The paper analyses the omnipresent notion of an 'international community'. It offers a succinct survey of international legal approaches to that concept; highlights the relationship between the international community and international law; and traces the impact of the community concept on the development of illustrative areas of international law (collective security, State responsibility, etc).
Saturday, January 27, 2018
- Guilherme Rizzo Amaral, Burden of Proof and Adverse Inferences in International Arbitration: Proposal for an Inference Chart
- David Ryan & Kanaga Dharmananda SC, 'Summary Disposal in Arbitration: Still Fair or Agreed to be Fair
- Hossein Abedian & Reza Eftekhar, Consent to Investor-State Arbitration in the Second Largest International Investment Protection Agreement: The Correct Interpretive Approach to Article 17 of the OIC Investment Agreement
- Tim Wood, State Responsibility for the Acts of Corrupt Officials: Applying the ‘Reasonable Foreign Investor’ Standard
- Gauthier Vannieuwenhuyse, Arbitration and New Technologies: Mutual Benefits
- Alain Farhad, Two Steps Forward, One Step Back: A Report on the Development of Arbitration in the United Arab Emirates
Call for Papers: Renewing Rights in Times of Transition: 70 Years of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Das Buch untersucht die völkerrechtshistorische, -theoretische und -praktische Debatte um die Bindung der Dritten Welt an die etablierte Völkerrechtsordung nach der Dekolonialisierung unter besonderer Beachtung herausragender Völkerrechtler in den neuen Staaten wie Ram Prakash Anand, Taslim Olawale Elias, Mohammed Bedjaoui, Abdul Hakim Tabibi und Mustafa Kamil Yasseen. Dabei werden die Arbeiten der Völkerrechtskommission der Vereinten Nationen (ILC) und die sich anschließenden Staatenkonferenzen im Recht der Verträge (WVK) sowie im Recht der Staatennachfolge (WKSV und WKSVAS) aufgearbeitet, welche die Völkerrechtler in der Dritten Welt zur Umsetzung ihres „Globalsolidarischen Projekts“ (Reform der etablierten Völkerrechtsordnung im Interesse der Weltgemeinschaft, Errichtung einer Neuen Weltwirtschaftsordnung) zu nutzen versuchten.
Friday, January 26, 2018
The article explores the symbolic economy of international criminal justice, critically analyzing how specific discourses about international criminal courts have been developed and become dominant over the last few decades. These discourses are driven by stakeholders in the field, namely international criminal lawyers; NGO advocates; scholars and diplomats, who have invested materially and symbolically in crafting this relatively new area of law. These stakeholders have distinct but also overlapping agendas, and are engaged in a collective but contentious effort to nurture a certain form of justice. The article examines the terminology used by these actors to understand the conceptual dynamics that gives sense to this field of law and the tacit rules that govern what is given value within it. The terminology built and used by these stakeholders provides a window into how the field of international criminal law is shaped and how it adapts to changes, such as closure of international criminal tribunals. In adapting to these changes, the article argues, defining exactly what the end goals of international criminal justice are, and how and with what means to achieve this mission becomes the renewed object of a professional contest that helps shape the direction and impact of this field of law.
Thursday, January 25, 2018
PALESTINE YEARBOOK OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
Call for papers (Volume XXI)
The Palestine Yearbook of International Law is now inviting submissions of scholarly articles for publication for its next volume, XXI (2018). This is a general call for papers.
As such, the editors encourage the submission of scholarly pieces of relevance to public international law, including but not necessarily in relation to Palestine.
The Yearbook is published in the English language, is edited at Birzeit University’s Institute of Law (Birzeit, Palestine), and published by Martinus Nijhoff Publishers (The Hague, The Netherlands). The Editor-in-Chief of the Yearbook is Mr. Ardi Imseis.
The Yearbook is now accepting abstracts for review. Abstracts should include a working title, with a preliminary outline of the author’s research and arguments, along with a current CV.
Important Dates and Contact Information
Prospective authors should express interest by e-mailing an abstract (of under 750 words) of the suggested paper as indicated above, along with a CV by March 15, 2018. If full manuscripts are available by that date, prospective authors should feel free to send those instead by that date.
All submissions should be made to:
- Ms. Reem Al-Botmeh: rbotmeh@ Birzeit.edu; and email@example.com
- Mr. Ardi Imseis; firstname.lastname@example.org
- Mr. Ata Hindi; email@example.com
For more on the Palestine Yearbook of International Law, see here.
