Environmental Law
Malavika Rao discusses the Kafue River spill in Zambia and questions whether the current legal responses, focused on human rights and compensation, are sufficient to address the extensive environmental damage from mining. Like other African states, Rao highlights that Zambia’s environmental laws primarily view environmental harm through a human-centered lens. The author suggests that recognizing the Rights of Nature, similar to developments in Uganda, Colombia, and Ecuador, could offer a more comprehensive and sustainable approach to protecting ecosystems and dependent communities in Zambia, moving beyond simply compensating for human-related losses. Read the full post here.
Seabed Mining
Yavuz Arda Yakut argues for the adoption of a strict liability regime for deep-seabed mining (DSM) contractors operating in the “Area,” regulated by the International Seabed Authority. The author contends that, given the significant environmental risks associated with DSM, including sediment plumes and biodiversity loss, a strict liability standard, where operators are liable for damage regardless of fault, is more appropriate than a due diligence standard. The author argues that a strict liability standard better aligns with international practice, eases the burden of proof for those harmed, and incentivizes contractors to implement high environmental protection standards to avoid liability, ultimately serving the interests of humankind as the beneficiary of the Area’s resources. Read the full post here.
Coalter Lathrop analyzes the legality of the recent U.S. Executive Order that aims to expedite seabed mineral exploration and commercial recovery permits in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Lathrop argues that this unilateral action would violate the United States’ international legal obligations under the 1994 Implementing Agreement to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, to which the US is a signatory. Furthermore, the author contends that the principle of the “common heritage of mankind” for deep seabed resources has evolved into customary international law, binding the U.S. even as a non-party to the full Convention. The author concludes that:
The United States may be short on critical minerals, and China may be far ahead in this area, but the solution is not to destabilize the international order of the oceans that the United States has so intentionally and successfully crafted since the closing days of World War II. Instead of violating its international law obligations, the United States should accede to the Convention, reclaim its seat on the ISA Council, and push the ISA toward completing its exploitation regulations, while also sponsoring deep-seabed mining within the legal regime it created.
Read the full post here.
International Criminal Law
Hélène Tigroudja examines the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights’ decision in the Minova case against the Democratic Republic of Congo concerning mass atrocities, including sexual violence, committed by the DRC army. The author highlights the Commission’s affirmation of its jurisdiction over the Maputo Protocol and its innovative interpretation of the right to individual security in conflict situations. However, the author critiques the Commission’s reliance on a state-centric definition of torture, arguing for a broader interpretation that includes conflict-related sexual violence by both state and non-state actors. Read the full post here.
Kazuki Goto analyzes the end of ICC proceedings concerning Mongolia’s refusal to cooperate in arresting Putin. The author argues that the ASP should now address this non-cooperation. A key concern raised is the ICC’s ruling that findings of non-cooperation are not appealable, which could harm the Court’s credibility and procedural fairness for states parties. Read the full post here.
Khan Khalid Adnan critiques the legality of trials in absentia under Bangladesh’s International Crimes (Tribunals) Act (ICTA), especially concerning potential proceedings against Sheikh Hasina. The author argues trials in absentia contradict the ICTA’s original purpose and international criminal law standards, which generally reject them. The author notes that while international human rights bodies allow them under strict conditions (notification, representation, retrial), the ICTA doesn’t guarantee these. The author urges reform to align the ICTA with international due process norms, particularly given its allowance for the death penalty. Read the full post here.
Claire Bertouille examines a ruling by Brussels’ Court of Appeal that found the Belgian State guilty of crimes against humanity for the forced abduction of mixed-race children during its colonial rule in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The court reversed a previous decision, stating that these actions, aimed at separating children of black mothers and white fathers from their families based solely on their origin, constituted inhumane acts and persecution criminalized under the Nuremberg Tribunal Charter, which was applicable at the time. The court also rejected the Belgian State’s arguments regarding statutory limitations and immunity, awarding damages to the plaintiffs for the suffering and loss of identity they endured. Read the full post here.
The Genocide Convention
Edward Thomas and Sarah Nouwen critique how the Genocide Convention’s categories have been applied to Sudan’s fluid social groups, arguing that past categorizations based on a colonial-era ‘African/Arab’ binary reinforced racialization. The authors contend that the ICJ’s dismissal of Sudan v. UAE was a missed chance for a more sophisticated legal interpretation of ‘racial’ groups that could address the processes of racialization driving violence. They suggest that a deeper understanding of Sudan’s history could enable the Genocide Convention to condemn these processes more effectively. Read the full post here.
