This article proposes a new model for the engagement of sub-state units with the international legal order. “Trialogical subsidiarity” acknowledges that some areas are best regulated locally, but it also argues that international law has an increasing say in areas traditionally reserved for local law. The implementation of an international cultural heritage treaty by constituent units (CUs) in federal states, despite objections of the federal authorities, is a case study for the possibilities and implications of the use of international law by CUs without the filtering of the central state. This use enhances the legitimacy of international law and can lead to better outcomes for local populations, moving international law closer to its promise of being a law of peoples rather than of states.

The fact that children are drawn to join the ranks of armed forces or non-state armed groups is a scourge that persists despite concerted efforts to eradicate the practice. No facet of this reality is perhaps more shocking than children’s direct participation in hostility, in that it raises the spectre of combatants directly targeting children. International humanitarian law has been largely silent on this specific aspect of child soldiering, leaving armed forces to improvise their stance when confronted with child soldiers on the battlefield. The Canadian Armed Forces in 2017 adopted what is said to be the first official military doctrine on child soldiers. This article analyzes this doctrine in light of the regulation of the use of force against child soldiers under international humanitarian law. It assesses whether children can ever be full-fledge combatants, when they can be considered civilians directly participating in hostilities, and, if children can be directly targeted, what limits humanitarian law imposes on the means and measures of war employed against them.

A solely legalistic analysis of China’s South China Sea claims has given way to speculation regarding their exact nature. Scholars and the tribunal in Philippines v China have collectively described China’s position as “ambiguous” and “vague.” For others, China’s regulatory framework sets dangerous new precedents in the areas of effective occupation, historic rights, and exclusive economic zones. This article seeks to nuance these assessments. Contextualizing China’s framework within a broader geopolitical project reveals a China exploiting historic legal precedents in a manner reminiscent of imperial America. This should cast doubt on those too quick to see China as a rule-breaking new power eager to upset international norms. Rather, China’s “Caribbean” is a microcosm for a new great power coming into its own following an existing model.

The independence and impartiality of the judge or arbitrator are fundamental aspects of any adjudicative proceedings, whether at the domestic or international level. Such qualities may be affected by “particular situations” preventing a member of the court or tribunal from participating in a given case. This in turn gives rise to two types of incidental procedure: “recusal” (or disqualification) and “abstention,” both of which are domestic law mechanisms applied — not unreservedly — to international litigation. It should be added that the procedures in question do not have a single aim. Their purpose may be to ensure the impartiality of the proceeding (self-recusal or disqualification of the member of the adjudicative body) or to call into question the very possibility of conducting legal proceedings (spontaneous withdrawal of the arbitrator, or refusal to sit at the instigation of the appointing state). This article deals with these incidental procedures by examining the basic texts and the practice of international courts and tribunals.

Outer space is becoming a more accessible and less expensive domain in which to operate. Consequently, growing numbers of state and non-state actors (NSAs) are operating in, to, and through space. At the same time, instances of space-based and ground-based interference with space systems are also increasing, disrupting crucial space-supported services and applications relied on by millions, with great financial and operational costs. The increased participation of NSAs in space activities raises particular concerns, especially the threat of intentional interference with space systems by nefarious actors like terrorist organizations. It also requires consideration of whether states bear responsibility and/or liability for the acts of NSAs with a nexus to those states. At first glance, it is tempting to conclude that one or more normative legal regimes would apply. The potential regimes include international space law, international telecommunications law, and the law of state responsibility. On further examination, however, when it comes to interference, there appears to be no effective legal mechanism to hold states accountable for NSA interference with space systems, which can be exploited by NSAs and challenge efforts by states to enforce “good” behaviour.

The Monsanto International Tribunal, a creation of civil society, sat at The Hague in October 2016. In its “Advisory Opinion” of 18 April 2017, this popular tribunal assessed Monsanto’s conduct under international law with regard to the right to a healthy environment, the right to food, the right to health, scientific freedom, as well as war crimes and ecocide. This article analyzes that opinion and situates it in its international legal context. Given that Monsanto did not participate in the proceedings, the question of a fair trial — which can have a decisive impact on the content of the opinion — is the first issue examined. In regard to the opinion itself, the findings are measured: the Tribunal concluded that Monsanto clearly violated human rights, but not international criminal law under existing legal standards. Given that, the Tribunal suggested two measures to redress the imbalance of the international legal order: on the one hand, to establish a hierarchy in favour of human rights and, on the other hand, to make companies direct bearers of international obligations deriving from these rights.

This article deals with the implementation, at the national level, of European human rights protection standards as enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). It discusses the principles of interpretation of the ECHR by the ECtHR, the interaction and mutual dialogue between the ECtHR and national courts, and the approach of the latter to interpretation and application of the case law of the ECtHR. Using the concrete examples of France and the Czech Republic as case studies, it is shown to what extent and how European constitutional courts take into account and apply the letter of the Convention and its interpretation by the ECtHR.

This article deals with the Protocol on Amendments to the Protocol on the Statute of the African Court of Justice and Human Rights. In particular it analyzes the legal issues arising from the jurisdiction of the court’s proposed International Criminal Law Section over corporations. After underlining the historic opportunity represented by this initiative, the author points out a number of challenges that will necessarily arise when the court begins to operate. These problems are mainly related to the fact that criminal law has developed around the criminal liability of natural persons. Overcoming these challenges will require rethinking how to apply many of the basic principles that traditional criminal law has, until now, taken for granted.

This article reviews recent cases from Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States involving state immunity from execution and suggests the burden on creditors to disprove this immunity is excessively onerous. While the problem is much belaboured, few solutions have been explored or implemented. This article proposes that in the Canadian context, adjusting the evidentiary burden on parties to an execution immunity dispute would improve the ability of creditors to obtain fair payment from debtor states, without infringing state sovereignty.