This chapter provides an in-depth analysis of the role reciprocity plays in treaties. First looking at treaty law and how reciprocity functions in the rules on reservations to treaties, the chapter goes on to examine reciprocity’s role in bilateral treaties, drawing on the examples of air transport agreements and energy agreements in particular, before looking at reciprocity’s role in multilateral treaties of the bilateralizable, interdependent, and integral types. It then analyzes treaties creating international organizations, particularly the EU and ILO, and differentiated obligations in environmental and trade law, illustrating how reciprocity operates in these types of instrument. Finally, the chapter addresses "objective regimes" and the effects of treaties on third parties. While some limitations exist on reciprocity, these do not depend on the substance of obligations but rather on the legal equality of the subjects involved.

This unit expands material on leisure and routine activities by adding vocabulary associated with the months of the year, important dates in the Hispanic calendar, as well as the seasons of the year in relation to weather and celebrations. It also explores the differences between English and Spanish with regard to the comparison of adjectives. Students can thus use the relevant vocabulary to make reservations, to talk about the weather, and for holiday planning.

This unit expands material on leisure and routine activities by adding vocabulary associated with the months of the year, important dates in the Hispanic calendar, as well as the seasons of the year in relation to weather and celebrations. It also explores the differences between English and Spanish with regard to the comparison of adjectives. Students can thus use the relevant vocabulary to make reservations, to talk about the weather, and for holiday planning.

How do states create agreements with one another, and how do they ensure they are followed? The first half of this chapter details the process by which states make, maintain, and rescind treaties. We elaborate on the treaty process set forth in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and explain different treaty types (e.g., bilateral vs. multilateral, self-executing vs. non-self-executing). Reservations—portions of a treaty a state does not wish to join—are also discussed, as well as their ramifications. The second half of the chapter establishes the centrality of diplomats to the creation and execution of much of international law, including treaties.  We elaborate on diplomatic and consular functions as well as diplomatic immunity and asylum.  Diplomats are noted as change agents in the international system, but the potential for abuse of that immunity is always present.

Native Americans have fought to protect their land and water resources from oil and gas extraction and from pipelines and fossil fuel export terminals that traverse their reservation lands, off-reservation lands and public lands to which they hold historical and cultural ties. The Trump administration reversed tribes’ hard-won successes and exacerbated centuries of prior injustices. Trump asserted disputed presidential powers to permit the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, to shrink national monuments, including the Bears Ears National Monument, the first national monument proposed and co-managed by Native American tribes, and to open former monument lands to drilling. In their fight against these decisions, tribes advanced legal arguments based on federal laws, including environmental laws, and asserted their rights to reservation lands and their treaty hunting, fishing and gathering rights on off-reservation lands. Within reservations, tribes, like other Americans, are grappling with whether to rely on fossil fuels or to transition to renewable energy. The appointment of Representative Debra Haaland, who led Congress’s efforts to protect Native American lands and public lands, as the first Native American secretary of the Interior offers hope for a reset in US government relations with the first sovereign nations.

Chapter 3 examines which states are parties to the 1980 Hague Abduction Convention and why most Muslim Family Law States are not. Second, we use the law and practice of Muslim Family Law States with regard to reservations under human rights treaties to illustrate the dilemmas and issues they are dealing with in this area of law, but we also seek to better understand the policy and approach of these States. We further examine how certain States that are party to the 1980 Hague Abduction Convention deal with children abducted to or from those Muslim Family Law States that are not party to the Convention. Ad hoc methods such as bilateral memoranda of understanding, for example, have been adopted vis-�is certain States in an attempt to replicate in practice the assumptions of the 1980 Hague Abduction Convention without the Convention’s requisite institutional machinery incumbent on its parties. Through this analysis of both the Hague Conference conventions and human rights treaties, the chapter illustrates how both European and Islamic exceptionalisms operate in International Law and animate the international debate on how best to redress parental child abduction cases.

Swaine examines the relationship between domestic constitutions and treaties. He notes that states frequently seek to interpose reservations, understanding, declarations or other “treaty conditions” that seek to change the international legal effect of a treaty for the state. The chapter considers three ways in which conditions based on constitutional claims can describe the relationship between the domestic and international domains: by establishing walls, windows or doors, paying particular attention to the “reservations dialogue” described by the International Law Commission in its Seventeenth Report on Reservation to Treaties. That dialogue reveals different dispositions toward such conditions, including as between the United States, which has employed them heavily, and European states, which have been the most innovative in assessing them. While that dialogue continues to evidence the walls, or barriers, that persist between constitutions and treaties, it remains possible to renovate.

The International Criminal Court is a distinct international organization headquartered in The Hague. It works in close cooperation with the United Nations but is independent of it. The Court is composed of four ‘organs’: the Presidency, the Chambers, the Office of the Prosecutor and the Registry. The Presidency consists of the President and the two Vice-Presidents, who are elected by the Plenary of judges. Judges are elected by the Assembly of States Parties to terms of nine years; they must be nationals of a State Party. The judges are constituted into Divisions, for Appeals, Trials and Pre-Trial proceedings. Within each division may be one or more Chambers. The Appeals Chamber is generally composed of five judges while the other Chambers are generally made up of three judges, although a Single Judge may issue rulings in some cases. The head of the Office of the Prosecutor is the Prosecutor, who is elected to a nine-year term by the Assembly of States Parties. The Registrar is nominated by the judges but elected by the Assembly of States Parties and serves a term of five years. The Registrar is the principal administrative officer. The Court’s annual budget is proposed by its organs but must be confirmed by the Assembly of States Parties.

