Recently, arguments have emerged that a universal source exists from which it is automatically possible to derive binding due diligence obligations for states in relation to all forms of activities. Specifically, these claims contend that international law imposes a general obligation on states to act with due diligence to prevent their territory being used for activity which harms the rights of other states, and that this obligation is not restricted or confined to particular forms of activities. These arguments have been advanced by academic initiatives in the context of debates over the app ..read more

Back in 2016 I wrote a post on horrible metrics, which was in essence an extended moan about the use of various metrics, including citations, indices and impact factors, to assess the quality of international law scholarship and journals or to evaluate the quality of colleagues applying for jobs or for promotion. The intervening years have not changed my views much, although I confess to the occasional guilty glances at Google Scholar. Especially when I am not familiar with someone’s work, GS can be a useful, if imperfect, shortcut. There are differences between international law academics who ..read more

Introduction The activities of Greenpeace vessels have a habit of triggering the further illumination and development of international law. Greenpeace’s “Stop Deep Sea Mining” campaign is no exception. It effectively raises questions on the scope of Greenpeace’s individual right to protest (international human rights law) and the scope of the Netherland’s flag State right to freedom of navigation, which includes the qualified right to permit vessels flying its flag to protest at sea (international law of the sea). While these regimes intertwine (“the right to protest at sea is necessarily exer ..read more

There has been much focus on Israeli violations of international humanitarian law (jus in bello) and possible genocide in Gaza. Less attention has been paid to Israel’s claim to self-defence (jus ad bellum) against the terrorist attack on 7 October 2023. However, the rules on self-defence address the legality of the overall purpose of the operations and the choice of military strategy. This is different from the lawfulness of the targeting in individual operations as governed by international humanitarian law or of a possible genocidal purpose of the operations. Marko Milanovic [here] has doub ..read more

The recent provisional measures orders of the International Court of Justice in the South Africa v. Israel and Nicaragua v. Germany cases have provoked much discussion of the notion of plausibility in the Court’s jurisprudence (see, e.g., yesterday’s post by Roy Schondorf and also Mike Becker’s comments to that post; and the post by Alex Wentker and Robert Stendel on the case against Germany). Broadly speaking, scholars are divided on whether plausibility should be understood solely as a legal question of whether rights asserted by the applicant plausibly exist, or whether plausibility also re ..read more

Two aims, among others, motivated the decision to bring the Duarte Agostinho climate case (“Duarte”) directly to the European Court of Human Rights against multiple Respondent States. They were, first, to invite the Court to interpret States’ obligations in respect of climate change in a manner capable of protecting those in the most vulnerable parts of Europe. And, second, to prompt the Court to confront the reality that the question of whether an individual State’s climate policies, and therefore the relevant remedies available in its domestic courts, are effective is an inherently relationa ..read more

Introduction  In its Order of 26 January 2024 in the case of South Africa v. Israel (brought under Article IX of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (“the Genocide Convention”)), the International Court of Justice (“ICJ”) indicated a number of provisional measures.   As part of its analysis, the Court found that “the facts and circumstances mentioned [in the Order] are sufficient to conclude that at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection are plausible” (¶54). The Court’s determination on “plaus ..read more

International Court of Justice Alexander Wentker and Robert Stendel provide an analysis of the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) decision not to indicate provisional measures against Germany, as requested by Nicaragua regarding Germany’s support for Israel in the Gaza conflict. The authors highlight the unconventional approach taken by the Court in its reasoning and the wording of the operative part of the order. They note that while the Court refrained from indicating provisional measures, its cautious language suggests a readiness to respond flexibly to changing circumstances, maintaini ..read more

1. The Scope of the ‘Ship as a Unit’ Rule’ Lecture. A Lecture by Judge Liesbeth Lijnzaad in the Public International Law Lecture Series, entitled ‘We’re in this together, the scope of the ‘ship as a unit’ rule’ chaired by Dr Meagan Wong will take place on Wednesday 8 May, 6pm BST. The Public International Law Lecture Series is co-founded by Dr Emily Jones and Dr Meagan Wong. See here for more information and to register.  2. Sanctions, Remittances, and (in)Security: Legal Conundrums, Financial Paradoxes, and Humanitarian Puzzles Conference. The conference “Sanctions, Remittances, and (in ..read more

When President Salam announced the ICJ’s decision not to indicate provisional measures against Germany as requested by Nicaragua on Tuesday, the legal advisers of States lending support to the warring parties in Gaza were probably closely listening. As we argue in this post, the ICJ was acutely aware of the implications any decision would have for other States. This awareness may have driven the Court down the road less travelled by framing its decision outside its established framework to assess provisional measures, with a peculiarly framed operative part (dispositif). We will, first, look a ..read more