- Armed Groups
- Tilman Rodenhäuser, Armed Groups, Rebel Coalitions, and Transnational Groups: The Degree of Organization Required from Non-State Armed Groups to Become Party to a Non-International Armed Conflict
- Annyssa Bellal, Welcome on Board: Improving Respect for International Humanitarian Law Through the Engagement of Armed Non-State Actors
- Hyeran Jo, Compliance with International Humanitarian Law by Non-State Armed Groups: How Can It Be Improved?
- Hilde D. Roskam, Crime-Based Targeted Sanctions: Promoting Respect for International Humanitarian Law by the Security Council
- Daragh Murray, Engaging Armed Groups Through the Development of Human Rights Obligations: Incorporating Practice, Motivation and Ideology to Promote Compliance with International Law
- Katharine Fortin, Armed Groups and Procedural Accountability: A Roadmap for Further Thought
- Other Articles
- Jeroen C. van den Boogaard, Knock on the Roof: Legitimate Warning or Method of Warfare?
- Kate Pitcher, Sophie van der Valk & Geneviève Girard, Year in Review 2016
This essay reviews the following publications on the intersection between international human rights law and international humanitarian law, as a way of examining the state of the field: (1) The Drone Memos by Jameel Jaffer, (2) a compilation edited by Jens Ohlin entitled, Theoretical Boundaries of Armed Conflict and Human Rights, and (3) the Obama Administration's December 2016 Report on the Legal and Policy Frameworks Guiding the United States' Use of Military Force and Related National Security Operations. The essay argues that much of the secondary literature in this area reflects a particular jurisprudential vision -- a view of how international law does or should operate. But that vision is, in important respects, disconnected from the real-life practice of law. The essay thus suggests, for a next stage in the research agenda, taking the practice more seriously on its own terms. Doing so would help us better understand whether or how the law is working, what functions or values it is serving, and how it might realistically be improved.
- February 5, 2018: Wolfgang Alschner (Univ. of Ottawa), “The Impact of Treaty Design Differences in Precedential Reasoning in Investment Arbitration”
- February 26, 2018: Hanoch Dagan (Tel Aviv Univ.) & Michael Heller (Columbia Univ.), “The Choice Theory of Contract and International Law”
- March 19, 2018: Pamela Bookman (Temple Univ.), “Arbitration Exceptionalism”
- April 16, 2018: William Magnusson (Texas A&M Univ.), “Financial Regulation in the Bitcoin era”
Can members of a non-state armed group be targeted based on their formal membership in the armed group, or should their targeting be based on their function within such group? This question has occupied the international law community for more than a decade. The 2006 Israeli Supreme Court (ISC) Targeted Killings case is a key reference point in this debate. Without scholarly or public attention, the Israeli report on the 2014 conflict in Gaza dramatically diverges from the definition adopted in the Targeted Killings case regarding the legitimate targets in conflicts between state and non-state actors. While the Targeted Killings case adopts a conduct-based, or functional membership approach to the targeting of armed groups members, the report adopts a formal membership, or status based, approach. This latter approach, which has thus far been explicitly endorsed only by the U.S. administration, significantly widens the scope of the legitimate targets in asymmetric conflicts. This Article offers three complementary explanations for the decision of the Israeli administration to deviate from the Targeted Killings case: (1) the decrease in the ISC’s activism with respect to conduct of hostilities cases; (2) the open endorsement in recent years of the formal membership approach by the interpretive community of Military lawyers and the U.S. administration, resulting in the “Americanization” of the Israeli targeting position; and (3) the significant rise in the conflict death toll which may have incentivized a broader definition of legitimate targets. The development of the targeting approach in the Israeli context provides an opportunity to look closely at international law-making processes in the domestic context. It offers new theoretical insight into the relationship between international law and domestic institutions and sheds light on the unique role of competing domestic and international interpretive communities in the internalization of international law norms. This Article then criticizes the new approach to targeting, arguing that states try to have their cake—insisting on normative symmetry as the main reason for the adoption of the formal membership approach—and eat it too—maintaining the practical inequality of other norms in the law of asymmetric armed conflicts.
- Ardi Imseis, All Roads Lead to Rome: Why Palestine Remains the Issue
- Chiara Redaelli, The Right to Rebel against Violations of Human Rights: A New Role for the Responsibility to Protect?
