The dispute over the Matthew and Hunter Islands (MHIs) has long been a constant strain on Vanuatu-French relations. The article examines this dispute in light of the Chagos Advisory Opinion and a few other cases concerning territorial disputes. It first submits that sovereignty over the MHIs had never been raised until 1962, when, at the occasion of a private claim, France and Britain, the two administering powers of the New Hebrides at that time, considered the issue. The two states reached an agreement in 1965, asserting that the MHIs were part of the French colony of New Caledonia and not the British-French Condominium of the New Hebrides. This article then considers the legal implications and lawfulness of the agreement, which did not take into account the local populations’ will. Although there are some important differences between the Chagos and MHIs disputes, mainly due to the fact that the MHIs are uninhabited, the applicability of the right of self-determination to both cases is nevertheless beyond doubt. The article contends therefore that the 1965 Agreement between France and Britain may constitute a violation of the right to self-determination of the people of the New Hebrides (Vanuatu), who were not consulted on the decision to attach the MHIs to the French territory of New Caledonia, and suggests that there may be, however, some other legal principles under international law that can come into play. Finally, the article contends that negotiated solutions could be a potential way forward for the parties involved.

The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) is one of the most important mega-regional trade agreements signed to date. Yet, it failed to include an Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism in its investment chapter. What explains this omission? To unpack this, we examine international negotiations as a two-step process. In the first stage, we theorize that initial preferences towards ISDS are based on countries’ orientation toward foreign direct investment (FDI), experience with ISDS, and past treaty practice. Second, we theorize that during protracted negotiations, adverse regime developments and domestic politics can have a profound impact on treaty design. To test our framework, we examine the RCEP negotiations. Our analysis shows that mounting cases as well as the eroding norm of ISDS in other treaties lowered support for ISDS as the negotiations progressed. Then, a change of government in Malaysia shifted that country’s position dramatically, which tipped the balance against ISDS in the final round of negotiations. Our findings have important implications for the international investment regime. They highlight the factors that determine countries’ initial preferences while also demonstrating the importance of developments during the negotiations, which can lead to the abandonment of the institutional status quo.

The March 2019 release of the Appellate Body's compliance report in United States – Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft (Second Complaint) marks yet another chapter in the ongoing Boeing–Airbus dispute. While raising numerous new and old subsidy issues, this paper focuses on one specific aspect, the evaluation of the financial contributions and benefits associated with the Department of Defense (DOD) R&D procurement contracts. The paper describes the differing views taken by the panels compared to the Appellate Body. It highlights two issues that led to an extremely lengthy proceeding: (1) the black or white nature of the decision regarding the characterization of contracts which have features of both purchases of services and joint ventures; and (2) the difficulty in demonstrating a financial contribution flowing from payments for R&D for military systems to Boeing's civil aircraft production. It concludes that this case represents a failure of the WTO dispute settlement system and underscores flaws in the ASCM in that after fifteen years of litigation, no determination was made as to whether or not the DOD R&D contracts examined here constituted impermissible subsidies.

State responsibility — Claims — Nationality of — Claim on behalf of United States shareholders of Canadian company — Whether company a United States national within meaning of Iran- United States Claims Settlement Declaration, 1981 — Articles 11(1) and VII(2) — Ownership interests of United States shareholders — Whether collectively sufficient to control company — Majority of shareholders reporting United States addresses — Majority of shares owned by United States citizens — Whether a reasonable inference — The law and practice of the Iran- United States Claims Tribunal

The individual in international law — Nationality — Nationality of corporations — Claim on behalf of United States shareholders of Canadian company — Whether company a United States national within meaning of Iran- United States Claims Settlement Declaration, 1981 — Articles 11(1) and VII(2) — Ownership interests of United States shareholders — Whether collectively sufficient to control company — Majority of shareholders reporting United States addresses — Majority of shares owned by United States citizens Whether a reasonable inference — The law and practice of the Iran United States Claims Tribunal

