International Court of Justice — Jurisdiction — Dispute concerning validity of arbitral award of 3 October 1899 — Dispute referred to International Court of Justice by United Nations Secretary-General — Dispute referred to the Court under Geneva Agreement, 1966 — Interpretation of Geneva Agreement — Meaning of “controversy” under Geneva Agreement — Whether Parties consenting to the Court’s jurisdiction under Geneva Agreement — Whether Secretary-General’s decision binding on Parties — Whether Secretary-General bound to choose means of dispute settlement following sequence in Article 33 UN Charter, 1945 — Whether consent to the Court’s jurisdiction subject to conditions — Whether Parties having accepted possibility that Secretary-General could choose the Court as means of dispute settlement — Whether Secretary-General’s decision in conformity with Geneva Agreement — Seisin — Whether Guyana able to file proceedings with the Court unilaterally — Scope of jurisdiction — Jurisdiction ratione materiae — Whether jurisdiction extending to determination of land boundary — Jurisdiction ratione temporis — Whether jurisdiction extending to conduct subsequent to conclusion of Geneva Agreement

International Court of Justice — Admissibility — Distinction between admissibility and jurisdiction — Distinction between existence and exercise of jurisdiction — Whether Venezuela’s objection concerning existence or exercise of jurisdiction — Res judicata — Whether judgment of 18 December 2020 already covering matters raised in Venezuela’s objection — Timeliness of Venezuela’s objection — Whether Venezuela having to raise objection by deadline to file pleadings concerning existence of jurisdiction — Whether United Kingdom indispensable third party — Interpretation of Geneva Agreement, 1966 — Whether United Kingdom consenting to the Court’s jurisdiction by signing up to Geneva Agreement — Whether Geneva Agreement reflecting understanding that dispute settlement without United Kingdom involvement — Whether United Kingdom aware of scope of dispute — Whether subsequent practice confirming interpretation of Geneva Agreement — Whether indispensable third party principle applicable

International Court of Justice — Provisional measures — Plausibility of rights claimed — Guyana’s rights based on arbitral award of 3 October 1899 — Whether measures requested linked to plausible rights — Real and imminent risk of irreparable prejudice — Whether Venezuela’s referendum likely to lead to annexation of disputed territory — Whether referendum’s scheduled date showing urgency — Whether provisional measures to be indicated — Power to indicate measures different from those requested — Measures for non-aggravation and non-extension of dispute

Sea — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 — Customary international law — Continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles — Exclusive economic zone — Maritime delimitation — Opposite States — Determining extent of maritime entitlements — Preliminary character with respect to delimitation — Whether continental shelf beyond 200 nm able to extend into exclusive economic zone of neighbouring State — UNCLOS — Relevance of travaux préparatoires — Whether UNCLOS negotiators assuming continental shelf only encroached on the area — Relationship between EEZ and continental shelf — Whether EEZ and continental shelf separate regimes under customary international law — Whether “grey area” indicating that EEZ able to overlap with continental shelf beyond 200 nm — Relevance of earlier case law — Article 82 of UNCLOS — Whether provision on revenue sharing showing that continental shelf regime different from EEZ regime — Existence of rule of customary international law prohibiting State from extending continental shelf beyond 200 nm within EEZ of other State — Whether State practice sufficiently widespread and uniform — Submissions to Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf — Opinio juris — Whether opinio juris deriving from State practice — Rule of customary international law existing prohibiting States from extending continental shelf beyond 200 nm within EEZ of other State — Whether necessary to address further questions — Rejection of Nicaragua’s first and second submissions — Islands and rocks — Entitlements — Judgment of 19 November 2012 already determining maritime entitlements of Serrana, Serranilla and Bajo Nuevo — Rejection of Nicaragua’s third submission

International Court of Justice — Procedure — Hearings — Court dividing hearings — First phase confined to questions of law — Whether a necessary innovation — Whether depriving State of opportunity to present its case

Sources of international law — Customary international law — Practice — Opinio juris — Nature of opinio juris — Whether State submissions to Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf indicating opinio juris — Treaties — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 — Provisions declaratory of customary international law

Treaties — Interpretation — Recourse to travaux préparatoires — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 — Continental shelf — Whether extended continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles can encroach on exclusive economic zone and shelf within 200 nm of another State — Matter not discussed at Conference

