On July 23, 1964, an act respecting the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones of Canada was proclaimed by the Governor-in-Council and came into effect. It is a milestone in the history of Canada's attempts to gain greater protection of its interests in its adjacent shores; it does not mark the end of her international efforts but it constitutes a major stride forward in this direction. The Act has three chief effects: for the first time the breadth of the territorial seas of Canada is, for general purposes, defined at three miles; the straight baseline system is made applicable to the Canadian coastline; and a fishing limit is established extending twelve miles from the baselines from which the territorial sea is measured (nine miles from the outer limits of the territorial sea).

The “WINDS OF CHANGE” in the Soviet Union since Stalin's death — what, in a legal context, the leading journal Soviet State and Law has called the programme “for complete elimination of the harmful consequences of the personality cult in Soviet jurisprudence” — have done much to liberate Soviet international law thinking from the at times overly rigid positivism and rather sterile orthodoxy which had dominated it, in common with Soviet general legal doctrine, from the time of Pashukanis' downfall in the late 1930's, onwards through the period of Vyshinsky's intellectual dominance almost to the present day. For the purpose of analysis and appraisal of the contemporary state of Soviet international law doctrine and practice, both as to its main points of accord and also its main policy conflicts and differences, certain preliminary propositions can be advanced as to the nature and condition of Soviet international law in general over the years since the October Revolution.

The need to strengthen international co-operation in the rational exploitation of the fishery resources of the high seas is a question which has become of growing importance in recent years. Increased efforts devoted to research and the exploration of the seas are constantly revealing the contribution which these resources may make to the improvement of standards of nutrition, while both states and private enterprise are becoming ever more conscious of the economic potential which these resources represent. At the same time new techniques and equipment are being developed to make the exploitation of fishery resources both easier and more profitable. However, it is generally recognized that fishery resources are not inexhaustible, and in many instances the urgent need for conservation measures has become apparent. In addition, the regulation of the conduct of fishing operations is now necessary in fishing grounds which are intensively exploited.

The Arctic Regions have been a fascinating subject of study for a long time, mainly because of man’s strong desire to conquer the unknown. The military interest in those regions did not develop until recent years. With the straining of relations between the Soviet Union and the United States after World War II, the strategic significance of the Arctic soon became very real. This significance was appreciably diminished with the invention of intercontinental ballistic missiles but the more recent development of the nuclear missile-launching submarine has given the Arctic waters a new military importance. Of course, nuclear submarines could also be of considerable commercial interest. By borrowing the Arctic Ocean, merchant submarines could drastically shorten some of the present maritime trading routes. The exploitation of natural resources in the Arctic regions is already in process of giving new commercial meaning to the old Northwest and Northeast Passages. In the circumstances, an inquiry into the legal regime of the Arctic waters is timely. Two basic principles of the law of the sea are involved: the right of innocent passage, and the freedom of the seas. The present study will concentrate on the right of innocent passage. An investigation will be made into the legal status of the Arctic waters constituting what is commonly known as the Northwest Passage, on the North American side of the Pole, and the Northeast Passage or Northern Sea Route on the Soviet side. The basic question is whether or not the right of free and innocent passage in favour of foreign ships applies to those waters.

This article considers the first two trial, and corresponding first two appeal, judgments issued by the Special Court for Sierra Leone in what are commonly referred to as the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC) and Civil Defence Forces (CDF) cases. These judgments are noteworthy for having been the first to adjudicate at the international level the war crime of conscription or enlistment of children under the age of fifteen or using them to participate actively in hostilities and the gender-based crime against humanity of forced marriage. Beginning with the issue of child soldiers, this article explores how the Special Court addressed the applicable elements of crime, the abduction of children, the role of initiation within the act of conscription or enlistment of child soldiers, and the definition of use of children to participate actively in hostilities. The second part of this article discusses how the AFRC judgments addressed the crime against humanity of forced marriage. In comparison, the CDF Trial Chamber avoided consideration of this crime, and the Appeals Chamber’s partial criticism of this approach could not correct the negative silence created within the Special Court’s record of gender-based atrocities by the CDF. The article concludes that the AFRC and CDF judgments raise issues that require further consideration. For example, what is the legal linkage between abductions and child soldier recruitment, and how does one distinguish between active and non-active participation of children under fifteen in hostilities? These judgments also point to the dangers involved in misunderstanding a gender-based crime such as forced marriage solely as a crime of a sexual nature, and the way in which a trial record can be irrevocably altered by the unbalanced exclusion of gender-based crimes.

The current international framework that purports to regulate the spread of communicable disease in the context of maritime traffic is a fragmented, internally inconsistent, and inadequately enforced patchwork of treaties (including the International Health Regulations (2005)) and customary international law. The COVID-19 pandemic has tested the current framework and revealed it to be inadequate to deal with a major global health emergency. States have imposed or failed to impose varying control measures, the effects of which have been witnessed on board passenger vessels around the world. The cruise industry, in particular, has a significant global economic impact; therefore, appropriate, enforceable international regulation is necessary to ensure the adequate control of future communicable disease outbreaks.

