Abstract On May 21, 2026, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) rendered an advisory opinion on whether the right to strike is protected under the ILO Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (Convention No. 87), following a decade-long controversy within the ILO’s tripartite constituency. Applying the customary rules of treaty interpretation contained in Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the Court held that the right to strike is protected under Convention No. 87 as an integral part of freedom of association. It found that strike action falls within the ordinary meaning of the right of workers’ organizations to organize their “activities,” a conclusion confirmed by supplementary means of interpretation, including ILO supervisory practice, international human rights instruments and jurisprudence of regional courts. Two aspects of the advisory opinion are particularly significant. First, the Court adopted a flexible approach to the principle of systemic integration under Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention. Second, it recognized that the pronouncements of the ILO supervisory bodies may carry significant interpretative weight within their respective mandates. The advisory opinion thus contributes to the development of treaty interpretation while restoring legal certainty concerning the right to strike and clarifying an important aspect of the ILO supervisory system.
Abstract As well as adopting a new Pandemic Agreement in 2025, the “legal reaction” of the international community to the COVID-19 pandemic also included the adoption in 2024 of a substantial set of amendments to the World Health Organization’s International Health Regulations, which had already been practically overhauled in 2005 from the previous model. The process was set in motion by the United States and ran in parallel with the negotiation of the Pandemic Agreement, thus creating evident political complexities but also laying the foundations for a synergistic and complementary relationship. The amendments entered into force on September 19, 2025, but their universality and effectiveness are still a work in progress.
Abstract This introductory note provides an overview of the amendments brought by the Asylum Procedures Regulation (APR), which will apply from June 2026 as part of the EU’s New Pact on Migration and Asylum. It outlines the main changes introduced by the new framework, including developments relating to procedural guarantees, special procedures, remedies, and ‘safe country’ concepts.
Abstract On July 25, 2025, the French Court of Cassation handed down an important decision concerning the existence in international law of possible exceptions to the functional immunity of agents of a foreign state. The Court of Cassation reached the conclusion that the “principle of functional immunity from jurisdiction in criminal matters” recognized for foreign agents acting in the exercise of their functions cannot be invoked in cases of prosecutions for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. However, the Court’s internationalist approach, which sought to identify the evolution of custom on the issue by examining relevant state practice, remains exclusively Eurocentric, by examining the practice of only five states, all from the same region of the world.
Abstract In the Confirmation of Charges decision concerning Joseph Kony, a Pre-Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC) confirmed thirty-nine charges against Kony, the leader of the Ugandan rebel group the Lord’s Resistance Army. The charges covered a range of war crimes and crimes against humanity, many related to sexual and gender-based crimes perpetrated against girls and young women. This decision was further notable as resulting from the ICC’s first confirmation of charges process conducted in absentia because, despite an arrest warrant dating to 2005, Kony has never been brought into custody. As a result, the process leading to this decision addressed novel questions of law for the ICC.