Sarthak Gupta examines the ICJ’s decision to remove the case of Sudan v. UAE, as the Court found it did not have jurisdiction due to the UAE’s reservation to Article IX of the Genocide Convention. Gupta offers his analysis to the majority’s reasoning, which upheld the clarity and validity of the reservation, and contrasts it with the dissenting opinions that argued for a more thorough examination of jurisdiction. The author concludes that while the Court adhered to jurisdictional principles, its early dismissal of the case reveals a tension between procedural efficiency and ensuring access to justice in cases concerning genocide allegations. Read the full post here.
Prolonged Occupation
Georges Abi-Saab and Marcelo Kohen explore the application of IHL to ‘prolonged occupations.’ ‘While no explicit time limit exists, the authors argue that IHL’s purpose of protecting civilians and preventing annexation implies temporariness. They suggest that when occupation becomes entrenched, evidenced by actions against the status quo ante or denial of self-determination, IHL’s military occupation regime should cease to be the primary law. In such cases, international human rights law and the right to self-determination become more relevant, a point the authors argue the ICJ’s recent opinion didn’t fully address. Ultimately, they conclude that prolonged occupation undermines the foundations of IHL, necessitating a shift to other legal frameworks. Read the full analysis here.
The WHO Pandemic Agreement
Richard Clements analyzes the WHO Pandemic Agreement, a multilateral accord focused on pandemic prevention and response. Clements highlights achievements like pathogen sharing and medicine donation commitments, but notes persistent disagreements between developed and developing nations, particularly on technology transfer. The author argues that the final text’s emphasis on mutually agreed technology transfer and the reaffirmation of intellectual property rights raise concerns about equitable access for developing countries in future health crises. Read the full post here.
European Union
Eric Fripp examines the recent ruling by the European Union Court of Justice that found Malta’s ‘golden passports’ scheme violates EU law. The scheme allowed individuals to obtain Maltese citizenship (and therefore EU citizenship) in exchange for significant investments. The court argued that this practice undermines the principles of sincere cooperation among EU member states and the very nature of EU citizenship, which should be based on a genuine link rather than a purely financial transaction. The author discusses the court’s reasoning, contrasts it with an earlier legal opinion, and raises several important questions about the implications of this ruling for Malta, other EU countries with similar schemes, and the status of individuals who have already obtained citizenship through such programs. Read the full post here.
Human Rights
Vesna Stefanovska discusses the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) interim measure concerning the alleged use of a sonic weapon by Serbian authorities against protesters. Stefanovska outlines the protesters’ claims of harm, the ambiguity of Serbian law regarding such weapons, and the conflicting information from Serbian officials. The author emphasizes the significance of this case as a potential precedent for the use of sonic weapons in Europe and the ECtHR’s role in assessing Serbia’s compliance with human rights standards. Read the full post here.
Maritime Law
Dimitris Panousos analyzes Greece’s first marine spatial plan (MSP) and its legal relevance in contested maritime areas like the Aegean Sea. Panousos argues that while primarily domestic, the MSP map serves as evidence of Greece’s maritime claims and interpretations, which are significant in international law. Türkiye’s swift objection highlights the legal importance of contesting such unilateral acts. The author concludes that MSPs, while not resolving disputes, can clarify state positions and potentially aid future maritime delimitation discussions. Read the full post here.
UN Security Council
Francois Naaman examines the largely disregarded UN Security Council rule in Article 27(3) that requires a state party to a dispute to abstain from voting on related, non-procedural resolutions under Chapter VI. The author notes a renewed interest in this principle due to Russia’s actions in Ukraine and its repeated vetoes. The article explores the difference between a ‘dispute’ and a ‘situation’ within the Security Council’s context, arguing that the language of UNSC Resolution 2774 on the Russia-Ukraine conflict suggests a deliberate avoidance of the term ‘situation,’ potentially opening the door for the application of Article 27(3). The author concludes that reviving Article 27(3) in this context is crucial for the Security Council’s credibility and the upholding of its own procedural rules. Read the full post here.