Disputes — Arbitration — Evidence — Nationality of claim of Canadian company — Majority of shareholders reporting United States addresses — Majority of shares owned by United States citizens — Whether a reasonable inference — Iran- United States Claims Settlement Declaration, 1981 — Articles II (1) and VII (2) — The law and practice of the Iran- United States Claims Tribunal

Disputes — Arbitration — Procedure — Competence — Purchase agreement between Iranian corporation and Swiss subsidiary of Canadian company — Jurisdiction over claim on behalf of United States shareholders — Iran-United States Claims Settlement Declaration, 1981 — Articles II (1) and VII (2) — Nationality of claim — Ownership interests of United States shareholders — Whether collectively sufficient to control Canadian company — Evidence — Majority of shareholders reporting United States addresses — Majority of shares owned by United States citizens — Whether a reasonable inference — The law and practice of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal

State responsibility — Nature and kinds of — For taking of, or interference with, property — Alleged expropriation of interests in a company — Claim under Iran-United States Claims Settlement Declaration, 1981 — Change in ownership of company — Whether constituting a change in control — The law and practice of the Iran- United States Claims Tribunal

Disputes — Arbitration — Procedure — Competence — Iran- United States Claims Settlement Declaration, 1981 — Jurisdiction over claim by dual national — The law and practice of the Iran- United States Claims Tribunal

The individual in international law — Nationality — Double nationality — Principle of dominant and effective nationality — Recognition of nationality — Claim by dual national under Iran-United States Claims Settlement Declaration, 1981 — Iran-United States Claims Tribunal — Jurisdiction — State responsibility — For alleged expropriation of interests in a company — Change in ownership of company — Whether constituting a change in control — The law and practice of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal

State responsibility — Nature and kinds of — For breaches of treaty obligations — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Lawyers’ obligation to defend accused without payment — Whether constituting forced or compulsory labour — Whether discrimination compared to other professions — Deprivation of property rights — Whether applicable to remuneration of services

Treaties — Interpretation of — Miscellaneous — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Whether case raises serious questions of interpretation — Meaning of phrase “forced or compulsory labour” — Lack of definition in Convention — Interpretation in light of International Labour Organization Conventions

Disputes — Other international courts — European Court of Human Rights — Whether case raises serious questions affecting interpretation of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Jurisdiction of Chamber of Court — Whether to be relinquished in favour of plenary Court

The individual in international law — In general — Human rights and freedoms — Lawyers’ obligation to defend accused without payment — Whether constituting forced or compulsory labour — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 4 — Meaning of phrase “forced or compulsory labour” — International Labour Organization conventions — Principle of proportionality — Balance between aim pursued and obligations undertaken to achieve it — Discrimination — Article 14 in conjunction with Article 4 — Obligations imposed on lawyers and members of other professions — Whether comparable — Property rights — Deprivation of — Article 1 of First Protocol — Whether applying to remuneration of services — Expenses not reimbursed — Whether constituting an interference with possessions — Whether case raises serious questions affecting interpretation of Convention — Jurisdiction of Chamber of European Court of Human Rights — Whether to be relinquished in favour of plenary Court

State responsibility — Nature and kinds of — For breaches of treaty obligations — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 6(3)(c) — Right to defence counsel — Absence of sufficient means to pay for legal assistance — Whether interests of justice require granting of legal assistance for hearings — Just satisfaction in respect of breach established — Article 50

State responsibility — Damages (Measure of damages) — Grounds for awarding damages — Just satisfaction in respect of breaches of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 50 — Non-pecuniary loss — Whether established — Whether redress already furnished by finding of violation — Legal costs and expenses

The individual in international law — Aliens — Position of — Treatment by and responsibilities of the receiving State — Right to defence counsel — Absence of sufficient means to pay for legal assistance — Whether interests of justice require granting of legal assistance for hearings before court — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 6(3)(c)

Disputes — Other international courts — European Court of Human Rights — Proceedings for just satisfaction in respect of established breach of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 50 — Request to annul local judgment and direct respondent Government to disavow passages therein — Whether within powers of Court

