It is with the deepest regret that the Journal records the passing of John Jackson—teacher, scholar, contributor to this Journal and longtime member of its editorial board, and pioneer of international trade and economic law. The following is a tribute to John in recognition of his immense contribution to international law.

In 1969, World Trade and the Law of GATT was published. In some sense, this was the beginning of what is known today as international trade law. Based on meticulous research into documents of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which hitherto had barely seen the light of day and certainly not the eyes of scholars, the work was to be”pragmatic” and designed to address the “intricate complexity” of the law of GATT and to be of use to “the government or GATT official, the private attorney and the legal scholar.” The scale was ambitious but characteristically expressed in modest terms.

In 2007, presidential candidate Barack Obama argued that the U.S. president did not have independent constitutional authority to use military force except in response to an actual or imminent attack on the United States. Since 2008, President Obama has directed the use of U.S. military force in at least seven countries (Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Somalia). Critics find inconsistency in these positions, contending that the Obama presidency will be remembered for expansion of the presidency's war powers. But when the administration's record is closely examined, these claims seem overstated. At least with regard to war initiation, the Obama presidency need not be regarded as materially enhancing the president's constitutional powers.

This assessment begins by establishing two baselines. First, most war powers scholars agree that under the Constitution's original meaning, Congress’ power to “declare War” required the president to seek congressional approval prior to initiating war. This constitutional command had substantial grey areas, including responses to threats and attacks, relations with non-state actors, and low-level hostilities. Nonetheless, the basic proposition stated by candidate Obama appears well founded both in the Constitution's text itself and in early postratification practice. Second, in the modern (post-Vietnam War) era, most scholars agree that the practice has changed somewhat, with presidents asserting an expanded independent authority over uses of military force. This essay agrees with that description, although it contends that the change in actual practice is less dramatic than commentary sometimes claims.

The International Law Commission held its sixty-eighth session in Geneva from May 2 to June 10, and from July 4 to August 12, 2016, under the chairmanship of Pedro Comissário Afonso (Mozambique). Notably, the Commission completedonsecond reading a full set of eighteen draft articles with commentaries on the protection of persons in the event of disasters and recommended to the United Nations General Assembly that it elaborate a convention based on the draft articles.

Additionally, the Commission adopted on first reading a complete set of draft conclusions, with commentaries, for two topics: identification of customary international law; and subsequent agreements and subsequent practice in relation to the interpretation of treaties. As such, both topics might be completed by the Commission on second reading in 2018.

Progress was also made in developing draft articles on crimes against humanity; draft guidelines on protection of the atmosphere; draft conclusions on jus cogens; and draft principles on protection of the environment in relation to armed conflicts. The Commission commenced a debate on a proposed draft article on “limitations and exceptions” to the immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, but, due to insufficient time, the debate will continue in 2017. Furthermore, an additional proposed guideline on the provisional application of treaties was sent to the drafting committee. The Commission decided to add two new topics to its long-term work program: the settlement of international disputes to which international organizations are parties; and succession of states in respect of state responsibility.

The number of countries in which domestic courts are actively engaged with major public affairs has increased markedly since the early 1990s. In many transitional states, in particular, domestic courts have ruled on great constitutional controversies, which influence the national political process. They have also taken an active role in the application of international law— especially human rights treaties—and at times treat such treaties as a “New Standard of Civilization.” In particular, domestic courts have at times invoked international law in becoming more aggressive toward the executive branch. This trend has been one normative element inspiring some theorists to propose a new field known as comparative international law. This article highlights a different set of elements that become manifest in assessing the rapid overall rise in references to, and application of, international law by courts in China in recent years.

Know your limits. This familiar adage is not an inspirational rallying cry or a recipe for bold action. It serves better as the motto for the tortoise than the hare. But, after many false starts over the past twenty years, states were well advised to heed it when negotiating the Paris Agreement. While it is still far too early to say whether the Agreement will be a success, its comparatively modest approach provides a firmer foundation on which to build than its more ambitious predecessor, the Kyoto Protocol.