International tribunals — International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea — Jurisdiction and admissibility — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982, Article 292 — Japan filing Application against Russian Federation for prompt release of vessel — Whether Tribunal having jurisdiction — Whether Application admissible — Whether Russian Federation breaching obligations under Article 73(2) of Convention

Treaties — Interpretation and application — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 — Articles 73(2) and 292 — Whether Respondent complying with Article 73(2) of Convention — Whether Respondent providing for prompt release of vessel and crew upon posting of a reasonable bond or financial security — Time-limit for setting bond — Whether bond reasonable — Relevant factors — Facts and circumstances of case — Document concerning bond calculation communicated by Russia to Japan within framework of Russian — Japanese Commission on Fisheries — Whether Japan tacitly consenting — Whether bond of 22 million roubles reasonable — Determination by Tribunal of amount, nature and form of bond or other financial security to be posted — Article 113(2) of Rules of Tribunal — Article 293 of Convention — Applicability of Convention provisions and other international law rules not incompatible with Convention

Sea — Exclusive economic zone (“EEZ”) — Environment — Arrest and detention of Japanese vessel fishing in EEZ of Russian Federation with valid licence — Application for prompt release — Alleged offence of false record of catch of fish — Gravity of offence — Conservation and management of fish stocks in Russian EEZ — Bilateral cooperation between Japan and Russian Federation

International tribunals — International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea — Jurisdiction and admissibility — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982, Article 292 — Japan filing Application against Russian Federation for prompt release of vessel — Whether Tribunal having jurisdiction — Whether Application admissible — Whether Russian Federation breaching obligations under Article 73(2) of Convention — Domestic proceedings before Russian courts — Russian Federation confiscating vessel — Effect of confiscation — Whether confiscation rendering application for prompt release of vessel under Article 292 of Convention without object

Relationship of international law and municipal law — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 — Decisions of courts of Russian Federation — Confiscation of fishing vessel — Issues of ownership and nationality — Whether confiscation having impact on nationality of the vessel — Role of flag State — Whether confiscation rendering application for prompt release of vessel under Article 292 of Convention without object — Object and purpose of prompt release procedure — Article 292(3) of Convention — Decision of Russian Federation Supreme Court concluding domestic court proceedings — Encroachment upon national competences — Article 292(3) of Convention

International criminal law — Offences against humanity — International Convention to Suppress the Slave Trade and Slavery, 1926 — Slavery — Definition — Definition of slavery in Australian Criminal Code (Cth) deriving from definition in Article 1 of Convention — Whether respondent possessing and using complainants as slaves — Whether proof of intention required — Sections 270.1 and 270.3(1)(a) of Code — Meaning and constitutional validity — Convictions in Australia of slavery offences contrary to Section 270.3(1)(a) of Code — Provisions in Chapter 8 of Code dealing with offences against humanity

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Effect in municipal law — International Convention to Suppress the Slave Trade and Slavery, 1926 — Sections 270.1 and 270.3(1)(a) of Australian Criminal Code (Cth) — Construction and application of Code — Relevant provisions introducing into Australian municipal law offences deriving from 1926 Slavery Convention — Constitutional validity of Sections 270.1 and 270.3(1)(a) of Code — The law of Australia

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — Interpretation and application — Interpretation of Section 32(1) of Charter — Jurisdictional scope — Extraterritorial application — Canada’s obligations under international law — Domestic reception of international law — Doctrine of adoption — Prohibitive rules of customary international law as interpretative aid — Principle of respect for sovereignty of foreign States — Principle of non-intervention — Principle of respect for territorial sovereignty of foreign States — Comity as interpretative principle — Presumption of conformity of Canadian legislation to international law — Investigatory actions by Canadian law enforcement officials in Turks and Caicos Islands — Whether Section 8 of Charter applying to searches and seizures by Canadian police outside Canada

Territory — Territorial sovereignty — Customary international law — Principle of respect for sovereignty of foreign State — Principle of sovereign equality — Article 2(1) of United Nations Charter — 1970 UN General Assembly Declaration applying principle to non-UN Member States — Principle of non-intervention — Principle of respect for territorial sovereignty of foreign States — Whether extraterritorial application of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms interfering with sovereign authority of foreign State