International Court of Justice — Provisional measures — Alleged violations of Convention against Torture, 1984 — Prima facie basis for jurisdiction — Dispute concerning interpretation or application of Convention against Torture — Whether procedural preconditions under Convention against Torture met — Whether negotiations deadlocked — Whether applicants requesting arbitration — Whether Court’s jurisdiction subject to procedure before Committee instituted under Convention against Torture — Standing — Whether applicants having standing to file case against Syria — Erga omnes partes nature of obligations under Convention against Torture — Plausibility — Link — Irreparable prejudice and urgency — Whether evidence of violations alleged by applicants — Findings of United Nations reports and Commissions of Inquiry — Measures to be adopted — Power to indicate measures different in whole or in part from those requested — Measures for the preservation of evidence

Human rights — Torture — Convention against Torture, 1984 — Definition of torture — Enforcement — Obligations erga omnes — Role of International Court of Justice

Human rights — Rights of children — Implications for children of acts and omissions of State relating to climate change mitigation — Whether carbon emissions originating from the territory of a certain State — Notion of “territory” — Causal link between a State’s acts and omissions and the harm caused to children resulting from climate change — Level of control over carbon-emitting activities for the purposes of causal link — Effective control — Whether foreseeability of harm to authors a question of jurisdiction — Whether scientific evidence showing foreseeability for Argentina that its acts and omissions could cause harm to authors — Whether harm caused to authors “significant” — Meaning of “significant” harm

International tribunals — United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child — Jurisdiction — Local remedies rule — Local remedies to be exhausted where reasonable prospect of redress — Discretionary nature of remedies not preventing them from giving reasonable prospect of redress — Whether potential non-justiciability questions preventing remedies from giving reasonable prospect of redress — Whether sovereign immunity question arising — Whether authors showing that to pursue domestic remedies in Argentina unduly prolonged — Admissibility of communication — Whether Argentina in breach of its obligations under United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989

Jurisdiction — Extraterritorial jurisdiction — Whether carbon emissions originating from territory of a certain State — Notion of “territory” — Causal link between a State’s acts and omissions and the harm caused to children resulting from climate change — Level of control over carbon-emitting activities for the purposes of causal link — Effective control — Harm having to be reasonably foreseeable to State at time of its acts and omissions

Environment — Climate change — Implications for children of acts and omissions of State relating to climate change mitigation — Whether foreseeable that acts and omissions of State could cause harm to authors — Whether harm caused “significant” — Admissibility of communication — Whether Argentina in breach of its obligations under United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989

Human rights — Right to life — Right to an effective remedy — Treaties — International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 — Admissibility of communication — Jurisdiction — Power and control — Whether victims of shipwreck under Italy’s jurisdiction — Whether victims of shipwreck within Italy’s search and rescue area — Whether Malta or Italy having primary responsibility for search and rescue — Shared responsibility for search and rescue — Exhaustion of local remedies — Whether local remedies rule applicable — Whether authors having effective remedies — Whether Italy failing to protect victims’ right to life — Whether Italy delaying search and rescue operations — Whether Italy withholding information from Malta’s authorities — Whether Italy refusing to put its vessels at disposal of Malta’s authorities — Delays in criminal proceedings — Whether delay in criminal proceedings undue — Whether Italy providing explanation for delay — Remedies — Full reparation — Filing of report on measures to implement views — Whether Italy violating Articles 2(3) and 6 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966

Sea — Shipwreck — Right to be rescued at sea — Shipwreck of vessel on high seas resulting in death of migrants — Shipwreck occurring within Malta’s search and rescue area — Responsibility for search and rescue of victims of shipwreck — Whether victims of shipwreck under Italy’s jurisdiction — Admissibility of communication — Whether Italy violating Articles 2(3) and 6 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966

Jurisdiction — Power and control — Shipwreck of vessel on high seas resulting in death of migrants — Shipwreck occurring within Malta’s search and rescue area — Responsibility for search and rescue of victims of shipwreck — Whether victims of shipwreck under Italy’s jurisdiction — Admissibility of communication — Whether Italy violating Articles 2(3) and 6 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966

Aliens — Human rights — Treaties — International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 — Position of aliens under Covenant — Enjoyment of Covenant rights — Whether Covenant rights available to all individuals regardless of nationality or statelessness — Shipwreck of vessel on high seas resulting in death of migrants — Power and control — Whether victims of shipwreck under Italy’s jurisdiction — Admissibility of communication — Whether Italy violating Articles 2(3) and 6 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966

War and armed conflict — War crimes — Foreign amnesty laws — Scope — Effect of foreign amnesties on prosecution under Dutch law — War crimes committed in Second Liberian Civil War — Aiding and abetting commission of war crimes

International criminal law — Liberian amnesty scheme — Whether amnesty precluding prosecution before Dutch courts — Institution of Transitional Government and conclusion of Comprehensive Peace Agreement — Passing of Truth and Reconciliation Commission Act — Whether amnesty law applicable after conclusion of Comprehensive Peace Agreement and passing of Truth and Reconciliation Commission Act — Whether foreign amnesties limiting scope of Dutch criminal jurisdiction — Double criminality as requirement to prosecute war crimes committed abroad — Whether foreign amnesty removing double criminality — Double criminality assessed at time of commission of offence — Amnesty taking place after time of commission of offence — Consequences of recognition of foreign amnesties on sovereignty of Dutch State — Whether other grounds of immunity from prosecution applying — Whether Liberian amnesty could be equated with acquittal, discharge from prosecution on point of law, judicial pardon or conviction followed by full execution of penalty, pardon or debarring of execution of penalty due to expiry of limitation period — Whether defendant having legitimate expectation not to be prosecuted — Lack of promise by Public Prosecution Service

Jurisdiction — Criminal law — War crimes — Jurisdiction of Dutch courts — Whether foreign amnesties limiting scope of Dutch criminal jurisdiction — Consequences of recognition of foreign amnesties on sovereignty of Dutch State — Limitation of jurisdiction by exceptions recognized in international law — Whether amnesty such an exception — Whether immunity from prosecution applying — The law of the Netherlands

Diplomatic relations — Diplomatic agents — Immunity from jurisdiction — Treaties — Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961 — Article 31(1) — Whether employment of a domestic servant a commercial activity — Relationship between Articles 31(1)(c) and 42 of Vienna Convention — Domestic servant a victim of trafficking

Treaties — Interpretation — Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 –– Articles 31, 32 and 33 — Meaning of “commercial activity” — Whether trafficking, forced labour, or other exploitation a “commercial activity” — Object and purpose — Travaux préparatoires

Human rights — Human trafficking — Forced labour — Modern slavery — Domestic servants — Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, 2000 — Diplomatic immunity — Commercial activity –– Whether trafficking domestic servant a commercial activity — The law of England

Human rights — Right to a fair trial — Civil rights — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Article 6 — State immunity — State Immunity Act 1978 — Section 13 — Immunity from injunction — Whether State immunity from grant of injunction engaging Article 6 rights — Whether State immunity from injunction pursuing legitimate objective — Whether State immunity from injunction customary international law — Whether State immunity from injunction proportionate — Human Rights Act 1998 — Section 3 — Whether Section 13 of the State Immunity Act 1978 having to be read down

State immunity — State Immunity Act 1978 — Section 13 — Adjudicative immunity — Enforcement immunity — State immunity from injunctive relief — Whether State immunity from injunctive relief engaging human rights — The law of England

Arbitration — Arbitration award — International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes — International Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States, 1965 — Article 54 — Meaning of prior written agreement — Arbitration (International Investment Disputes) Act 1966 — Recognition and enforcement of award — State Immunity Act 1978 — Section 9 — Exceptions to sovereign immunity — Enforcement of international arbitration award — Whether foreign State having sovereign immunity in proceedings to enforce international arbitral awards in the United Kingdom — Whether accession to the ICSID Convention a submission to the jurisdiction of United Kingdom courts

Treaties — Interpretation — International Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States, 1965 — Articles 54 and 55 — Meaning of prior written agreement — Meaning of recognition and enforcement of arbitral award — Whether ICSID Convention excluding any claim for foreign State immunity in proceedings for recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award

State immunity — State Immunity Act 1978 — Exceptions to immunity — Arbitration — Exception based on prior written agreement by State — Exception to immunity in matters of enforcement of arbitral awards — International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes — International Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States, 1965 — Relationship between ICSID Convention and enforcement and recognition of arbitral awards by domestic courts

Economics, trade and finance — Investment disputes — International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes — Enforcement of awards — The law of England