- Jasmine Moussa, Atrocities, Accountability and the Politics of Palestinian Statehood
- Salma Karmi-Ayyoub, Prosecuting Israeli Perpetrators of International Crimes under Universal Jurisdiction Laws: Prospects for Success?
- Ofilio J. Mayorga, Occupants, Beware of BITs: Applicability of Investment Treaties to Occupied Territories
- Musa Njabulo Shongwe, The Fragmentation of International Law: Contemporary Debates and Responses
Bernhardt & Oellers-Frahm: Das Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht: Geschichte und Entwicklung von 1949 bis 2013
Das Buch behandelt die Entwicklung, Organisation und Tätigkeiten des Max-Plack-Instituts für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht seit seiner Gründung 1949 bis zum Jahr 2013.
Wednesday, January 24, 2018
Civil Society in Investment Treaty Arbitration: Status and Prospects provides an overview of the evolution of civil society’s participation as amicus curiae before ICSID tribunals and ad hoc tribunals applying the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. That evolution fits within a broader movement towards transparency in investment treaty arbitration. By looking at the procedural roles available to civil society before other jurisdictions, the book questions whether the amicus role could be expanded. El-Hosseny ultimately shows how substance and procedure closely intertwine. The issue of civil society’s participation in investment treaty arbitration transcends the procedural realm. It is equally about arbitral tribunals’ openness vis-à-vis public interest, environmental protection and human rights issues—a crucial consideration in ongoing debates over the legitimacy, and future, of investor-state arbitration.
Benvenisti: EJIL Foreword: Upholding Democracy Amid the Challenges of New Technology: What Role for the Law of Global Governance?
The law on global governance that emerged after the Second World War was grounded in irrefutable trust in international organizations and an assumption that their subjection to legal discipline and judicial review would be unnecessary and, in fact, detrimental to their success. The law that evolved systematically insulated international organizations from internal and external scrutiny and absolved them of any inherent legal obligations – and, to a degree, continues to do so. Indeed, it was only well after the end of the Cold War that mistrust in global governance began to trickle through into the legal discourse and the realization gradually took hold that the operation of international organizations needed to be subject to the disciplining power of the law. Since the mid-1990s, scholars have sought to identify the conditions under which trust in global bodies can be regained, mainly by borrowing and adapting domestic public law precepts that emphasize accountability through communications with those affected. Today, although a ‘culture of accountability’ may have taken root, its legal tools are still shaping up and are often contested. More importantly, these communicative tools are ill-equipped to address the new modalities of governance that are based on decision-making by machines using raw data (rather than two-way exchange with stakeholders) as their input. The new information and communication technologies challenge the foundational premise of the accountability school – that ‘the more communication, the better’ – as voters-turned-users obtain their information from increasingly fragmented and privatized marketplaces of ideas that are manipulated for economic and political gain. In this article, I describe and analyse how the law has evolved to acknowledge the need for accountability, how it has designed norms for this purpose and continues in this endeavour – yet how the challenges it faces today are leaving its most fundamental assumptions open to question. I argue that, given the growing influence of public and private global governance bodies on our daily lives and the shape of our political communities, the task of the law of global governance is no longer limited to ensuring the accountability of global bodies, but is also to protect human dignity and the very viability of the democratic state.
In The Global Regime for the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, Xavier Seuba offers a comprehensive description of the international norms and bodies dealing with the enforcement of intellectual property rights. The book analyzes multilateral, plurilateral, and bilateral treaties, and their national implementation, along with civil, border, and criminal enforcement. The book also explores the interface between the enforcement of intellectual property rights and the norms regulating international trade, competition, and human rights, as well as the conceptual and systemic aspects of enforcement, while illustrating the importance of these rights with examples in litigation. The book should be read by anyone interested in how intellectual property rights are being enforced around the world, and how these efforts relate to other legal regimes.
Hostovsky Brandes: The Declining Status of International Law in the Decisions of the Israeli Supreme Court Concerning the Occupied Territories
This article examines the attitude of the Supreme Court of Israel towards international law in the past decade, focusing on cases concerning the Occupied Territories. The article argues that the status of international law in these decisions has, overall, declined, in compare to the decade between the mid-1990’s and the mid 2000’s. The article argues that while the international law of occupation still operates, officially, as the governing law in the Occupied Territories, the emphasis on compliance with the norms of international law in the Court’s decisions has decreased. Instead of relying on international law, the Court has increased its reliance on Israeli administrative law, and, in recent years, on Israeli constitutional law.
