The Ghana/Côte d'Ivoire case is the first time that an ITLOS ad hoc chamber has addressed the lawfulness of unilateral hydrocarbon activities in a disputed maritime area. This paper analyzes the Chamber's ruling on Côte d'Ivoire's submission no. 2, which covers several important issues: the jurisdiction of the Chamber to decide on submission no. 2, the alleged violation of sovereign rights, and the alleged violation of Article 83(3) of UNCLOS. The paper argues that the Chamber's jurisdictional basis of forum prorogatum is questionable, and that there are inconsistent approaches between the Judgment and the Order of the provisional measures. Additionally, there are not only inconsistent understandings of the “Ivorian maritime area” within the same submission no. 2 by the Chamber, but also a logical gap in the Chamber's reasoning with regard to submission no. 2(iii). Consequently, the Chamber's inconsistent approaches may jeopardize the persuasiveness of its judgment.

The treatment by states, at the 69th session of the UNGA, of the ILC’s work on the responsibility of international organizations, the effects of armed conflicts on treaties, and the expulsion of aliens, offer some interesting points for reflection, particularly about the role of states in international law-making. This paper situates the UNGA’s consideration of the draft articles before it within the context of the recent trends of the UNGA’s commending of the ILC’s draft articles to the attention of governments, and of its use of technical roll-overs. In this regard, the paper questions whether the UNGA’s approach to the draft articles on the expulsion of aliens signals a reawakening of the UNGA. Against this backdrop, the paper also discusses the past practice of the UNGA when considering the draft articles of the ILC.

In the past decade China's engagement with UN peacekeeping has intensified. In particular, Beijing has supported and participated in peace operations that were not fully compatible with the consensual, impartial, and non-coercive models of peacekeeping traditionally employed by the United Nations. China's endorsement of offensive and intrusive missions is not inconsequential, given that it clashes with its professed adherence to rigid interpretations of the principles of sovereignty, non-intervention, and the non-use of force in international relations. This article suggests that to make sense of China's involvement in unconventional peacekeeping operations one must examine the broader process of foreign policy recalibration that is redefining the interests and priorities of the country as a new great power. Furthermore, by examining China's ambivalent approach to the principles that have traditionally defined the legal framework of UN peacekeeping, this article highlights the opportunities and challenges that China will face as a provider of international security.

Global law and the environment is an increasingly prominent and rapidly evolving area of scholarship. In confronting global challenges such as climate change, biodiversity loss, freshwater scarcity, and other symptoms of planetary breakdown, critical scholars from different intellectual traditions are questioning the traditional approach taken within environmental law which has, so far, only managed to save “some trees” but failed to keep “the forest”. These dominant legal interactions often use the law to address “problems” after they arrive. However, the law plays a key role also in constituting these “problems” by incentivizing certain harmful activities, upholding socio-political-economic structures, and through the limited framing of the issues it claims to solve. It is becoming increasingly clear that we live in a “legally constituted world”. Against this background, there is a need for further critical reflection on the role of the law in preventing, addressing, and even driving the entangled socio-ecological-economic crises of modernity. Through interrogating the assumptions that underlie environmental law, critical scholars have exposed, challenged, and put forward alternative visions to its neo-colonial and gendered biases; its exclusion of indigenous perspectives and voices; its construction upon problematic representations of “the environment” that centres an anthropocentric worldview; and a neoliberal economic order that fosters vast environmental damage.