The individual in international law — In general — Human rights and freedoms — Right to defence counsel — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 6(3)(c) — Absence of sufficient means to pay for legal assistance — Whether interests of justice require granting of legal assistance for hearings — Right to a fair trial — Article 6(1) — Whether issue absorbed by Court’s findings on Article 6(3)(c) — Just satisfaction in respect of breach established — Article 50 — Request to annul local judgment and direct respondent Government to disavow passages therein — Whether within powers of Court — Non-pecuniary loss — Whether established — Whether redress already furnished by finding of violation — Legal costs and expenses

State responsibility — Nature and kinds of — For breaches of treaty obligations — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Civil proceedings — Right to a public pronouncement of judgment — Whether to be interpreted literally — Special features of particular proceedings — Right to a hearing within a reasonable time — Reasonableness of length of proceedings — Circumstances to be taken into account

Treaties — Interpretation of — Principles and rules of interpretation — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 6(1) — Literal interpretation — Object and purpose of provision

Disputes — Other international courts — European Court of Human Rights — Whether case raises serious questions affecting interpretation of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Jurisdiction of Chamber of Court — Whether to be relinquished in favour of plenary Court

The individual in international law — In general — Human rights and freedoms — Civil proceedings — Right to public pronouncement of judgment — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 6(1) — Whether requiring that judgment be read aloud — Object and purpose of Article 6 — Form of publicity — Assessment in light of special features of particular proceedings — Entirety of proceedings to be taken into account — Whether deposit of judgment in court registry sufficient — Right to a hearing within a reasonable time — Reasonableness of length of proceedings — Circumstances to be taken into account — Complexity of the case — Conduct of applicant and authorities — Whether case raises serious questions affecting interpretation of Convention — Jurisdiction of Chamber of European Court of Human Rights — Whether to be relinquished in favour of plenary Court

Jurisdiction — In general — Territorial — Expropriation of alien property — Foreign shareholders in Iranian joint stock public company — Governmental control of corporate entity — Government appointed board of directors — Whether amounting to a “taking”of property — Iran- United States Claims Settlement Declaration, 1981 — The law and practice of the Iran- United States Claims Tribunal

State responsibility — Damages (Measure of damages) — Award of damages in general — Grounds for awarding damages — Expropriation of foreign property — Whether giving rise to obligation to compensate — Standard of compensation — Valuation of property — The law and practice of the Iran- United States Claims Tribunal

The individual in international law — Aliens — Position of — Respect for property — Expropriation — Indirect foreign ownership of public joint stock company — Assumption of control by State authorities — Whether amounting to expropriation — Compensation — Iran- United States Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights, 1955 — Whether applicable to non — nationals of State parties — The law and practice of the Iran- United States Claims Tribunal

Treaties — Conclusion and operation of — Effect of treaties on third parties — Iran- United States Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights, 1955 — Whether protection extends to nonnationals of either State party — Iran- United States Claims Settlement Declaration, 1981 — The law and practice of the Iran- United State Claims Tribunal

Disputes — Arbitration — Miscellaneous — Award on agreed terms by Iran- United States Claims Tribunal — Concurring opinion — Meaning of — Whether appropriate — The law and practice of the Iran- United States Claims Tribunal

State responsibility — Nature and kinds of — For taking of, or interference with, property — Iranian public joint stock company — Indirect foreign ownership — Assumption of control by State authorities — Replacement of elected board of directors — Preclusion of shareholders from participation in management — Whether amounting to expropriation — Whether giving rise to obligation to compensate — Iran- United States Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights, 1955 — Applicability to nonnationals of State parties — Customary international law — Standards of compensation — Prompt, adequate and effective — Whether date of expropriation to be date of valuation — Whether responsibility for diminution in value due to revolution occurring prior to expropriation — Iran- United States Claims Settlement Declaration, 1981 — Award on agreed terms — Concurring opinion — The law and practice of the Iran- United States Claims Tribunal

International law in general — Sources — Decisions of international tribunals — Writings of legal scholars — Claim under Iran-United States Algiers Declarations, 1981 — The law and practice of the Iran- United States Claims Tribunal

Disputes — Arbitration — In general — Conception and function of arbitration — Iran- United States Claims Tribunal — Function of Scope of responsibility — Whether a substitute for the national courts — The law and practice of the Iran- United States Claims Tribunal

