This article examines the precedential value of Russia’s ‘special military operation’ against Ukraine in February 2022 for the purpose of interpreting the rules of jus contra bellum. Following the methodology set down by the ICJ in its Nicaragua judgment, self-defence is identified as the legal basis explicitly invoked by Russia in order to justify its operation in Ukraine. The authors then examine closely the reactions by third states with respect to the legality of Russia’s military operation and establish that the legal arguments put forth by Russia – including, more specifically, an innovative reading of the right to self-defence of entities unilaterally recognized as states – have been overwhelmingly rejected by third states. On that basis, the authors conclude that this precedent does not challenge the established understanding of the prohibition to use force in international relations and of its exceptions.

Entities seeking to establish statehood have used participation in sport to bolster their claims. Kosovo is the latest entity to use this strategy. Kosovo’s quest to join the Union of European Football Associations led to a 2017 Court of Arbitration for Sport decision examining whether Kosovo was sufficiently an “independent state.” This article considers how participation in sport plays a role in establishing a broader, contextual conceptualization of statehood. This article then applies this concept to case studies, with particular attention paid to Kosovo. Finally, the article examines sport’s gradual acceptance that it must work within the broader international political and legal world.

In Zivotofsky v. Kerry, decided June 8, 2015, the United States Supreme Court (Court) held unconstitutional a federal statute that permitted U.S. citizens born in Jerusalem to designate “Israel” as their place of birth on their passports, notwithstanding the secretary of state’s decision that such passports should designate “Jerusalem” as the place of birth. The opinion resolved a relatively narrow question of law (the constitutionality of an unusual statute), but the justices’ reasoning and language are of potentially broad significance and will provide fodder for many doctrinal debates in U.S. foreign relations law.

Lawyers have begun to think of the legal events and institution-building related to the demise of Yugoslavia as raising new hope for international law. The recognition of newly self-determining sovereign entities that was facilitated by the European Community, together with the creation by the UN Security Council of an international criminal tribunal, constitute instances of newfound political authority over political disputes. On the other hand, close examination of the recognition process of the European Community and the constitutional stature of the ad hoc criminal court reveals political considerations to have dominated normative principles. Thus, while in form the legal events surrounding the Yugoslavia conflict seem to reflect the triumph of internationalism over the force of sovereignty, in substance they reflect precisely the opposite. In analyzing these legal pronouncements through the lens of the fantasy stories of Jorge Luis Borges, one can begin to appreciate international law's conceptual embarrassment of riches. For this is all a dream we dreamed one afternoon long ago.Hunter & Lesh, Box of Rain.

Recognition of States — Effect of Non — Recognition — Belligerent Parties — Non — Recognition of Israel by Egypt.

Belligerent Parties — Effect of Non-Recognition of One Belligerent as a State — Non-Recognition of Israel by Egypt.

Existence of State of War — Municipal Ruling thereon — Whether Conclusively Binding on Prize Court — Non-Recognition of Opposing Belligerent as a State — Effect of Non-Recognition on Belligerency — Recognition by Other States — Non-Recognition of Israel by Egypt.

Recognition of States — Effect of Non — Recognition of Israel by Egypt — Belligerent Rights of Egypt.

International Canals — Suez Canal — Convention of 1888 — Exercise of Belligerent Rights by Egypt.

Prize Law — Visit and Search — Conditions of — Position of Customs Officers — Contraband — Seizure of — Enemy Destination Possible though Not Established — Burden of Proof — Effect of Absence of Formal Declaration of War — Hostilities between Egypt and Israel in 1948 — Suez Canal Convention, 1888 — Effect on Belligerent Rights of Egypt.

Recognition of States — Nature of — Conditions of — Elements of.

Boundaries — Absence of Fixed Boundaries — Effect on Jurisdiction — Question of Recognition.

Establishment of New States — Territory of New States — Recognition — Whether Constitutive or Declaratory — Recognition de jure and de facto — Implied Recognition and Recognition by Conclusion of a Treaty — Absence of Recognition by Parent State — Importance of Fixed Boundaries for the Existence of States — The Treaty of Versailles and the Establishment of Poland — Absence of Formal Cession on the Part of Russia.

Recognition of States — Revocability of — Recognition of Esthonia by Great Britain.

Jurisdiction — Territorial — Effect of Condemnation of Ship as Lawful Prize by Governmental Decree.

Recognition of States — De facto Independence — Recognition Provisionally and Subject to Reservations — Esthonian National Council.

Recognition of States — Absence of Formal Recognition — Co-operation of British Armed Forces with those of Foreign Provisional Government — Representation of Great Britain by a Commissioner — Statement by the British Foreign Office.

Mandated Territories — Syria as an Independent State — Position of Syrian Nationals in regard to Capitulations.

Recognition of States — Implied Recognition of — Effect of Treaty Creating New States — Egypt and the Treaty of Lausanne — Mandated Territories — Status of Nationals.

Recognition of States — Modes of Recognition — Recognition of Czechoslovakia — Whether effected by the Peace Treaties.

Establishment of New State — Time of Coming into Existence of the Czechoslovak State — Effect of the Treaties of Peace — Recognition — How far affected by Treaties.

Recognition of States — Effect upon National Status of Inhabitants — Upon Alien Character of Residents therein.

Effect of War on Private Rights — Claims for Compensation — Running of Statute of Limitation — Recognition of States — Effect of on Alien Character of Residents therein.