The article suggests that the decline in the status of international law is rooted in a different perception of the role of the Court in relation to its international and domestic audiences, and that the change is related, at least partially, to the current attacks on the Court. Between the mid-1990’s and the mid-2000’s, the Court, under former President Barak’s leadership, perceived itself to be part of the “Global Community of Courts”, a transnational legal community of international and national courts engaging in an ongoing dialogue, reading and citing each other’s opinions and participating in what they perceive as a common judicial enterprise. The Court thus directed its decisions not only to the Israeli public but also to the international community and, in particular, to the international legal community, referred to by Schachter as the “invisible college of international lawyers”. The current Court, on the other hand, is struggling to maintain its status in within Israel. It thus focuses on its Israeli audience, addressing in its decisions, first and foremost, the Israeli public.
While relying on international law may increase the legitimacy of the Court’s decisions among an international audience, the article argues that it may have the opposite effect on an Israeli audience, in particular in the current political climate. The recent Court thus retreats from the extensive referral to international law in favor of an approach that examines issues that arise in the Occupied Territories as if they were, essentially, internal Israeli matters, in a manner that coincides with the prevailing political discourse regarding the future of the Occupied Territories.
Tuesday, January 23, 2018
The defences available to an agent accused of wrongdoing can be considered as justifications (which render acts lawful) or excuses (which shield the agent from the legal consequences of the wrongful act). This distinction is familiar to many domestic legal systems, and tracks analogous notions in moral philosophy and ordinary language. Nevertheless, it remains contested in some domestic jurisdictions where it is often argued that the distinction is purely theoretical and has no consequences in practice. In international law too the distinction has been fraught with controversy, though there are increasing calls for its recognition. This book is the first to comprehensively and thoroughly examine the distinction and its relevance to the international legal order. Combining an analysis of State practice, historical, doctrinal and theoretical developments, the book shows that the distinction is not only possible in international law but that it is also one that would have important practical implications.
In Arctic Ocean Shipping, Donald R. Rothwell assesses contemporary navigation, security and sovereignty issues in the North American Arctic. Shipping in the Arctic Ocean is becoming a critical legal, geopolitical and security issue as a result of climate change and increased interest from non-Arctic States such as China. The law of the sea provides the key legal framework for the regulation of Arctic Ocean shipping, and has been relied upon by Canada and the United States to develop the legal regime for the Northwest Passage and the Bering Strait. Navigation within the EEZ and high seas in the Arctic is also becoming more strategically significant as a result of climate change. Multiple issues are raised with respect to maritime security and the adequacy of the existing legal regime, including how Canada and the United States will respond to interest being expressed in Arctic shipping by Asian States.
This book contains a systematic assessment of the content and scope of obligations to prevent gross human rights violations. There has been a great deal of attention for concepts aiming to prevent gross human rights violations, such as conflict prevention and the responsibility to protect. Yet despite this shift in attention towards prevention,it has remained unclear what legal obligations states have to prevent gross human rights violations under international human rights law. The focus in this book is on three specific types of injury prohibited under international human rights law: torture, arbitrary death and genocide. Further distinctions are made between four temporal phases (long-term prevention, short-term prevention, preventing continuation, preventing recurrence) and territorial and extraterritorial obligations. The structure of the book allows academics and practitioners to learn about obligations to prevent gross human rights violations in a general sense, as well as find targeted information on the content and scope of obligations in specific settings.
- I.Ö. Kaboglu & C. Palluel L’état d’urgence en Turquie à l’épreuve du droit européen des droits de l’homme
- E. D'ursel, La Convention du Conseil de l’Europe sur la prévention et la lutte contre les violences à l’égard des femmes : une révolution silencieuse ?
- A. Lagerwall & L. Weyers, Le droit d’accès à un juge contre les immunités des États et des organisations internationales : une argumentation aux effets inexorablement limités ?
- A. Rizzo & A. Weyembergh, L’Union européenne, acteur incontournable en matière de garanties procédurales : derniers développements législatifs, jurisprudentiels et leur mise en oeuvre en droit belge
- L. Burgorgue-Larsen & G-F. Ntwari, Chronique de jurisprudence de la Cour africaine des droits de l’homme et des peuples (2015-2016)
- M. Moris, Le secret professionnel de l’avocat au regard de l’article 8 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme. De nouveaux enseignements de la Cour de Strasbourg
- J. Van Compernolle, L’arbitrage et la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme : une décision en clair-obscur de la Cour européenne
- N. Colette-Basecqz & O. Nederlandt, L’arrêt pilote W.D. c. Belgique sonne-t-il le glas de la détention des internés dans les annexes psychiatriques des prisons ?