Jurisdiction — Principles of jurisdiction — Principles arising from sovereign equality and duty of non-intervention — Bases of jurisdiction — Interplay between various forms and bases of jurisdiction — Whether extraterritorial exercise of jurisdiction permissible — Enforcement jurisdiction — Limits on extraterritorial jurisdiction based on sovereign equality, non-intervention and territoriality principle — Principle of consent — Whether Canada permitted to exercise enforcement jurisdiction over matter outside Canadian territory without consent of other State — Whether Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms having extraterritorial application — Whether Section 32 of Charter having territorial limitations

Human rights — Protection of fundamental human rights when Canadian officers investigating abroad — Effective participation in fight against transnational crime — Requirement that Canadian officials follow foreign laws and procedures — Comity — Whether foreign procedures violating fundamental human rights — Balance — Whether international law or Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms appropriate vehicle to achieve balance — Whether Charter applying extraterritorially

Comity — Comity of nations as interpretative principle — Appropriateness of comity — Whether any clear violations of international law — The law of Canada

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — Interpretation and application — Interpretation of Section 32(1) of Charter — Jurisdictional scope — Extraterritorial application — Canada’s obligations under international law — Principle of respect for sovereignty of foreign States — Principle of respect for territorial sovereignty of foreign States — Comity — Whether Charter of Rights and Freedoms applicable to acts of Canadian officials in territory under the jurisdiction of a foreign State — Whether applicability affected by fact that foreign State’s actions contrary to international law binding upon Canada — Canadian national detained at Guantánamo Bay — Whether Charter of Rights and Freedoms applicable to extent of Canadian participation in detention and proposed trial

Territory — Territorial sovereignty — Customary international law — Principle of respect for sovereignty of foreign State — Principle of sovereign equality — Whether extraterritorial application of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms interfering with sovereign authority of foreign State

Human rights — Protection of fundamental human rights when Canadian officers operating abroad — Requirement that Canadian officials follow foreign laws and procedures — Comity — Whether foreign procedures violating fundamental human rights — Whether Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applicable extraterritorially

Comity — Comity of nations as interpretative principle — Appropriateness of comity — Whether any clear violations of international law

War and armed conflict — Combatants — Detention and trial of enemy combatants — Detention of persons captured in Afghanistan conflict — Guantánamo Bay — Whether detention and proposed trial by military commission contrary to international law — The law of Canada

Human rights — Inhuman treatment — Protection of fundamental human rights when Canadian officers operating abroad — Requirement that Canadian officials follow foreign laws and procedures — Comity — Whether foreign procedures violating fundamental human rights — Whether Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applicable extraterritorially — Canadian officials interviewing Canadian national detained at Guantánamo Bay — National subjected to sleep deprivation by United States authorities — Whether engaging responsibility of Canada — Convention against Torture, 1984 — Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989 — Remedies

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — Interpretation and application — Interpretation of Section 32(1) of Charter — Jurisdictional scope — Extraterritorial application — Canada’s obligations under international law — Canadian national detained at Guantánamo Bay — Whether Charter of Rights and Freedoms applicable to extent of Canadian participation in detention and proposed trial — Remedies for violation of Charter rights — Conduct of foreign relations by the Government — Justiciability — Whether appropriate for Court to order that Government request United States authorities to repatriate Canadian national detained at Guantánamo Bay

War and armed conflict — Combatants — Detention and trial of enemy combatants — Detention of persons captured in Afghanistan conflict — Guantánamo Bay — Whether detention and proposed trial by military commission contrary to international law — The law of Canada

Human rights — Indigenous peoples — Property rights — Recognition of indigenous land rights — Indigenous Inughuit population of Thule in Greenland — ILO Convention No 169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, 1989 — Whether Inughuit constituting distinct indigenous people separate from main population within meaning of Convention — Forced resettlement in 1953 to make way for United States air base — Right to return — Right to compensation — United States — Denmark Agreement concerning the Defence of Greenland, 1951 — Whether providing adequate legal basis for expropriation and resettlement under municipal and international law — Whether satisfying requirements for legality under Danish Constitution

