The Canada–China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (China FIPPA) is novel and, in key respects, non-reciprocal in favour of China. For example, it would provide a general right of market access by Chinese investors to Canada but not by Canadian investors to China; allow wider scope for investment screening by China than by Canada; omit a long-standing Canadian reservation for performance requirements that favour Aboriginal peoples; and dilute Canada’s established position on transparency in investor-state arbitration. These and other textual aspects of the China FIPPA are highlighted in comparison to other trade and investment treaties, especially those to which Canada is a party, that provide for investorstate arbitration. The China FIPPA is also examined in the current economic context of investment flows between Canada and China. The article responds partly to claims by Canadian trade officials that the China FIPPA is unremarkable because it simply continues Canada’s past foreign investment promotion and protection practice.

Peer review mechanisms, such as the Universal Periodic Review, rely upon traditional sovereign state diplomacy for contemporary human rights implementation. This article argues that this is a positive development for several reasons. First, at a theoretical level, it reveals an evolving maturity of the human rights regime through its capacity to detach from exclusively legalistic approaches to human rights implementation. Second, at a policy level, there is enough evidence of measured positive outcomes of peer review mechanisms to suggest a preference for more co-operative approaches to ensuring human rights compliance as a first and complementary step to other more controversial legal/adversarial means of implementation (such as the third pillar of the R2P concept). Finally, peer review mechanisms offer a theoretical and pragmatic framework conciliating between universalist and relativist conceptual approaches to human rights, accommodating and integrating views that call for compliance with international human rights law as well as those emphasizing respect for sovereignty.

Les marchés publics sont essentiellement régulés ou réglementés, au niveau mondial, par l’Accord plurilatéral sur les marchés publics de l’OMC (AMP). Cet Accord est aujourd’hui sur le point de prendre un nouvel envol, car les négociations dont il faisait l’objet ont abouti à la fin de l’année 2011 et l’AMP révisé est entré en vigueur le 6 avril 2014. Bien que l’entrée en vigueur de l’AMP révisé insuffle un élan vigoureux à l’ouverture des marchés, elle ne constitue toutefois pas la fin du processus visant à libéraliser les marchés publics. Afin de comprendre la nécessité de négocier de façon quasi permanente une libéralisation accrue des marchés publics et d’apprécier pleinement l’importance de l’AMP révisé pour l’économie mondiale, cet article décrit succinctement les événements marquants de l’histoire des négociations internationales visant à libéraliser les marchés publics et présente ensuite, d’une façon générale, les principaux éléments du texte de l’AMP révisé. De plus, cet article contient une analyse approfondie des listes d’engagements des Parties à l’AMP révisé (les annexes à l’Appendice I) car, malgré une certaine simplification résultant de la conclusion des négociations, cette partie de l’AMP révisé demeure particulièrement technique et complexe. Ces renseignements et observations connexes pourraient, d’une part, apporter une aide aux décideurs confrontés à des choix dans ce domaine et, d’autre part, aider à identifier les débouchés à l’exportation qui sont susceptibles d’intéresser les fournisseurs des Parties à l’AMP et des autres Membres de l’OMC désirant accéder à l’Accord.

Iran’s pursuit of nuclear technology continues to place a major strain on US–Iranian relations, with many US decision makers still sceptical of Iran’s claims that its uranium-enrichment program is aimed only at providing fuel for civilian purposes, not at developing nuclear weapons capability. In spite of the diplomatic progress made to date, the conclusion of a comprehensive agreement resolving the issue remains elusive, with powerful elements in both states resistant to any compromise, and the United States’ key regional allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia, strongly opposed to the Obama administration’s decision to negotiate with the government of Hassan Rouhani. Consequently, a US attack on Iran in order to (at least) severely delay Iran’s nuclear program remains a distinct possibility. After outlining the causes of the current situation, and noting the extent to which both Iran and the United States have disregarded their obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, this article considers the lawfulness of a potential US military strike against Iran, examining in detail relevant international legal rules governing the use of force. The conclusion reached is that such a preventive use of force would be — and should remain — illegal and that adherence to their respective legal obligations still offers the best way forward for both countries.

Several disputes relating to renewable energy are underway at the World Trade Organization (WTO). The Appellate Body has released its first decision on this subject on the feed-in tariff for electricity in the province of Ontario. The disputes raise once again the issue of the relationship between international trade law and environmental protection. Evolving WTO jurisprudence should be able to resolve many of the difficulties, although the crucial problem of the treatment of production and processing methods remains obscure after the Canada – Renewable Energy decision. Questions of fundamental theory lie close to the surface of these debates. The recent expansion in the number of international regimes and tribunals highlights the importance of approaches to interpretation in public international law. As countries negotiate new treaties to address the needs of global society, potential conflicts and overlapping provisions are likely to appear. Differences of opinion about reliance on non-WTO treaties in the WTO dispute settlement system illustrate problems that can be anticipated in several fora. To achieve workable solutions for renewable energy disputes and many others, interpretation should promote the harmonious integration of obligations, in accordance with the intent of the negotiators.

There are no universally applicable procedural standards under international law for independence referenda. However, in contemporary comparative practice, a minimum requirement has emerged for clarity of both the winning majority and the referendum question. This article demonstrates that Scotland could become an independent state with the lowest popular support in recent international practice, yet this outcome would not compromise the legitimacy of the vote. Even the referendum question is an exemplar of textual clarity. However, the possibility of a referendum on the United Kingdom’s (UK) exit from the European Union (EU) complicates the matter. The author argues that, with independence, Scotland would, prima facie, also exit the EU, unless negotiated otherwise. However, with a potential referendum on the UK’s EU membership on the horizon, Scots do not know whether a vote to remain within the UK is also a vote to remain within the EU. Given the complexity and significance of the EU legal order, Scots have a right to know whether, at least in the near future, the alternative to independence is the UK within or outside the EU. If the two referenda fall too close to each other, the clarity of the Scottish independence referendum could be unduly compromised.

This article argues that since the Tadić case before the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, a new category of armed conflict has migrated from international criminal law to international humanitarian law: that of armed groups fighting each other within the borders of a state without the intervention of the armed forces of the latter. However, the extent to which the rules of this category of conflict cover issues that may arise in such a conflict has not been comprehensively examined. One may infer, from the war crimes that the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court criminalizes in this type of conflict, a dozen rules of international humanitarian law. After giving an historical account of the codification of this category of armed conflict, the author argues that there is a need to further develop these rules in order to provide a more comprehensive humanitarian law regime applicable to conflict exclusively between non-state armed groups. The absence of such a comprehensive regime should not, however, be taken as evidence of a legal vacuum. The author suggests that a law enforcement regime resting on international human rights law should be applied to relations between the armed groups and the territorial state, while the warring relationship between the armed groups should fall under the law of armed conflict, including those core customary rules that are now recognized as being equally applicable to international and non-international armed conflict.