- B. Dejemeppe, Facebook et les faux amis
- K. Garcia, Violences domestiques et fémicide : la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme réceptive aux crimes de genre
- C. Maubernard, Propagande d’État et liberté d’expression
Pérez-Aznar: The Use of Most-Favoured-Nation Clauses to Import Substantive Treaty Provisions in International Investment Agreements
The present work considers the use of Most-Favoured-Nation (MFN) clauses within Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs), or other International Investment Agreements (IIAs), to import provisions, not included in the IIA (such as fair and equitable treatment provisions or umbrella clauses), by investment arbitral tribunals. Many tribunals have allowed the use of MFN clauses for this purpose, imported the absent standard in the treaty, and have subsequently considered whether or not there was compliance with the imported provision. This study analyses whether this is a proper use of MFN clauses in IIAs. It first examines the practice of some investment tribunals of importing substantive provisions through MFN clauses. Secondly, it analyses whether MFN clauses can be used to import a substantive provision in order to include a new obligation and, at the same time, confer jurisdiction to decide on breaches of imported provisions. In doing so it explores the nature, scope, and limits of MFN clauses as well as the principle of consent to international jurisdiction. Thirdly, it considers how tribunals should proceed when faced with this type of argument, focusing on the interpretation of the elements of MFN clauses. It is suggested that typical MFN clauses included in IIAs should not be used to import treaty provisions.
Call for Papers: Ensuring and Balancing the Rights of Defendants and Victims at International and Hybrid Criminal Courts
Monday, January 22, 2018
In this volume, renowned practitioners, scholars and jurists from the region and around the world explore the contribution of arbitration to the rule of law and economic development; the conformity of arbitration with international standards of due process and the rule of law; and the benefits and challenges of arbitration in Africa.
12 Investment disputes often concern society as a collective and direct stakeholder; especially in cases prompted by multinational companies conducting essential public services such as sanitation, energy production and distribution, or resource extraction. As disputes with far-reaching and direct implications on society have amassed, scholars have aimed at legitimizing the international settlement of investment disputes by, inter alia, shifting the ad hoc and arbitral focus of dispute settlement to a more permanent, institutionalized dispute settlement body.
Suggestions for the creation of permanent investment courts have been around for decades, but it is only recently that such suggestions may materialize into functioning investment courts. In particular, the European Commission has been pushing for a court-like mechanism to resolve investment disputes in several recent trade negotiations. Such a framework was included in the Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) that the European Union (EU) signed with Vietnam (EU – Vietnam FTA) and Canada (Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA)). While negotiations on the matter are currently at a political deadlock, the European Commission also formally proposed a court system during the negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) agreement with the United States. More recently, parties to the EU – Singapore FTA have decided to renegotiate the dispute settlement provisions to include a similar court-like mechanism. In addition, all agreements mentioned above also include provisions that support the establishment of a multilateral investment court.
Will these developments actually lead to the creation of permanent investment courts? How will such courts change the future of international investment law? Will they bring about a real institutional change of adjudicatory mechanisms? Will they introduce a ‘hybrid’ system, which borrows important characteristics from both arbitration and institutional methods of international adjudication? To address these questions, this conference will bring together leading scholars sharing a common interest in investment courts.
- Special Issue: Paving the BioLaw Path in International Criminal Law
- Anja Matwijkiw, Introduction: International Criminal BioLaw
- Ryan Long, Bioethics, Complementarity, and Corporate Criminal Liability
- Stefania Negri, Unethical Human Experimentation in Developing Countries and International Criminal Law: Old Wine in New Bottles?