Disputes — Arbitration — In general — The law applied by arbitral tribunals — Iran- United States Algiers Declarations, 1981 — Jurisdiction over claims by dual nationals — Hague Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Laws, 1930 — Decisions of international tribunals — The law and practice of the Iran- United States Claims Tribunal

Disputes — Arbitration — Procedure — Competence — Iran- United States Algiers Declarations, 1981 — Jurisdiction over claim by dual national — The law and practice of the Iran- United States Claims Tribunal

The individual in international law — Nationality — Double nationality — Principle of dominant and effective nationality — Recognition of nationality — Hague Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Laws, 1930 — Articles 4 and 5 — Principle of non — responsibility — Whether limited by principle of effective nationality — Examination of decisions of international tribunals and writings of legal scholars — Iran-United States Algiers Declarations, 1981 — General structure and circumstances of conclusion — Iran-United States Claims Tribunal — Function of — Scope of responsibility — The law and practice of the Iran- United States Claims Tribunal

State responsibility — Nature and kinds of — For breaches of treaty obligations — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Violation established — Just satisfaction — Material loss — Causal link between claims and breach of Convention — Non-pecuniary damage — Whether finding of violation already furnishes sufficient just satisfaction — Legal costs and expenses — Whether reasonable and actually incurred

State responsibility — Damages (Measure of damages) — Grounds for awarding damages — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 50 — Just satisfaction in respect of breach established — Material loss — Non-pecuniary damage — Legal costs and expenses

Disputes — Other international courts — European Court of Human Rights — Proceedings for just satisfaction under European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Request to defer judgment until national courts’ final decision on reparation — Whether suspension of proceedings would hinder proper administration of justice

The individual in international law — In general — Human rights and freedoms — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Violation of right to a hearing within a reasonable time established — Article 50 — Just satisfaction — Request to defer judgment until national courts' final decision on reparation — Whether suspension of proceedings would hinder proper administration of justice Material loss — Causal link between claims and breach of Convention — Non-pecuniary damage — Whether finding of violation sufficient just satisfaction — Particular circumstances to be taken into account — Legal costs and expenses — Whether reasonable and actually incurred — Proceedings before national courts — Proceedings before Convention institutions

State territory — In general — Nature of territorial sovereignty — Violation of territorial sovereignty — Clandestine operations conducted by agents of one State upon territory of another — Compensation

State responsibility — Nature and kinds of — For breaches of treaty obligations — Violation of Article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations — Ship sunk and crewman killed by agents of one State in the territory of another — Responsibility of State whose agents carried out the attack

State responsibility — Claims — Nationality of claims — Ship sunk and crewman killed by agents of one State in territory of another — Right of State in which sinking occurred to claim — Deceased possessing nationality of third State — Ship flying flag of third State — Ship owned by nationals of third State

State responsibility — Damages — Award of damages in general — Grounds for awarding damages — Infringement of territorial sovereignty — Whether ground for award of damages — Whether State whose territory violated entitled to damages for violation as well as for material loss

Disputes — Miscellaneous — Reference of dispute between States to Secretary-General of the United Nations — Binding quality of ruling — Procedure

State responsibility — Nature and kinds of — For wrongs unconnected with contractual obligations — Acts and omissions of State organs and officials — Executive action — Infringement of territory of State carried out by agents of foreign State — Clandestine operations in territory of other State — Sinking ship by placing explosives — Violation of territorial sovereignty — Violation of Charter of the United Nations — International responsibility

Claims — Damages — Whether State entitled to damages for infringement of territorial sovereignty as well as for material loss — Nationality of claims — State in whose territory attack occurred not entitled to claim for death of foreign national or damage to foreign ship — Whether entitled to take interest in settlement of such claims in context of overall settlement of inter-State claims

Criminal responsibility of individual State agents — Whether guilty of terrorist acts — Plea of superior orders — Principles in imposing prison sentences — Release as part of overall settlement — The law of New Zealand

Disputes — Miscellaneous methods of settlement — Reference to United Nations Secretary-General — Binding force of ruling — Procedure