Rachovitsa: Designing the Technological and Legal Fabric of Digital Sovereignty for Critical Governmental Data and Essential Services Extraterritorially: The “Data Embassy” Model

Mando Rachovitsa (Univ of Nottingham - Law) has published Designing the Technological and Legal Fabric of Digital Sovereignty for Critical Governmental Data and Essential Services Extraterritorially: The “Data Embassy” Model (Computer Law & Security Review, Vol. 63, 106409, Dec. 2026). Here's the abstract:

Amidst the renewed debate on Europe's digital sovereignty, this paper counterintuitively questions the implicit assumption, underpinning legal scholarship and policymaking, that sovereignty can be effectively materialised solely within a state’s territory. The paper argues that the creative tailoring of international law and innovative technologies can be leveraged to effectively exercise digital sovereignty also outside a state’s territory. The discussion focuses on Estonia’s novel data embassy, which includes the establishment of a data centre in Luxembourg’s territory to host and run Estonia’s critical governmental datasets and essential services. Although initially perceived as an “oddity”, this model of digital sovereignty gains increasing traction in international practice. The legal means for Estonia to retain sovereign control over its data centre vis-à-vis Luxembourg is the creation of a sui generis bilateral treaty regime which assigns diplomatic status to the data centre. The analysis critically evaluates the parties’ rights and obligations concerning the functioning, inviolability and protection of the centre, and the protection of the centre’s content and communications. It does so by analysing their agreement, in light of diplomatic law and EU cybersecurity law. Furthermore, the paper furnishes new insights on third states’ obligations under diplomatic law, international humanitarian law and the principle of sovereignty regarding the protection of the data centre from physical and cyber interferences. The analysis identifies certain legal concerns pertaining to the implementation of the data embassy model and paves the way for states and other actors to navigate legal hurdles with legal certainty.

Braun: International (Investment) Law in Times of Geoeconomic Realignment: On the Role of ‘Police Powers’ and ‘Countermeasures’ as Justifications to Sanctions-based Investment Claims

Tillmann Rudolf Braun (Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy, Germany; Humboldt Univ. of Berlin) has posted International (Investment) Law in Times of Geoeconomic Realignment: On the Role of ‘Police Powers’ and ‘Countermeasures’ as Justifications to Sanctions-based Investment Claims (in Economic Sanctions in International Commercial and Investment Arbitration, Tobias Ackermann & Sebastian Wuschka eds., forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

Alongside the States’ instruments of geoeconomic realignment used to enforce strategic foreign political and security interests, unilateral sanctions stand out as a particularly potent weapon. From the perspective of public international law, and in particular with regard to the legal position of investors protected by BITs, the arguments and justifications for such unilateral sanctions raise a number of thoroughly challenging questions—questions which, despite the sharp increase in the use of these sanctions in recent times, have not yet been sufficiently clarified.

The sanctioning State is very likely to argue that its sanction, despite its severity, qualifies as a genuine exercise of police powers. In that case there would therefore be no violation of the BIT at the primary treaty level. But does the doctrine of police powers confer, as it were, unlimited power and authority? Or should the sanction, alongside further conditions such as an ‘individualised nexus’ and others which derive from the principle of the rule of law be proportionate? Given that the principle of proportionality has so far only been recognised in selected areas of public international law, how can such a principle of proportionality be adequately justified and applied? If this prinicple were to apply, should it apply only relating to the expropriation clause, or should it apply to all the standards set out in a BIT? And finally: why do the outcomes of cases before the European Court of Justice often differ in this respect from those decided by investment tribunals?

Sanctions are usually a response to violations of international law by the sanctioned state. Could potential violations of a BIT standard be justified as a permissible countermeasure at the secondary level of customary international law? Can the countermeasures defence be raised (at all) against a non-State actor? And does this really depend on whether the investor's rights are qualified as individual direct rights or merely derivative rights? Could an investor rely on ILC Art. 50 (1)(b), which exempts fundamental human rights from countermeasures? Could it be argued a fortiori that, if Article 51 of the UN Charter permits under strict conditions even military support in favour of the state under attack, it must in principle also permit less intrusive, non-coercive measures, such as sanctions, which serve the same defensive and protective function?

And finally, what is arguably the most challenging question, as most sanctions are imposed by States that have not been directly injured, can these non-injured States justify their sanctions as ‘third-party’ or ‘collective’ countermeasures? Has a justification under customary international law emerged for such countermeasures? And if so, what would be the prerequisites for such permissible 'third-party' or ‘collective’ countermeasures, and what would be their consequences?

If the findings are correct, that (i) the doctrine of police powers imposes ever stricter conditions; that (ii) as regards the justification as collective countermeasures, there is likely to be a lack of opinio iuris for a corresponding universally accepted customary international law; and that, (iii) even the individual treaty defence, by way of an essential security interest exception, rarely prevails, then this effectively means: in a great many cases, sanctioning States face the risk of being held liable for breaches of a BIT – even though they are (often) acting through their (politically legitimised) sanctions in the service of ‘obligations erga omnes’. So, it appears that current public international law remains ‘under-calibrated’ for sanctions and, therefore, endangers the effectuation of general goals of public international law.