- Xavier Aurey, The Nuremberg Doctors’ Trial: Looking Back 70 Years Later
- Bronik Matwijkiw & Anja Matwijkiw, Biolaw Stakes, Activist Jurisprudence, and (Presumed) Limits for Protected Interests
- Michael Davis, Marketing Body Parts: Morality, Law, and Public Opinion
- Articles and Commentaries
- Ozlem Ulgen, “World Community Interest” Approach to Interim Measures on “Robot Weapons”: Revisiting the Nuclear Test Cases
- Salar Abbasi, Democracy in International Law-making: An Unfilled Lacuna
- Naporn Popattanachai, Environmental Disputes from Regional Sea Programmes before itlos: Its Potential Role, Contribution, and the Challenges it Would Face in a Land-based Pollution Case
- Ana Lenard, The Nascent Law of Cyber Blockades and Zones
- Selma Kafedžić, Determining Modes of Liability in International Criminal Law: Why the Common Purpose Doctrine is the Strongest Legal Response to Mass Atrocity Crimes
- Sami Thamir Alrashidi, Challenging Cultural Backgrounds and Vernacularizing Human Rights
- The South Pacific
- Tony Angelo, The Pacific Islands Forum 2016
An innovative, interdisciplinary and far-reaching examination of the actual reality of international courts, International Court Authority (Oxford University Press, 2018) challenges fundamental preconceptions about when, why, and how international courts become important and authoritative actors in national, regional and international politics. Alter, Helfer and Madsen provide a novel framework for conceptualizing international court authority that focuses on the reactions and practices of these key audiences. Eighteen scholars from the disciplines of law, political science and sociology apply this framework to study thirteen international courts operating in Africa, Latin America and Europe, as well as on a global level. Together the contributors document and explore important and interesting variations in whether the audiences that interact with international courts around the world embrace or reject the rulings of these judicial institutions. This newly written book introduction situates our practice-based approach to studying international court authority, explaining how it differs compared to normative, sociological and compliance based studies of legal authority. We also preview the twenty-two chapters in the volume. The book expands by 40% the special issue we published in Law and Contemporary Problems, adding a new introduction and conclusion, three new empirical chapters, six commentaries and a conclusion that reconsiders how context influences the authority of international courts.
Sunday, January 21, 2018
Call for Papers: Responding to Legitimacy Challenges: Opportunities and Choices for the European Court of Human Rights
The application and interpretation of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 have developed significantly in the sixty years since the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) first published its Commentaries on these important humanitarian treaties. To promote a better understanding of, and respect for, this body of law, the ICRC commissioned a comprehensive update of its original Commentaries, of which this is the second volume. Its preparation was coordinated by Jean-Marie Henckaerts, ICRC legal adviser and head of the project to update the Commentaries. The Second Convention is a key text of international humanitarian law. It contains the essential rules on the protection of the wounded, sick and shipwrecked at sea, those assigned to their care, and the vessels used for their treatment and evacuation. This article-by-article Commentary takes into account developments in the law and practice to provide up-to-date interpretations of the Convention. The new Commentary has been reviewed by humanitarian-law practitioners and academics from around the world, including naval experts. It is an essential tool for anyone working or studying within this field.
Sobenes Obregon & Samson: Nicaragua Before the International Court of Justice: Impacts on International Law
- Mohammed Bedjaoui, Introduction from the Bench
- Alain Pellet, Introduction from the Podium
- Paul S. Reichler & Yuri B. Parkhomenko, Nicaragua v. United States and Matters of Evidence Before the International Court of Justice
- Fernando Lusa Bordin, The Nicaragua v. United States Case: An Overview of the Epochal Judgments
- Daniel Müller, The Saga of the 1858 Treaty of Limits: The Cases Against Costa Rica
- Lawrence H. Martin & Yuri B. Parkhomenko, The Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) and Its Implications for Future Maritime Delimitations in the Caribbean Sea and Elsewhere
- Antonio Remiro Brotóns, The Pact of Bogotá in the Jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice
- Brian McGarry, Nicaragua’s Impacts on Optional Clause Practice
- Antonios Tzanakopoulos & Anna Ventouratou, Nicaragua in the International Court of Justice and the Law of Treaties
- Malgosia Fitzmaurice, Customary Law, General Principles, Unilateral Acts
- Vaughan Lowe, Customary Principle of Sovereignty of States in the Nicaragua Case
- Benjamin Samson & Tessa Barsac, The Law of State Responsibility in the Nicaraguan Cases
- William Schabas, The Use of Force in the Nicaraguan Cases
- Donald R. Rothwell, International Law of the Sea and the Nicaraguan Cases
- Alina Miron, Intervention
- Hugh Thirlway, Provisional Measures
- Edgardo Sobenes Obregon, Joinder of Cases: Strengthening the Sound Administration of Justice and the Judicial Economy
- Pierre d’Argent, Conclusions