Topic 1

The multi-faction insurgency that has been tearing Iraq apart ever since the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003 has often involved the use of such crude and indiscriminate methods and means of warfare as the suicide bomb and the improvised explosive device. But in mid-2014 there were reports that some aspects of the armed conflict had risen to unexpected heights of contemporary sophistication, with the apparent use of cyberspace as a domain for hostilities.

The U.S. State Department recently announced a new policy for exports of military drones (unmanned aerial vehicles).[1] Military drones are today’s most sophisticated tools for aerial surveillance, capable of persistent and distant overflight of any terrain. While not all military drones can fire weapons, armed drones have generated controversy because of their prominent role in targeted killings of foreign and American supporters of terrorist organizations.

Humanitarian intervention as a basis for using force against another nation, or within another nation’s territory, is not without its own set of legal challenges and criticisms. Russia’s justification for using force in the Crimean peninsula, in the wake of repeated calls for intervention in Syria, highlights difficulties associated with humanitarian intervention as a basis for the use of force.

Introduction

Since 2014 China has been constructing features atop seven coral reefs in the disputed Spratly/Nansha Islands of the South China Sea by dredging sand and coral from existing coral reefs. At last count China's new features total more than 2,000 acres.[1]

Introduction

On September 29, 2014 it may have become considerably harder for civilian and military superiors to avoid criminal liability for mass sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) after a landmark conviction by the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) was affirmed on appeal.[1]  In the trial judgement for The Prosecutor v.

Introduction

On January 28, 2015, the High Court of Australia (Australia’s highest court) issued a decision examining the question of where to take a person who flees a country for fear of persecution and is intercepted in international waters by national authorities. The judgment arose from operation “Sovereign Borders,” Australia’s latest effort to stem the flow and resultant loss of life of people travelling without authorisation to Australia by sea.

Since 2002, the International Criminal Court (ICC or the Court) in The Hague has aspired to “end impunity for the perpetrators of the most serious crimes of concern to the international community.”[1]  This pursuit has given rise to a contentious issue in two high-profile cases: whether high-ranking accused must be present at trial.

On April 24, 2014, the Marshall Islands filed individual applications before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the five nuclear weapon states (NWS) parties to the 1968 Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) (United States, United Kingdom, France, Russian Federation, China) and the NWS not parties to the NPT (Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea)[1] claiming a violation of Article VI of the treaty, of its customary international la

The rapid increase in overweight and obesity around the globe has stimulated a discussion of whether and how obesity should be addressed in international law. Currently, no multilaterally binding rules govern states’ approaches to the rise in obesity.