Both national and international laws apply to collisions by space vehicles and objects in outer space and with the surface of the Earth. International treaties govern collisions involving commercial operators from different states, while domestic laws govern claims by nationals against national commercial operators. Commercial operators may find themselves as defendants or become plaintiffs when others cause them damage. This essay discusses liability in the new space era from the point of view of these operators, including both outer space and surface liabilities. It examines liability exposure, describes different regimes governing liability, and identifies prospective legal changes.

The European Union's (EU) proposed Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) underscores that the introduction of climate-motivated trade measures is no longer just a matter of academic debate. With countries ramping up domestic climate action at different speeds and levels of ambition, the likelihood of other countries following the EU's lead and adopting a border carbon adjustment (BCA)1 of their own will only increase. International cooperation can help avoid a fragmented landscape of varying BCA designs, mitigate concerns about trade protectionism, and ensure that the further development of BCAs leads to stronger global action on climate change. Some countries have begun to show an interest in pursuing international cooperation involving joint trade measures through “climate clubs.” Yet such international cooperation also raises new questions concerning the legal form, the forum through which cooperation should be pursued, and the (normative) substance of any international agreement on BCAs. The answers to these questions matter not only for the development and implementation of BCAs, but may also affect the future trajectory of the international legal regime for climate change and trade.

The word ultimatum is used repeatedly in the Report of the Army Pearl Harbor Board and in the testimony given to the Joint Congressional Committee investigating the Pearl Harbor disaster. In the former it is asserted that the Japanese regarded the “Ten Points” submitted to their government on November 26, 1941, as an ultimatum, and the testimony of Ambassador Grew is cited in support of the statement.

As the international community waited for the International Court of Justice (the Court) to deliver its advisory opinion of July 22, 2010, commentators wondered whether the Court would skirt difficult issues by adopting a narrow reading of the question put to it. While the Court's ruling in Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo did turn out to be limited, the opinion contributes significantly to the Court's jurisprudence on the legal effects of United Nations resolutions.

The announcement on September 1, 1909, by Dr. Frederick A. Cook, that he had discovered the north pole on April 21, 1908, and the almost contemporary declaration on September 6th, of Robert A. Peary, of the United States Navy, in command of the Roosevelt, that he had discovered the north pole on April 6, 1909, are, if substantiated, not only international events and scientific achievements of the greatest interest and value, but the culmination of centuries of effort, directed not merely to reach the pole, but to shorten commercial routes by the discovery of a northwestern and northeastern passage, to advance our knowledge of arctic geography and to make known in a disinterested and scientific spirit, the flora, fauna, and the physical configuration of the arctic regions.

In part II of his article, Destination Embargo of Arab Oil: Its Legality under International Law, Mr. Ibrahim F. I. Shihata defends the legality of the armed attack on Israel launched by many Arab states, with Soviet assistance, on October 6, 1973. “Egypt and Syria,” he writes, “as the states vested with sovereignty, but illegally deprived of actual control, over territories occupied by Israel were … entitled to seek redress for the protection of their territorial integrity. Under the UN system they were probably under the obligation to resort first to peaceful methods. This they have done in vain for more than six years. Egypt, in particular, expressed officially its readiness to enter into a peace agreement with Israel containing all the obligations provided for in Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) as broadly elaborated by the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General, Ambassador Jarring. In response, Israel defiantly insisted on territorial expansion.” Under these circumstances, he argues, both Egypt and Syria (which had never accepted any version of Security Council Resolution 242 or given any assurances to Ambassador Jarring) had an inherent right of self-help under customary international law, or of self-defense under “a broad reading” of Article 51 of the Charter, in what he asserts was no more than an attempt to recover those territories by force.

A large-scale problem for the principal belligerents in the present war is that of the treatment of civilians of enemy nationality in their respective jurisdictions. Measured in terms of the number of human beings involved, national safety considerations, and the possibly unfortunate effect at home of mishandling it, the problem assumes far-reaching importance. There is need for clear law as well as positive action. There is need for perspective. In relation to international law, the distinctiveness of the classification of “civilian alien enemy,” past effort looking to the construction of internationally binding rules prescribing treatment, and practice in the current war, merit attention.