This chapter examines the notion of consent to be bound from the point of view of its motion and change from a classical concept included in the Vienna Convention on The Law of Treaties (VCLT), to its evolution in modern times. It also analyses the question of reservations to treaties, which was one of the projects of the International Law Commission. The chapter deals with the contentious issue of reservations to human rights treaties. The chapter also demonstrates that since consent to be bound is integral to the whole system of treaty law, it can also be identified in situations where we have an increase (auxesis), diminution (meiosis) or even alteration (alloiosis) of the treaty, as can happen when we are dealing with the system of reservations.

There is a crucial difference between creating a treaty, expressing consent to be bound by it and bringing it into force. The focus of this chapter is on completing the process of consenting to be bound and bringing the treaty into force, once the decision to become a party has been taken and treaty officials are asked to prepare the documentation and take care of procedures. The process is examined at both the international and domestic levels. It concludes by considering the action needed immediately after entry into force, in particular publication of the treaty text and registration at the UN under Article 102 of the UN Charter.

This chapter discusses the ways in which States and IOs need to continue engaging with the treaty throughout its life. It illustrates continuing engagement at the domestic or internal level and on the international plane, and how these processes interact with each other. It focuses on issues arising from engagement with treaty institutions such as Conference of Parties, reporting requirements in treaties, the role of treaty secretariats and compliance mechanisms. It also looks at continuing engagement with treaty acts, in particular the handling of amendments, reservations and declarations by other parties, and interpretation and application of treaties by domestic courts.

By the 1990s, India’s appellate courts had become closely involved in the regulation of street vending in several metropolitan cities. However, despite the frequent use of legal mechanisms by street vendor collectives, there has been little progress towards “formalization” of the street vending economy. To understand the limited impacts of legal intervention, it is necessary to examine the timing and the circumstances under which street vendor collectives first turned to judicial forums for protecting their livelihoods. Based on a historical examination of street vendor politics in Bombay and Madras, I show that legal mobilization in both instances was a response to serious threats faced by the political regimes that had previously shielded street vendors from dispossession and exploitation, rather than being a direct result of new legal opportunities (such as the emergence of public interest litigation). Since organized street vendors had a strong preference for maintaining the status quo, litigation was used as an effective method for buying time in the face of a hostile or uncertain political environment, even when the ultimate verdict was not likely to favor street vendors.

This chapter analyzes the impact of the Indian Supreme Court's watershed case on quotas for "backward classes," the Indra Sawhneycase. It explores the role of the decision in the mobilization of Dalit Muslims, who have been excluded from the constitutionally mandated affirmative action regime for the erstwhile Untouchable or Dalit castes ("Scheduled Castes"). It shows how the incipient mobilization came to creatively interpret the decision, in particular its interpretation of Hindu caste and a partial recognition of Muslim social stratification, as an endorsement of their claims. The appropriation and activation of the judgment allowed the mobilization to generate further political support, convince state commissions and eventually mount a constitutional challenge in the Court. This account aims to highlight the symbolic potential of the Court's decisions, often through unintended mechanisms, to reshape and extend social movement politics. It also highlights the role of political constraints, organizational infrastructure and the Indian institutional context as relevant factors in assessing judicial impact.

The increasing salience of Hindu nationalism and the emergence of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) as a serious competitor in Indian politics during the 1990s forced Congress into a difficult position. Congress increasingly defended Other Backward Classes reservations to retain its appeal across India's "Hindi Belt," even hoping to ensure that members of the lower castes gained access to educational opportunities. But, by exercising increased authority over private school enrollment, Congress's policies potentially jeopardized the independent character of private minority schools that educated Christian and Muslim students, opening the door for further government control if the BJP won elections. Congress officials worked with aligned justices to develop a constitutional framework that protected education reservations while preserving the independent character of minority schools. Unlike the other examples in this book, however, these deliberations repeatedly produced inadequate results. Finally, Congress amended the Constitution and the Supreme Court willingly capitulated in a subsequent basic structure challenge, which is consistent with the deliberative partnership thesis.

The Indian National Congress had opposed reservations (affirmative action) for India's so-called "Other Backward Classes" (OBCs) since drafting India's Constitution. But when a coalition government expanded reservations for OBCs in public employment in 1990, Congress changed its position, potentially bringing the party into conflict with the judges it had previously appointed. But this conflict never occurred. Instead, Congress officials subsequently worked with aligned justices to develop a new doctrinal framework governing reservations in employment. When these justices adopted divergent positions, however, Congress frequently overruled them with constitutional amendments. Unlike the American case, however, India's Supreme Court subsequently reviewed these amendments under the basic structure doctrine, affording them the opportunity to exercise a final say. But, in each instance, these aligned justices capitulated while nonetheless preserving a voice in important constitutional deliberations, which is consistent with the book's argument.