Arbitration — Jurisdiction — Admissibility — Scope of dispute — Indus Waters Treaty, 1960 — Procedure for settlement of disputes by arbitration — Appointment of seven-member Court of Arbitration — Disputes involving technical issues — Whether capable of resolution by arbitration — Whether requiring reference to neutral expert

Environment — Principles of customary international environmental law — Relevance to interpretation and application of treaty on use of river waters — Effect of hydro-electric plant on downstream use of river waters

Rivers — Legal regulation — Indus Waters Treaty, 1960 — Hydro-electric plant — Whether State constructing plant entitled to divert waters from one tributary of river to another — Whether such diversion necessary — Limits on right of diversion — Duty to preserve minimum flow for benefit of downstream use by other State

Treaties — Interpretation — Principles of interpretation — Object and purpose of treaty — Need to interpret provisions of treaty in mutually reinforcing fashion — Relevance of contemporary customary international law to interpretation of 1960 treaty — Environmental law — Application — Duty to apply treaty in good faith

International tribunals — Inter-American Court of Human Rights — Advisory jurisdiction — Whether Court possessing necessary competence to render advisory opinion — Member State of Organization of American States requesting opinion — Whether fulfilling requirements stipulated in Court’s Rules of Procedure in its application — Considerations of Court in deciding whether to accept or reject request for opinion — Scope of Article 64(1) of American Convention on Human Rights, 1969 — Whether Court having authority to interpret international treaties other than American Convention on Human Rights — Mexico’s questions involving international instruments — Interpretation of international instruments — Whether rendering opinion would weaken contentious jurisdiction or lessen protection afforded to victim — Whether reasons to decline request for opinion — Contentious cases before Inter-American Commission and International Court of Justice — Relevance — Article 64(1) of American Convention on Human Rights, 1969

Treaties — Interpretation — American Convention on Human Rights, 1969 — Article 64(1) of American Convention — Scope — Other treaties concerning protection of human rights in American States — Article 36 of Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963 — Articles 2, 6, 14 and 50 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 — Whether treaties concerning protection of human rights in American States — Relationship to safeguards guaranteeing protection of rights of persons facing death penalty and Vienna Convention on Consular Relations — American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, 1948 — Charter of Organization of American States, 1948, as amended

Consular relations — Right of access to consul for detained person — Right to be informed of right of access — Right of consul to be informed of detention — Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963, Article 36 — Character of rights conferred by Article 36 — Whether human rights of the individual detainee

Human rights — Right to information on consular assistance — Right to consular communication — Right to consular notification — Right to consular assistance — Article 36 of Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963 — Relationship to protection of human rights in American States — Characteristics of rights — Whether individual rights — Whether Vienna Convention on Consular Relations treaty concerning protection of human rights in American States — Enforceability of rights — Whether subject to protests of sending State — Meaning of “without delay” in Article 36(1)(b) — Crime punishable by death penalty — Relevance — Article 36 of Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963

Human rights — Right to information on consular assistance — Relationship to minimum guarantees of due process of law — Inherent rights of individual as recognized in International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, American Declaration, 1948, Charter of Organization of American States, 1948, as amended — Whether non-observance of right to information on consular assistance constituting violation of rights in Article 14 of ICCPR — Imposition of death penalty where non-observance of right to information — Whether violating right not to be arbitrarily deprived of one’s life — Article 4 of American Convention — Article 6 of ICCPR — Juridical consequences of violation

State responsibility — Obligation in international human rights treaties not to arbitrarily deprive of life — Article 4 of American Convention on Human Rights, 1969 — Article 6 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 — Right to consular information in death penalty cases — Article 36(1)(b) of Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963 — Failure by State to observe right to information — Whether violating right not to be arbitrarily deprived of one’s life — Juridical consequences of violation — Whether American States Parties to respective conventions having federal or unitary structure — Relevance for compliance with international obligations

State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — General rule that foreign State immune unless exception to immunity applicable — Canada State Immunity Act 1985 (“SIA”), Section 3(1) — Statutory exceptions to immunity — Section 6 of SIA — Whether applicable — Whether SIA complete codification of law of State immunity in Canada — Whether exceptions to immunity other than those contained in Section 6 of SIA — Whether SIA applicable to acts of torture — Whether foreign State having immunity — Whether Section 3(1) of SIA applicable to individual agents of foreign State — Whether nature of actions relevant

