UK’s domestic legal frameworks, which are essential for operationalising the protections envisioned by the international framework. Four barriers to protection are examined: (i) the criminalisation of unaccompanied children, (ii) citizenship and deportation, (iii) age assessment procedures and (iv) unsafe accommodation and detention practices. This paper will conclude that whilst the UK’s domestic legislation is in compliance with its international obligations, its asylum procedures ultimately fail to adequately safeguard unaccompanied children. A framework recognising vulnerability (as opposed to chronological age) as the appropriate threshold and determinative factor for safeguarding would better support the rights of unaccompanied minors and age-disputed individuals.
Abstract The International Court of Justice’s strategies for identifying customary international law in both its contentious and advisory proceedings are often viewed as expressions of judicial impartiality. Its reliance on treaties codifying customary norms as well as on functional or equitable reasoning reflects the institutional constraints of its mandate. However, these constraints are not the sole drivers of its approach. The relational nature of international law – particularly the conditions under which norms gain binding force – also shapes the Court’s identification strategies. The relational normativity of customary international law highlights the inescapable role of politics in the Court’s work as it navigates questions of trust, legitimacy and compliance. In this light, the Court functions not only as a judicial body but also as a political actor whose legitimacy depends on balancing rules-based and relational governance before the bench and outside the courtroom.
Abstract The Turów Mine case was both the first inter-State environmental dispute brought before the Court of Justice of the European Union ( CJEU ) and the first in which interim measures were prescribed. In fact, there were two decisions on interim measures. The first ordered Poland to suspend mining at Turów. The second was a periodic penalty payment for non-compliance with the first order. Within the CJEU ’s procedural framework, the Vice-President of the Court of Justice delivered both these landmark decisions acting as a single judge. This arrangement however raises questions about its suitability for inter-State proceedings. This article argues that, when considering applications for inter-State interim measures, the CJEU should follow the practice of other inter-State courts by sitting in a multi-member formation.
Internal law (rules of procedure, staff and budget rules, etc.) is the main tool for International Organisations ( IO ) to organise themselves, striving for their smooth functioning on an everyday basis. These rules complement the IO ’s constituent act(s). Due to the institutional proliferation in most IO , providing for a multitude of specialised internal bodies, which again adopt rules for themselves, over time the body of internal law has increased in scope and complexity. Taking the example of the OECD – a comparatively old IO which has turned from a transatlantic (‘Western’) to a global actor, which over the decades has developed a complex organisational structure and which has met tasks in an ever wider array of policy fields –, this article depicts and analyses the body of its internal law in terms of its creators, the terminology applied, their incorporation, their legal (non-)bindingness, and in terms of any hierarchies established between them.
More than 70 years since the Asylum and Haya de la Torre judgments, diplomatic asylum has come back before the ICJ in the Glas Espinel case. The dispute provides an opportunity to reflect on the 1954 Caracas Convention on Diplomatic Asylum, which so far has not been thoroughly examined within international law scholarship. This paper argues that the asylum regime under the Caracas Convention shows similarities with a self-contained regime. The right of the State granting asylum to unilaterally assess the requirements for diplomatic asylum essentially precludes the operation of dispute settlement mechanisms and of secondary norms on the content and implementation of State responsibility. Building on the comparison with a self-contained regime, the question arises as to whether the asylum regime under the Caracas Convention might “fail”: to such failure, the asylum regime shows some resistance. Overall, the parallel is consistent with the essence of diplomatic asylum as a Latin-American institution.
International law provides a series of “conflict rules”, all of which apply on the condition of the existence of a rule conflict. There are two ways of conceiving of the concept of a conflict of two rules. From the point of view of the logical conception, a conflict exists when two rules entail incompatible obligations. From the point of view of the teleological conception , a conflict exists when the application of two rules leads to different and irreconcilable results. These different conceptions are tied to different theories of law. Not surprisingly, they sometimes prompt different understandings of a state of affairs. Most lawyers would regard this as a problem best resolved by discarding one of the two conceptions. This article maintains the opposite position. When legal decision-makers are free to choose between different conceptions of a conflict, this helps to ensure the legitimacy of their decisions.
This paper aims to problematize the underrepresentation of Eastern Europe in dominant narratives about the development of international law, focusing in particular on international criminal justice. By specifically highlighting the work of the United Nations War Crimes Commission (UNWCC), this intervention identifies how it laid the foundation for post-Second World War criminal prosecutions and generated a reservoir of sources that has shaped subsequent narratives of international criminal law's development, in ways that are largely devoid of Eastern European contributions. It then presents as a counterpoint the Hungarian People's Tribunals, which developed their own war crimes jurisprudence that drew on newly emerging international legal ideas but used idiosyncratic approaches. The paper advocates for a re-evaluation of Eastern European agency in crafting international criminal law, emphasizing the importance of rediscovering and incorporating these voices into the broader international legal narrative. It suggests that a more inclusive historical perspective could enrich the understanding of international law and its evolution.
Thirty years into independence, not much is known about the state of international legal scholarship in Armenia. This paper advances a particular explanation for this marginality - the colonisation of legal consciousness. By bringing together the relational-critical theory of legal consciousness and a colonial perspective on Armenia's Soviet history, the paper suggests that the process of constructing the Soviet legality of international law involved colonial practices that relegated scholars in Armenia to the role of faithful reproducers of the Soviet Russian narratives of international law. Moreover, decades after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, faithful reproduction remains a predominant form of academic engagement with international law.
