The proliferation of international standards has triggered heated debates in recent years. From human rights to environmental protection, from the Internet to financial derivatives, from antitrust to missile technology, international standards govern some of the most important issues of our day. These standards are not legally binding, but scores of governments around the world have incorporated them wholesale in their national legal orders. The drafters of these standards are not political leaders, formal government representatives, or international organizations, but rather informal committees of ministry officials, regulators, or private experts. Labeled transnational regulatory networks, these informal bodies have puzzled legal scholars and international relations theorists. Why do states adopt these standards instead of producing their own laws? How do these new global standard setters come about, and what are their goals? Addressing these questions has been the source of both “euphoria” and “anxiety,” as a leading commentator has recognized.

Andy Lowenfeld, a member of the Board of Editors of this journal from 1978 to 1995, and an honorary editor thereafter, died on June 9, 2014, a few days after his eighty-fourth birthday, in New York City.

Everyone who knew him, as friend, or colleague, or student, or client, wondered at his sparkling intellect, infectious humor, imagination, and boundless curiosity. He always questioned. He never took anything for granted. He was no narrow specialist. His interests included aviation law, international economic law, private international law, public international law, and procedural law. More than any other author or practitioner in the United States, he decried “the unconvincing separation between public and private international law” and practiced what he preached.

The Russian Federation, by a municipal law act dated March 21, 2014, annexed Crimea, an area of Ukraine. This act followed armed intervention by forces of the Russian Federation, a referendum, and a declaration of independence in Crimea. Outside the context of decolonization, few claims of annexation following the use of force have been made during the United Nations era; this is the first by a permanent member of the Security Council against a United Nations member. The present article examines the annexation of Crimea in view of the legal arguments that the Russian Federation has articulated in defense of its actions. It then considers the international response and the possible consequences of nonrecognition.

One of the most important issues in the law of the World Trade Organization is the right of WTO members to adopt measures for nontrade purposes. In the WTO’s General Agreement. on Tariffs and Trade (GATT 1994) and General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), this right is secured in general exceptions provisions, which permit WTO members to adopt measures to achieve certain objectives, notwithstanding any other provisions of these agreements and also, in some cases, other WTO agreements. These objectives include, most importantly, the protection of public morals, the maintenance of public order, the protection of human, animal, or plant life or health, the enforcement of certain domestic laws, and the conservation of exhaustible natural resources.

The International Law Commission held its sixty-sixth session in Geneva from May 5 to June 6, and from July 7 to August 8, 2014, under the chairmanship of Kirill Gevorgian (Russian Federation). Notably, the Commission revisited on second reading its work concerning the expulsion of aliens so as to finalize thirty-one draft articles, along with commentaries. The general thrust of this project has been to acknowledge the sovereign right of a state to expel an alien from its territory and to identify or propose rules—protective of the rights of the alien—that the state must follow when doing so.

On July 7, 2014, an ad hoc arbitral tribunal (Tribunal) rendered its award on the dispute between Bangladesh and India concerning the delimitation of their entire maritime boundary in the northern part of the Bay of Bengal. The award established the course of the boundary line in the territorial sea, the exclusive economic zone (EEZ), and the continental shelf within and beyond 200 nautical miles, ending a dispute that had persisted between the neighbors for more than three decades.

On May 22, 2014, the World Trade Organization’s Appellate Body (AB) issued its report on the controversial “ECSeal Products” dispute, finding that a European Union (EU or Union) prohibition on the importation and sale of seal products violated the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT). It did so, however, in a way that largely upheld the Union”s defense on animal welfare grounds, so that the prohibition remains effective. The decision marks the first time that the Appellate Body has found that a trade ban on animal welfare grounds falls within the exception under GATT Article XX(a) for measures necessary to protect public morals. This determination implicates the legality of future trade restrictions on animal welfare grounds, as well as restrictions imposed on human rights grounds, such as labor rights.

In Technische Universität Darmstadt v. Eugen Ulmer KG, the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ or Court) addressed several important copyright issues stemming from a practice that continues to confound many legal practitioners and adjudicators: the mass digitization of library collections. The judgment adds to an emerging body of jurisprudence decided in the context of a trend toward greater digitization that could ultimately facilitate the development of a global, digital library. To date, the jurisprudence has largely been formed by cases challenging mass digitization that are percolating through the United States courts and have attracted international attention and criticism. The ECJ decision thus provides an important point of reference for evaluating how different jurisdictions balance the rights of authors against the public interest, as served by relevant fair use exceptions consistent with their international obligations under traditional copyright treaties, the 1996 WIPO Copyright Treaty, and the 1994 Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) applicable to all WTO member states.

On July 3, 2014, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (Court) rendered its judgment in Georgia v. Russia, concerning Russia’s collective expulsion of a large number of Georgian nationals between October 2006 and January 2007. The Court held that Russia had violated several provisions of the 1950 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Convention or ECHR), in particular Article of Protocol No. 4 to the ECHR (prohibition of collective expulsions). Because the Russian government had failed to cooperate with the Court by providing relevant information, the Court also found a violation of Article 38 of the ECHR, which obliges states to furnish “all necessary facilities” for the effective conduct of the Court’s investigation of the case. The Court deferred its decision on the question of “just satisfaction” under Article 41 pending further submissions by the parties. This was the first of three interstate proceedings that Georgia has brought against Russia under the special procedure of Article 33, and it is the first decision on the merits of these cases.