Relationship of international law and municipal law — State immunity — Canada State Immunity Act 1985 (“SIA”) — Interpretation — Scope — Whether SIA complete and clear codification of law of State immunity in Canada — Customary international law — Prohibition of torture — Jus cogens norm — Effect on SIA — Whether acts of torture falling within scope of State immunity under customary international law — Whether conflict between rules of jus cogens and rules of State immunity — Judgment of International Court of Justice — Whether SIA applying to acts of torture

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Convention against Torture, 1984 — Whether Article 14(1) of Convention imposing obligation on signatories to provide civil remedy for acts of torture including those committed outside its jurisdiction — Whether any subsequent binding developments in international law — Means of effecting change in Canadian law

Human rights — Torture — Damages — Civil proceedings against foreign State for acts of torture — Immunity from jurisdiction — Exceptions — Prohibition of torture constituting jus cogens norm — Whether customary international law rule of State immunity no longer extending to torture — Whether Canada State Immunity Act 1985 (“SIA”) applying to acts of torture — Article 14(1) of Convention against Torture, 1984 — Whether imposing obligation on signatories to provide civil remedy for acts of torture including those committed outside its jurisdiction

Human rights — Right to a fair hearing — Right to liberty — Whether Section 3(1) of SIA compatible with Section 2(e) of Canadian Bill of Rights — Whether Section 3(1) of SIA compatible with Section 7 of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — The law of Canada

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989 — African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, 1990 — Malawi Adoption of Children Act 1949 — Interpretation — Inter-country adoption — Residency requirement in Section 3(5) of Act — Constitution of Malawi — Malawi’s obligations under Convention and Charter — Whether Court constitutionally obliged to uphold binding international law — Foreign case law — Best interest of child paramount — Whether Malawi law allowing for inter-country adoption — The law of Malawi

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Customary international law — Whether breach of United Kingdom’s international obligations — Compliance by United Kingdom Government — Role of domestic courts — Justiciability — Conduct of foreign affairs — Rule of non-justiciability of high policy matters — Institutional competence — Comity — Elected representatives in democracy — Whether for domestic courts to decide appropriate foreign policy towards Israel — Whether claimant having standing to bring claim — The law of England

States — Recognition — Republic of Cyprus — Turkish Republic army invading Cyprus in 1974 — Occupation of northern Cyprus — Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (“TRNC”) declared in 1983 — Only Turkey recognizing TRNC as State — Republic of Cyprus not exercising sovereign jurisdiction over northern Cyprus — Republic of Cyprus acceding to European Union in 2004 — Article 1(1) of Protocol No 10 to Act of Accession suspending application of acquis communautaire to northern Cyprus — Dispute concerning title to land in northern Cyprus — Court in Republic of Cyprus rendering judgments on title to disputed land — Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Whether Cypriot judgments enforceable in United Kingdom

International organizations — European Union — Member States — United Kingdom Member State — Republic of Cyprus acceding to European Union in 2004 — Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Scope — Republic of Cyprus not exercising sovereign jurisdiction over northern Cyprus — Article 1(1) of Protocol No 10 to Act of Accession suspending application of acquis communautaire to northern Cyprus — Dispute concerning title to land in northern Cyprus — Court in Republic of Cyprus rendering judgments on title to disputed land — Recognition and enforcement of Cypriot judgments — Whether Article 1(1) of Protocol precluding United Kingdom court from recognizing and enforcing Cypriot judgments — Preliminary ruling from Court of Justice of the European Communities — Whether United Kingdom having obligation under Community law to recognize and enforce Cypriot judgments — Article 34 of Regulation prohibiting recognition manifestly contrary to public policy — International public policy — Relevance — United Kingdom’s international obligations — Whether recognition of Cypriot judgments liable to infringe fundamental principle in United Kingdom legal order — Whether Cypriot judgments enforceable in United Kingdom

Relationship of international law and municipal law — United Kingdom’s international obligations — United Nations Security Council Resolutions requiring respect for territorial integrity of Republic of Cyprus — Respect for courts as judicial arm of sovereign State — Obligations under Treaty of Guarantee — International public policy — Whether public policy applicable in United Kingdom to which enforcement of Cypriot judgments manifestly contrary — Article 34 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters

Treaties — Effect — Protocol No 10 to Act of Accession of Republic of Cyprus to European Union — Republic of Cyprus not exercising sovereign jurisdiction over northern Cyprus — Article 1(1) of Protocol suspending application of acquis communautaire to northern Cyprus — Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Applicability — Recognition and enforcement of Cypriot judgments — The law of England

Human rights — Remedies — Right to compensation — Statutory right for miscarriages of justice — Section 133 of Criminal Justice Act 1988 — Interpretation — Scope — Meaning of “miscarriage of justice” in first and second appeals — Satisfactory test — Whether proof of innocence necessary — Meaning of “a new or newly discovered fact” in first appeal — Article 14(6) of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 — Whether appellants entitled to compensation under Section 133 of Act

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 (“ICCPR”) — Criminal Justice Act 1988 — United Kingdom’s international obligation under Article 14(6) of ICCPR — Section 133 of Act giving effect to United Kingdom’s international obligation — Statutory interpretation — Correct construction of Section 133(1) of Act — Scope — Meaning of “miscarriage of justice” in first and second appeals — Satisfactory test — Whether proof of innocence necessary — Meaning of “a new or newly discovered fact” in first appeal — Whether appellants entitled to compensation under Section 133 of Act

Treaties — Interpretation — International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, Article 14(6) — Meaning of “miscarriage of justice” — Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 — Travaux préparatoires — Whether extrinsic material providing assistance in ascertaining meaning of “miscarriage of justice” — Autonomous meaning — Context of Article 14(6) of ICCPR in interpreting Section 133 of Criminal Justice Act 1988

Treaties — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 6(2) — Presumption of innocence — Whether denial of compensation under Section 133 of Criminal Justice Act 1988 infringing presumption of innocence in Article 6(2) — Protocol 7 to European Convention, Article 3 — Relevance — The law of England and Northern Ireland

Treaties — Interpretation — Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, 1980 — United States and Chile Contracting States to Convention — Congress implementing Convention provisions through International Child Abduction Remedies Act — Parent having ne exeat right under Chilean law — Whether constituting right of custody under Convention — Whether giving rise to return remedy — Text of Convention — Object and purpose of Convention — Views of United States Department of State — Case law of other Contracting States to Convention — Relevance — The law of the United States

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Recognition — Sovereignty — Status of Jerusalem — Jurisdiction — Subject-matter jurisdiction — Whether dispute justiciable — Political question doctrine — Petitioner United States citizen born in Jerusalem — Petitioner requesting place of birth in passport to be designated as Israel in accordance with Section 214(d) of Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2003 — State Department policy not to take position on political status of Jerusalem — Passport issued listing Jerusalem as birthplace — Petitioner filing claim against State Department invoking Act — Whether petitioner’s claim presenting political question — Separation of powers — Foreign affairs — Constitution delegating foreign affairs powers to Executive and Legislature — Whether petitioner asking Court to enforce specific statutory right — Constitutionality of Section 214(d) of Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2003 — The law of the United States

Sea — High seas — Piracy — Definition of crime of piracy — United States law defining piracy as defined by law of nations — Whether piracy narrowly defined as robbery at sea — Whether piracy encompassing violent conduct — Whether defendants guilty of crime of piracy under United States law — Whether defendants’ mandatory life sentences appropriate

Relationship of international law and municipal law — United States law incorporating law of nations in definition of crime of piracy — Interpretation of law of nations — Whether law of nations at time Congress passed United States law — Whether law of nations as evolved — Precedent — Alvarez-Machain — Treaties — Definition of piracy — Geneva Convention on the High Seas, 1958, Article 15 — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982, Article 101 — Customary international law — Intention of United States Congress — Whether defendants guilty of crime of piracy under United States law

Jurisdiction — Universal jurisdiction — Piracy — Universal jurisdiction crime — Whether United States Congress intending to define piracy as universal jurisdiction crime — The law of the United States

State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — Foreign Head of State — Determination of immunity by Executive Branch of United States Government — Common law precedent — Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act 1976 — Applicability — Foreign State’s entitlement to immunity — Whether FSIA addressing immunity of individual officials — Whether determination by Executive Branch that foreign Head of State immune from suit conclusive — Separation of powers — The law of the United States