Marine war risk insurance fundamentally contemplates casualties caused by international conflict. Curiously, however, standard clauses also exclude cover and automatically terminate war risk policies in the event of an outbreak of war between a select group of historically powerful States: China, France, the United Kingdom, the United States and Russia. This article aims to demystify the origins of this five-powers clause and evaluate its prospective application through the lens of an emerging breed of confrontation among the world's major powers.

In the past decade, the practice of investor–State arbitral tribunals addressing investment protection in the context of armed conflict and military occupation has expanded. This has prompted a growing interest in the relationship between international investment law and international humanitarian law (IHL), two regimes with markedly different relationships to war—IHL more pragmatic and international investment law more idealistic. This article argues that, while its lack of pragmatism might render international investment law ineffective in changing how war is conducted, it is the regime under which States are most likely to be held liable for the conduct of war. This is a result of its more robust primary obligations, more effective enforcement mechanisms and large awards of damages. Nevertheless, comparing international investment law and IHL does also reveal some similarities—the legacy, it is argued, of a time when the laws of war were more about protecting private property and neutral commerce than civilians. Putting these two regimes together in this way exposes international law's uneven distribution of protection in war.

The characterisation, legal status and future of islands are increasingly prominent in international and legal affairs. This emerging ‘legal era of islands’ demands a clearer understanding of the multiple distinctive legal issues that islands, whether as sub-national political units or as the territory of continental or mainland States, raise. This article conducts the first contemporary study of these issues by examining the international and constitutional legal status of island territories. It finds that although the relationship between islands and mainland States is characterised by incredible diversity, island territories are pursuing a range of innovative strategies to preserve and protect their autonomy.

This article examines reactions to the South China Sea and Chagos Marine Protection Area arbitrations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), in particular concerns about the potential widening of Part XV jurisdiction and its impact on the dispute resolution system's consent basis. It argues that assessing the impact of such cases involves a characterization of both the function of Part XV and of international judges. Ultimately, it suggests that the best test of whether UNCLOS case law has gone too far is the reaction of States in designing dispute settlement under the new Agreement under UNCLOS on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction.

Since the 1960s sign languages have been identified as natural human languages and conceived of as a key feature of Deaf culture and identity. Eschewing the notion of disability, deaf advocacy organisations have connected the use of sign language to linguistic and cultural rights. Despite the clear preference of deaf advocates, the legal protection of sign languages remains uneven and somewhat difficult to grasp, being situated at the intersection of disability rights and linguistic rights. Few attempts have been made to identify the extent to which sign languages are recognised and enshrined within domestic legal systems. This article aims to propose a novel taxonomy that focuses on the normative conceptualisation of sign language and deaf people in national legislation. Based on a comparative analysis and focusing on European Union Member States, it identifies three main approaches: an explicit ‘minority’ approach—ie the express recognition of deaf persons as a linguistic minority; a more nuanced ‘cultural approach’—which acknowledges sign language as autonomous language and provides for promotional measures; and a ‘disability’ approach—which mandates and/or promotes the use of sign language primarily as an accessibility measure.

The relationship between scholarship and adjudication has attracted considerable attention in recent years, especially in those areas where significant academic expertise has been developed and academic scrutiny of decisions is common. Yet the role of scholars and scholarship in the context of the adjudicatory practices of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has remained palpably under-investigated. This article begins to fill this gap in the literature by carrying out the first large-scale empirical study of the use of scholarship by the ECtHR. The authors rely on a purpose-built dataset comprising all the citations made by the Grand Chamber of the Court in judgments and separate opinions appended to it. The study finds that the Court's majority uses scholarship for the purposes of reviewing facts and interpreting international and domestic law but does so rarely. The majority of the ECtHR does not use scholarship to interpret the European Convention on Human Rights or for persuasive purposes, unlike the individual Judges in their separate opinions. Indeed, individual Judges refer to scholarship more often, for more varied and arguably different purposes. This use, however, is inconsistent in terms of both frequency and the types of sources referred to.

Constitutional courts operate under a framework of formal and informal rules. While formal rules have been extensively studied, our understanding of informal rules remains limited. Courts often rely on internal practices, traditions and unwritten customs developed over time, posing a significant challenge due to their hidden nature. Numerous constitutional courts lack detailed voting protocols in their statutes and internal regulations, leaving essential aspects to the court's discretion, such as, inter alia, the voting order, deliberation style, outcome versus issue voting and tie-breaking protocols. By employing a case study of strategic breaching of informal voting protocols in the Mexican Supreme Court, this article highlights the complexity of enforcing informal voting rules given that external actors may be unaware of them, along with other factors. Even when informal rules are broadly known, certain circumstances may diminish the efficacy of informal sanctions addressing their breach. Thus, key judicial players, such as chief justices or judge-rapporteurs, may take advantage of the informal rules of voting protocols to advance their policy preferences.

The United States and United Kingdom have carried out a series of strikes upon Yemeni territory since January 2024. The acting States have justified these on the basis of the right of self-defence in response to the series of attacks that have been perpetrated by the Houthi group in Yemen against various commercial and military vessels in the Red Sea. On the face of it this was a relatively straightforward justification. Yet, when subjected to analysis it becomes evident that not only is the justification itself not clear, but that the law governing the actions—the jus ad bellum—is not sufficiently settled to provide clear parameters by which to assess the legality of the strikes. Furthermore, the strikes themselves, and the purposes for which they were undertaken, may have set a precedent with unforeseeable consequences.

On 7 December 2022, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a treaty known as the Beijing Convention governing the recognition abroad of the international effects of judicial sales of ships. This article explores the rationale for a specific Convention on this issue, and its interaction with other relevant international conventions. It then analyses the recognition approach adopted by the Convention and evaluates its potential strengths and weaknesses. While some provisions might need further consideration, the overall conclusion is that the Beijing Convention has the potential to strengthen the legal certainty of the purchaser's title obtained via this sale mechanism and thus help debt recovery. Although common law jurisdictions might find it at odds with some of their features, the expected benefits from ratifying it seem to outweigh these issues and are already prompting a steady number of signatures, including those of China, the European Union and Singapore.