Topic 1

Introduction

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (Supreme Court) recently decided two cases that demonstrate the challenges courts face when applying asylum law domestically within the general framework of international refugee law. The Supreme Court’s application of complicated principles to difficult facts will ensure that these cases provide important guidance on respective competences, the use of evidence, and the rule of law to international decision-making bodies in the field of international refugee law, as well as other domestic decision makers.  

On June 16, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued several decisions that will significantly change the landscape for enforcement of foreign sovereign debt obligations in U.S. courts. In Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd. (NML Capital),[1] the Court held that the U.S. Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) does not limit a court’s power to order post-judgment, worldwide discovery.

Introduction

The past two-and-a-half years have witnessed considerable development in the international law of maritime boundary delimitation.[1]  In particular, this brief period has seen the historic emergence of jurisprudence addressing delimitation of a state’s maritime entitlements located beyond 200 nautical miles (M) from the state’s coastal baselines.  In a string of recent disputes involving maritime jurisdiction in the Bay of Bengal, the Caribbean Sea, and the Pacific Ocean, international courts and tribunals—including the Internation

On July 7, 2014, an arbitral tribunal established under Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) delivered its award in the Dispute concerning the Maritime Boundary between Bangladesh and India (Bangladesh v.

The shooting down of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 (MH17) over Ukraine on July 17, 2014 shows how vulnerable we all are when we travel.  It was, said the Director of the International Airline Transport Association, “an attack against the air transport system which is an instrument of peace.”[1]

On 12 May 2014, The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR or Grand Chamber) published its judgment in the just satisfaction phase of Cyprus v. Turkey.[1] Just satisfaction (Article 41) refers to monetary damages awarded as a result of violations of the European Convention on Human Rights.

On 23 November 2013, China declared an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) in the East China Sea,[1] leading to ongoing grievances of other states.[2] An ADIZ is an additional zone of aerial control beyond territorial airspace, allowing the declaring state to identify approaching aircrafts before they enter that airspace.

On April 9, 2014, Member States of the United Nations (UN) concluded a two-year State-led process to reform its “human rights treaty bodies”: ten expert committees tasked with monitoring States’ implementation of the obligations set forth in the UN’s core human rights treaties and their protocols.[1] The process began as an attempt by States with objections to crucial aspects of the work of the treaty bodies to overtake an ongoing reform effort by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

We live in a time where war crimes and crimes against humanity still occur on a regular basis. Along with genocide, these are the crimes the world has too often vowed to never again accept. In this context, an important recent initiative to strengthen the international legal framework needed for states to prosecute the perpetrators of such crimes in their national courts has gone relatively unnoticed.