This article explores the quest for sovereign equality by China and Japan as it unfolded in a specific historical moment, the third quarter of the nineteenth century. It does so by focusing on the debate around the ‘coolie trade’, i.e., the traffic of Chinese indentured labourers, which offered an opportunity for non-Western countries such as China and Japan to position themselves with respect to Western conceptions of ‘modernity’ or ‘civilization’ and thereby advance their quest for ‘parity with all nations’. Through a study of the Maria Luz case, decided in the early 1870s by Czar Alexander II and drafted by de Martens, the article sheds light on the different approaches of Japan and China with respect to international law at this critical historical juncture. Specifically, it shows that, although the coolie trade mostly affected China, it was Japan who first managed to reap a parity dividend by firmly condemning the practice, whereas China’s action was steered by the circumstances. Eventually, however, China’s growing interest in Chinese populations abroad paved the way for the establishment of its first permanent diplomatic representations overseas. For both countries, the events encapsulated by the Maria Luz case unveil an important, yet overlooked, moment in their quest for parity with all nations and, more generally, in their engagement with international law.

In response to the BVerfG’s PSPP judgment, the CJEU issued an unprecedented press release in which it claimed that national courts must give full effect to EU law because this is the only way to ensure the equality of the Member States. While the press release does not contain the word “primacy,” the obligation to give full effect to EU law clearly implies primacy of EU law. This article provides a constructive and critical analysis of the press release’s “equality argument.” First, it demonstrates how the CJEU most likely borrowed it from a recent article by Federico Fabbrini, and how the argument is virtually identical to Kelsen’s defense of international law primacy. Second, it criticizes the equality argument for being inconsistent with the CJEU’s case law, and shows how it is either wrong or tautological. After suggesting three possible reasons why the press release nonetheless justifies primacy in this way, the article concludes by showing how the CJEU’s case law is better conceptualized from a Hamiltonian perspective in which full effect is a goal rather than a means.

With the Timor-Leste v Australia spying scandal before the International Court of Justice, cyber espionage operations like GhostNet and the wiretapping of German chancellor Angela Merkel, legal questions on the legality of peacetime espionage arise. Peacetime espionage, however, is almost completely unregulated by international law and has no agreed upon legal definition. Scholarly work on this matter is scarce. Against this background, there is critical need for an in-depth public international law assessment of peacetime espionage. This article analyzes this very issue and examines the legality of peacetime espionage in light of classical notions of public international law.

This article takes Pieter Kooijmans’ 1964 book as the launching point for a discussion of contemporary issues relating to the legal equality of States in the context of immunity from suit. It assesses the strengths of the ‘Grundnorm’ of sovereign equality and examines whether it has any real role to play in providing answers to current problems, including whether immunity should be set aside in the face of claims that a foreign State or its agent has committed human rights violations. Close attention is paid to the 2012 Judgment of the International Court of Justice in the Jurisdictional Immunities of the State case. That Judgment demonstrates that sovereign equality has not yet been replaced as the generating principle of law in the realm of immunity. At the same time, there is an emerging alternative approach centered on the individual rather than the State.

This paper explores some of the major changes in the practices of international organizations that have occurred in the decades since The Doctrine of the Legal Equality of States was published. First, much international law-making in contemporary international organizations consists of regulation and administration whose creation, content and application differs significantly from that of traditional forms of international legislation associated with international organizations. Second, in a highly fragmented international legal order, twenty-first century international organizations increasingly interact with each other in a wide variety of law-making and operational capacities. Given these changing roles and activities, it is no longer sufficient to view international organizations primarily as fora through which other actors – typically states – pursue their interests. Rather, twenty-first century international organizations often pursue their own goals and agendas as autonomous actors in international affairs. These developments have rendered traditional debates over sovereign equality within international organizations substantially less salient than they were when Legal Equality was written. In the future, the cutting-edge doctrinal and jurisprudential issues raised by twenty-first century international organizations largely will arise out of interactions among international organizations. As a result, legal scholars should shift their attention from inter-state interactions and processes within any particular IO to interactions and processes among twenty-first century IOs. Of course, decentering sovereign equality does not mean that the international system should celebrate or enshrine legal inequality. Rather, the international community should develop other concepts that incorporate the notions of inclusiveness and egalitarianism associated with sovereign equality, but that are more applicable to the actions of twenty-first century IOs.

A quarter-century ago in the Nicaragua judgment, the International Court of Justice insisted that to disallow a state's adherence to any particular governmental doctrine ‘would make nonsense of the fundamental principle of State sovereignty, on which the whole of international law rests, and the freedom of choice of the political, social, economic and cultural system of a State’ (para 263). The Court invoked the 1970 Friendly Relations Declaration and related documents that ‘envisage the relations among States having different political, economic and social systems on the basis of coexistence among their various ideologies’ (para 264). Although the continued relevance of this model of sovereign equality has since been called into question – above all, in the name of human rights, international criminal justice, and the ‘responsibility to protect’ – no systematic replacement has emerged. Notwithstanding some modification and erosion, the sovereign equality principle continues to have significant (and worthy) implications for legal relations between liberal and non-liberal states.

This article examines the existence, nature, and content of the non-intervention principle in contemporary international law, concentrating on the application of the principle to areas other than the use of force. It looks at the historical development of the principle and the sources and evidence of the law, in particular resolutions of the UN General Assembly, the decisions of the International Court of Justice, and the practice of states. The article then considers some specific treaty-based applications of the principle, and explores how far the principle may apply to non-treaty, non-forcible situations. It next considers a number of circumstances that may preclude the wrongfulness of intervention (Security Council authorization, consent, and countermeasures), before drawing some tentative conclusions.

The disciplines of international law and geopolitics have evolved around the same object – the exercise of State power in space. But the interaction between geopolitical and legal categories has not been properly examined yet. Similar to international law, geopolitics focuses on certain, albeit not formally binding, laws that govern or explain the conduct of States in relation to space. There is room for the geopolitical laws reasoning to lead to outcomes that differ from those required under international legal obligations of States. In other cases, geopolitical laws and reasoning could actually explain why certain international legal rules and institutions are what they are. This contribution is the first attempt to study geopolitics and international law in parallel to each other. It is demonstrated that the evolution of geopolitical thinking, whether as part of a particular expansionist or containment agenda or as scientific approach, has constantly reflected on the categories of international law, and also has been used in practice by States to justify their particular conduct in defiance of international legal requirements. At the same time, international law has traditionally left to States the room for pursuing their geopolitical agenda without breaking the requirements of international law. It is here that the significance of geopolitical factors for international law becomes clear, as the allegedly lawful expansionist action by States can lead, and has repeatedly led, to reactions that involve breaches, and potentially damage the integrity, of international law. Despite geopolitical agenda being allegedly lawful, it still has to observe certain geopolitical laws in order to avoid broader negative repercussions both for that agenda and for international law.

Along with the exploding attention to globalization, issues of global justice have become central elements in political philosophy. After decades in which debates were dominated by a state-centric paradigm, current debates in political philosophy also address issues of global inequality, global poverty, and the moral foundations of international law. As recent events have demonstrated, these issues also play an important role in the practice of international law. In fields such as peace and security, economic integration, environmental law, and human rights, international lawyers are constantly confronted with questions of global justice and international legitimacy. This special issue contains four papers which address an important element of this emerging debate on cosmopolitan global justice, with much relevance for international law: the principle of sovereign equality, global economic inequality, and environmental law.