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaty obligations — Effect under municipal law — United States — Denmark Agreement concerning the Defence of Greenland, 1951 — Obligations of State in relation to private claimants — Memorandum of Understanding between States Parties to Agreement — Effect on rights of private claimants — Interpretation of treaties — ILO Convention No 169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, 1989 — The law of Denmark

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Ratification without reservation of international instrument — Incorporation in domestic legislation — Whether States obliged to mirror provisions of international instruments in domestic legislation — Margin of appreciation — Constitution of Kenya — Conflict between international law and domestic law — Bangalore Principles, 1989 — Supremacy of Constitution where clear and unambiguous — Inability of court to expand provisions of Constitution where clear and unambiguous

Human rights — Discrimination — Grounds for non-discrimination in international and domestic law — Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989 — African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, 1990 — Constitution of Kenya — Children Act 2001 of Kenya, Section 24(3) — Parental responsibility — Whether part of jus cogens — Parental responsibility for children born out of wedlock — Whether non-discrimination provisions under the Constitution and the Children Act 2001 of Kenya inconsistent — Whether non-discrimination provisions under Constitution and international obligations inconsistent — Whether vesting parental responsibility in mother in first instance discriminatory — Principle of equality and non-discrimination — Margin of appreciation — Whether distinction for legitimate purpose — Whether distinction reasonable in light of legitimate aim — The law of Kenya

Human rights — Refugees — Rights of refugees under international law and municipal law — Constitution of Kenya, Section 70(a) — United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 1951, Articles 31, 32 and 33 — Organization of African Unity Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa, 1969 — Obligations of States in refugee protection — Limitation of individual rights in international and municipal law — Obligations of asylum seekers to contact authorities in receiving State

Human rights — Refugees — Immigration Act, Sections 3 and 8 — Detention of prohibited immigrants — Repatriation — Whether extended detention contrary to rights under Constitution and international conventions — Whether failed repatriation rendered deportation orders invalid — Whether Sections 3 and 8 of Immigration Act contrary to provisions of Constitution — Whether continued detention of applicant unlawful — The law of Kenya

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — International human rights treaties and instruments — International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966 — International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 — Declaration of Human Rights of Individuals Who Are Not Nationals of the Country In Which They Live, 1985 — Constitution of Kenya 1963 — Interpretation — Whether Constitution of Kenya capable of giving effect to provisions of international human rights instruments to which Kenya a State party — Whether Constitution capable of giving effect to rights not expressly mentioned — Enforceability of rights by non-nationals

Human rights — Right to work and right to family life — Protection of rights to work and to family life under Constitution of Kenya 1963 and international human rights instruments — Enforceability of rights by non-nationals — Refusal of work permit — Whether refusal of work permit to non-national married to Kenyan national a breach of right to work and right to family life — Protection of fundamental rights in accordance with domestic law — Sections 5 and 8 of Immigration Act 1967 — Whether abuse of discretionary powers by executive — Whether reason and effect of denial of work permit a breach of applicant’s rights — Separation of powers — Role of executive in maintaining public order and acting in the public interest — The law of Kenya

Human rights — Right to life — Inhuman treatment and punishment — Mandatory death penalty — Whether contrary to customary international law — Whether inhuman — Constitution of Singapore — Whether prohibiting inhuman punishment — Equal protection of the laws — Whether violated by mandatory death penalty for trafficking more than specified quantity of drugs

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Customary international law — Whether part of the law of Singapore — Requirement that customary international law be adopted by the Singapore courts before forming part of Singapore law — Alleged customary international law rule prohibiting mandatory death penalty — Inconsistency with Singapore legislation

Sources of international law — Customary international law — Requirement of extensive and virtually uniform State practice — Whether rule of customary international law prohibiting the mandatory death penalty — Retention of mandatory death penalty by thirty-one States — Significance — The law of Singapore