Topic 1

Once called the crown’s jewel, the dispute settlement system of the WTO is facing a major threat.[1] The standing Appellate Body (AB), within the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), is not functioning normally—or even at all, as the United States has blocked all appointments of new AB members. As a result, cases can no longer be appealed, and this may leave decisions by the panels—which adjudicate the cases in the first instance—in legal limbo.

On May 5, 2020, the European Commission (Commission) announced that 23 of the 27 member states of the European Union (EU) signed the Agreement for the Termination of Bilateral Investment Treaties [("BITs")] between the Member States of the European Union (the Treaty).[1] If the

Introduction

Unprecedented Pandemic and Splintered Global Response

With 182 countries reporting 6,663,304 confirmed cases with 392,802 deaths (as of Jun. 6, 2020) and activating various national emergency measures, the outbreak of novel coronavirus in 2020 stands to be recorded as the worst global health disaster in recent history.

I. Introduction

Introduction

As the coronavirus Covid-19 pandemic sweeps across the globe, executive branches of governments have been exercising public health emergency powers.[1] While many of the extraordinary measures taken under the emergency power are essential to the containment of the virus, such power is subject to potential misuse. This Insight examines the human rights implications of exercising public health emergency powers in the particular context of asylum seekers waiting at a border.

On July 16, 2018, the Islamic Republic of Iran (Iran) filed an Application instituting proceedings against the United States (the U.S.) before the International Court of Justice (the Court) regarding Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights.[1] The application concerned alleged breaches of the Treaty of Amity arising from the re-imposition of certain sanctions by the U.S.

Cyberspace is so omnipresent that it can seem banal, but it is also a target-rich environment from a military perspective, with modern armies deeply reliant on digital infrastructure. From the perspective of international humanitarian law (or IHL, also known as the law of armed conflict), this raises the question of what cyber operators may and may not attack during armed conflicts, what even constitutes an "attack" under IHL in cyberspace, and what the reverberating effects of those attacks could be on civilians.

In 1964, the United States Congress passed a law providing that a United States district court "'may order' a person residing or found in the district to give testimony or produce documents 'for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal . . .