Diplomatic relations — Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961 (“VCDR”) — Article 1(i) — Definition of “premises of the mission” — Circumstances under which a building may acquire status of “premises of the mission” under Article 1(i) of VCDR — Whether consent of receiving State necessary for a property to become “premises of the mission” pursuant to Article 1(i) of VCDR

Treaties — Interpretation — Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961 — Article 1(i) — Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 (“VCLT”) — Customary rules of treaty interpretation — Ordinary meaning — Context — Comparison with VCDR provisions concerning the treatment of diplomatic personnel — Object and purpose — Relevance of VCDR’s preamble to determining its object and purpose — VCDR founded on mutuality and respect between sovereign equals — Whether State practice in relation to the recognition of diplomatic status of premises amounting to subsequent practice within meaning of Article 31(3)(b) of VCLT — Article 1(i) of VCDR requiring the actual use of a building for it to qualify as “premises of the mission” — A receiving State may object to the sending State’s designation of “premises of the mission” — Objection had to be timely, non-arbitrary and non-discriminatory

International Court of Justice — Jurisdiction — Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights, 1955 between Iran and the United States of America (“1955 Treaty”) — Article XXI of the 1955 Treaty — Jurisdiction ratione materiae — Whether real issue in dispute concerning the 1955 Treaty — Whether Iran’s claims actually concerning the decision of United States of America to withdraw from the JCPOA — Whether possible for a State’s conduct to breach more than one legal instrument at the same time — Effect of Iran’s invocation of the compromissory clause under the 1955 Treaty on the dispute settlement mechanism of the JCPOA — Whether the 1955 Treaty covering measures relating to trade between Iran and third countries — Interpretation of Articles IV, V, VII, VIII, IX and X of the 1955 Treaty — Territorial scope of certain provisions of the 1955 Treaty — Link between determination of the content of third country measures — Merits of the case

International Court of Justice — Admissibility of Iran’s application — Abuse of process — Exceptional circumstances — Whether exceptional circumstances could justify finding that Iran’s application was an abuse of process — Whether Iran’s application could lead to Iran gaining an illegitimate advantage — Whether a claim based on a valid title of jurisdiction could be an abuse of process

Treaties — Interpretation — Application — Article XX(1)(b) and (d) of the 1955 Treaty — Measures relating to fissionable materials — Essential security interests — Whether objections under Article XX(1)(b) and (d) preliminary in character — Connection between Article XX(1)(b) and (d) and the examination at the merits stage

Economics, trade and finance — Economic sanctions — Sanctions imposed by the United States of America against Iran — Territorial extent — Whether capable of affecting rights under the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights, 1955, between Iran and the United States of America — Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice — Admissibility of application of Iran

Human rights — Right to fair trial — Right to legal representation — African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1981, Article 7 — Whether Tanzania violating right to fair trial — Right to equal protection under the law — Article 3 — Whether Tanzania violating Articles 3 and 7 of Charter

International tribunals — Jurisdiction — Admissibility — African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights — Material jurisdiction — Whether Court having jurisdiction to hear the application — Admissibility — Exhaustion of local remedies — Whether application filed within reasonable time

Human rights — Right to life — Right to dignity — Right to fair trial — Right to be heard within a reasonable time — Right to be heard by a competent court — African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1981, Articles 4, 5, 1, 7 — Obligation to give effect to rights in the Charter — Whether Tanzania’s imposition of mandatory death penalty violating applicants’ rights to life and dignity

International tribunals — Jurisdiction — African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights — Material jurisdiction — Whether Court having jurisdiction to hear the application — Admissibility — Whether application admissible — Exhaustion of local remedies — Whether application filed within a reasonable time

Human rights — Treaties — Scope of application — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 1 — Jurisdiction — Events in Crimea — Whether Russian Federation exercising jurisdiction over Crimea — Nature of jurisdiction under Article 1 of Convention — Territoriality principle — Whether facts complained of falling within jurisdiction of Russian Federation within meaning of Article 1 of Convention — Whether Russian Federation exercising effective control over Crimea during relevant period — Evidence — Military presence, strength and conduct — Whether Russian Federation adopting administrative practice of human rights violations in Crimea — Whether Russian Federation violating Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 14 of Convention, and Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 1 and Article 2 of Protocol No 4 to Convention — Complaints of administrative practice during relevant period in violation of Convention provisions — Whether admissible

Treaties — Ratification — Interpretation — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 1 — Concept of jurisdiction — Meaning of jurisdiction in public international law — Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 — Article 29 — Presumption jurisdiction exercised normally throughout State’s territory — Whether any assertion of change to status of Crimea by States upon ratification of European Convention — Whether Russian Federation having jurisdiction over Crimea — Assumption that nature of jurisdiction not territorial