Evidence indicates that individuals responsible formass rapes in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda wereacting on orders from their superiors. Theinternational criminal tribunals for the formerYugoslavia and for Rwanda have indicated theirintention to prosecute individuals responsible forsexual violence and their superiors. The prosecutionof superiors rests on the doctrine of commandresponsibility — a doctrine Well-established ininternational criminal law. This article presentsthe difficulties that arise in applying the doctrineof command responsibility to cases of wartime sexualassaults. Relying on a feminist analysis ofinternational humanitarian law, the authoridentifies the imbalance that exists between theprinciple of military necessity and the principle ofhumanitarianism — an imbalance that makes rape theleast condemned and punished of war crimes. In theabsence of traditional military command structures,as was the case in Bosnia and Rwanda, a superior iswell-placed to deny his authority over those whocommitted wartime rapes. Despite this challenge, theauthor asserts that the Tribunal for the formerYugoslavia, in the Celebici case, developed arealistic approach to the doctrine of commandresponsibility and reasonably concluded that a campcommander was criminally responsible for rapescommitted by his subordinates.

On March 29, 1979 Canada and the United States signed a treaty to submit their dispute over the maritime boundary in the Gulf of Maine to binding settlement. The event is worthy of note not only because it is the first occasion since the North Atlantic Coast Fisheries Arbitration, in 1910, that the two countries have submitted a dispute over their offshore jurisdiction to third party settlement but also because it constitutes the first reference by any state of a question to a chamber of the International Court of Justice. However, this reference to the Court is only conditional and the parties have provided for the possible removal of the case from the Court and for its submission to an ad hoc court of arbitration. Thus, as well as providing a further opportunity for an international tribunal to consider the law relating to the delimitation of maritime boundaries, the treaty raises some interesting questions about recourse to a chamber of the International Court of Justice.

Entities seeking to establish statehood have used participation in sport to bolster their claims. Kosovo is the latest entity to use this strategy. Kosovo’s quest to join the Union of European Football Associations led to a 2017 Court of Arbitration for Sport decision examining whether Kosovo was sufficiently an “independent state.” This article considers how participation in sport plays a role in establishing a broader, contextual conceptualization of statehood. This article then applies this concept to case studies, with particular attention paid to Kosovo. Finally, the article examines sport’s gradual acceptance that it must work within the broader international political and legal world.

L’article considère l’interdiction des expulsions collectives dans la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme. La Cour adopte un point de vue réaliste qui permet d’inclure dans cette interdiction les expulsions au sens strict et les actes de non-admission, exigeant aux États d’agir toujours de bonne foi. Or, elle n’y inclut pas les expulsions implicites, et rabaisse significativement la protection conventionnelle par l’exclusion de l’exigence d’un entretien individuel. La possibilité de son application extraterritoriale et l’impossibilité d’écarter la responsabilité étatique sur la base d’accords avec des États tiers montrent cependant la portée large accordée à l’interdiction.

The Constitutional and international history of Singapore and Malaya have been chequered and hectic since the days of the Japanese occupation. Perhaps the most startling were the years from 1963 to 1965, the period during which Singapore ceased being a Crown Colony to form with Malaya the Federation of Malaysia and, when that experiment failed, to become an independent sovereign state within the Commonwealth.

It is the purpose of this paper to examine this history in order to extract those issues which are of interest from the point of view of state succession and the continuity of law, while at the same time paying attention to some of the problems of competence that occur in a federal state, especially one in which the component parts have only recently enjoyed independence.

In recent years considerable scholarly interest has been shown in the protracted dispute between the Canadian federal government and its counterpart in Newfoundland and Labrador concerning ownership and jurisdiction over the mineral resources of the continental shelf adjacent and geologically appertaining to the Province of Newfoundland. It is to be expected that the promise of commercial deposits of oil and natural gas indicated during the 1980 drilling season, and the much-publicized discussions between the two governments as to the basis for a possible political solution to the question, will stimulate increased study of the pertinent issues in academic as well as governmental circles.

Bill C-26 is intended to provide for the integrated management of theoceans and marine resources within Canada’s jurisdiction. The billsets out Canadian jurisdiction in the territorial sea, thecontiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone, and the continentalshelf in accordance with the United Nations Law of the SeaConvention. It defines a framework for a national oceans managementstrategy based on sustainable development, a precautionary approach,and integrated management plans for oceans and coastal resources andactivities. These promising provisions suffer from limitedcommitment to sustainable development principles, lack of detailsand clarity about the intended oceans management strategy, andlimited embrace of integration in management planning. The bill ahoredefines the organizational responsibilities for Canada’s oceans ina way that significantly enhances the role of the minister offisheries and oceans. In fulfilling these functions, the minister islikely to have to share responsibilities with other stakeholdersrather more than Bill C-26 actually requires, if its integrativemanagement objectives are to be attained.

The majority Supreme Court of Canada judgment in Hape — a case concerning extraterritorial applicability of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — is premised on three aspects of the relationship between international and Canadian law: (1) the interaction of customary international law and Canadian common law; (2) the role of Canada’s international legal obligations in Charter interpretation; and (3) the potential role of customary international law as a source of unwritten principles of the Canadian Constitution. This article reviews pre-existing law in all three of these areas and analyzes a number of innovations apparently introduced thereto, with little or no explanation, by the majority in Hape. It concludes that Hape seriously exacerbates an already uncertain relationship between international and Canadian law, with fundamental consequences for the rule of law in Canada.

The threat of the permanent physical disappearance of the territory of states no longer belongs to the mythical realm, and the situation is particularly imminent for small island developing states. While most international legal scholarship has so far focused on issues stemming from territorial disappearance, this article goes one step further. It questions the appropriateness of the classical notion of the territorial state — a socio-cultural and politico-legal entity evolving on a defined territorial area — as the basis for an international legal system faced with new realities created by climate change, sea-level rise, and globalization. After examining the current rules on statehood within the context of the physical disappearance of states’ territories and looking into the solutions suggested in the legal literature to address territorial loss, this article assesses a new way of understanding statehood by exploring theoretical lenses through which a new model of statehood could be contemplated.