Against the background of this finding, what normative guiding principles should be drawn to ensure that public international law can continue to serve as a credible framework for the limitation of state power and the allocation of risk in a geo-economically fragmented world? Those are the questions the present contribution addresses.

Lecture: Orford on "Climate Change and the Future of the State"

On October 1, 2026, Anne Orford (Univ. of Melbourne - Law) will deliver the London Review of International Law Annual Lecture at the London School of Economics. The topic is: "Climate Change and the Future of the State." Details are here.

Webinar: Attribution

On September 28, 2026, the first webinar will be held in the new ESIL Conversations series “Responsibility of States and International Organisations in Times of Accountability Gaps: 25 Years of ARSIWA and 15 Years of ARIO.” The topic is: “Attribution.” Details are here.

Call for Papers: 2027 ILA-ASIL Asia-Pacific Research Forum

A call for papers has been issued for the 2027 ILA-ASIL Asia-Pacific Research Forum, which will be held June 28–29 in Taipei and hosted by the Research Center for International Legal Studies of National Chengchi University and the Chinese (Taiwan) Society of International Law. The theme is: "International Law in an Era of Geopolitical Uncertainty." The call is here.

Lecture: Koskenniemi on "The Search for the 'Social' in International Law: Remarks on a Critical Theme"

On October 5, 2026, Martti Koskenniemi will deliver the inaugural lecture in the Erasmus School of Law's Annual Lecture in International Law series. The topic is: "The Search for the 'Social' in International Law: Remarks on a Critical Theme." The lecture will be followed by an interactive roundtable with Sofia Stolk, Luca Pasquet, Kushtrim Istrefi, Marco Longobardo, and Federica Violi (moderator). Details and registration are here.

Panel: The Attribution of Non-State Actor Conduct During Armed Conflict

On September 29, 2026, Global Law at Reading will host a panel discussion on "Attribution of Non-State Actor Conduct During Armed Conflict," with options for both in-person and online attendance. Chaired by Marko Milanović (Univ. of Reading), the panel brings together government and military legal advisers and academics, including Paul Berman (Counsel for International Law, House of Lords, UK Parliament), Miles Jackson (Univ. of Oxford), and Jennifer Maddocks (Univ. of Reading), to examine the attribution of non-state actor conduct to states under the International Law Commission's Articles on State Responsibility, drawing on contemporary proxy relationships such as Russia's use of separatist entities in Eastern Ukraine and Iran's "Axis of Resistance." Details and registration are here.

Call for Papers: Human Rights Strategies for the Future in an Age of Contestation: Revisiting Theo van Boven’s Legacy

The Maastricht Centre for Human Rights has issued a call for papers for a symposium in honour of the late Theo van Boven, which will take place June 7-8, 2027, in Maastricht. The subject is: "Human Rights Strategies for the Future in an Age of Contestation: Revisiting Theo van Boven’s Legacy." The call is here.

Ishii: Guardians in Orbit: Legal Justifications and Limits of Defensive Satellite Operations

Yurika Ishii (Sophia Univ. - Law) has published Guardians in Orbit: Legal Justifications and Limits of Defensive Satellite Operations (International Law Studies, Vol. 108, 2026). Here's the abstract:

The deployment of “bodyguard satellites”—spacecraft designed to autonomously detect and counter hostile space objects—has moved from classified capability development to explicit national security policy across a growing number of States. This article examines the circumstances under which interference with another State’s satellite may be legally justified under international law, analyzing several possible grounds: self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter, forcible countermeasures, non-forcible countermeasures, and necessity. Drawing on a survey of national space defense policies, jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice, and the law of State responsibility, the article reaches two principal conclusions. First, across all justificatory frameworks, reversible non-kinetic measures—jamming, dazzling, spoofing, and cyber interference—represent the only category of response that the existing legal framework can reliably accommodate, while kinetic destruction is presumptively impermissible due to debris generation, irreversibility, and the availability of non-kinetic alternatives. Second, the application of terrestrial justification frameworks to outer space produces structural indeterminacy, primarily because the armed attack threshold cannot be reliably located at the moment of engagement, and the imminence requirement cannot bear the weight the framework places on it given the operational logic of autonomous bodyguard satellite systems. The article concludes that a multilateral legal framework, enshrining reversibility as a presumptive constraint and establishing an agreed threshold for prohibited force against space objects, is urgently required.

Call for Papers: Hosting Global Justice: The Netherlands as Host State of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC)

A call for papers has been issued for a conference on "Hosting Global Justice: The Netherlands as Host State of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC)," to take place April 15, 2027, in The Hague. The call is here.

Call for Papers: Community Interests in International Law: Theory, Adjudication and Human Rights

A call for papers has been issued for a workshop on "Community Interests in International Law: Theory, Adjudication and Human Rights," to take palce June 11, 2027, at Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. The call is here.