International tribunals — European Court of Human Rights — Jurisdiction — Scope of case — Temporal scope of complaints — Whether interim measure to be lifted — Subject matter of dispute — Whether issue of legality, as matter of international law, of Crimea’s purported integration into Russian Federation constituting subject matter of dispute — Whether issues raised legal — Whether political aspects depriving questions of their legal character — Preliminary issues — Whether Russian Federation complying with any obligation under Article 1 of Convention — Preliminary objections — Whether application lacking requirements of genuine application — Whether Russian Federation’s preliminary objection of incompatibility ratione loci to be dismissed — Whether Court having competence under Article 19 of Convention — Whether preliminary objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies to be dismissed — Whether facts complained of falling within jurisdiction of Russian Federation within meaning of Article 1 of Convention — Whether Court having competence under Article 19 of Convention — Admissibility of complaints

Evidence before international courts and tribunals — European Court of Human Rights — Assessment of evidence — Approach to evidence — Types of evidence examined — Principles of assessment — Burden of proof — Standard of proof — As to alleged existence of an “administrative practice” — As to jurisdictional issues — Examination of admissibility of complaints in inter-State case

Arbitration — Convention on the Conservation and Management of High Seas Fishery Resources in the South Pacific Ocean, 2012 — Article 17 — Annex II — Allocation of fishery resources — Decision of the Commission of the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Organisation to allocate fishery resources — Objection to Commission decision by Ecuador — Whether decision of Commission unjustifiably discriminatory — Procedural discrimination — Substantive discrimination — Equivalent measures — Power of Review Panel to alter total allowable catch — Power of Review Panel to recommend extraordinary meeting of Commission of South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation

International organizations — South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation — Commission of the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation — Decision of the Commission to allocate fishery resources — Discretion of Commission when allocating fishery resources — Interests of developing States when allocating fishery resources — Whether Commission decision to allocate fishery resources inconsistent with Convention on the Conservation and Management of High Seas Fishery Resources in the South Pacific Ocean, 2012 — Whether Commission decision to allocate fishery resources unjustifiably discriminatory

Sea — Treaties — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 — United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement, 1995 — Convention on the Conservation and Management of High Seas Fishery Resources in the South Pacific Ocean, 2012 — High seas fishery resources — Regional fisheries management organizations — Interests of developing States when allocating fisheries resources — Conservation and management measures — Whether allocation of fisheries resources consistent with relevant treaties — Whether fishery resources within areas of national jurisdiction constituting a “reserve”

State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — Employment at United States air base in United Kingdom — Claim for unfair dismissal and unequal pay — State Immunity Act 1978 — Common law — Determination of sovereign functions — Environmental engineer — Whether environmental engineer performing sovereign functions — The law of England

Damages — Compensatory damages — Damages awarded to victims of State-sponsored terrorism — Availability of foreign State-owned property for attachment in aid of execution of judgment for damages — Assets of central bank — Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act 1976 — Section 1610 — Exceptions to immunity of State-owned property from attachment in aid of execution — Section 1611 — Assets of central bank immune from attachment in aid of execution — Terrorism Risk Insurance Act 2002 — Section 201(a) — Assets of terrorist party to be made available in aid of execution or attachment — Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act 2012 — Blocked assets of Government of Iran to be made available to the plaintiffs — Whether Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act 2012 violating United States Constitution

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights, 1955 — Effect in municipal law — Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act 2012 — Whether United States statute violating 1955 Treaty

State immunity — Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act 1976 — Terrorism exception to State immunity — Whether foreign State-owned property immune from attachment in aid of execution of judgment for damages — Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act 1976 — Terrorism Risk Insurance Act 2002 — Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act 2012 — Whether United States municipal law removing immunity of Iranian State property constitutional

Terrorism — State-sponsored terrorism — Damages — Ability of victims of State-sponsored terrorism to receive compensatory damages — State immunity — Ability of victims of State-sponsored terrorism to turn over State-owned property in aid of execution of judgment for compensatory damages

Treaties — Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights, 1955 — Effect in municipal law — Relationship between treaty and municipal law — Alleged conflict between treaty and municipal statute — Whether United States statute violating 1955 Treaty — The law of the United States

Expropriation — Domestic takings rule — Expropriation of nationals’ property — Whether international law of expropriation prohibiting taking of nationals’ property — Human rights — State immunity — Relationship between expropriation, human rights and State immunity

State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — Presumption that foreign State entitled to immunity unless one of exceptions to immunity applicable — Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act 1976 — Restrictive theory of sovereign immunity — Expropriation exception — Section 1605(a)(3) — Interpretation — Meaning of “in violation of international law” — Whether meaning limited to international law of expropriation — Whether international law prohibiting domestic takings — Whether meaning including violation of human rights law — Whether meaning including genocide — The law of the United States