This article addresses some of the changes in international law and foreign relations law which have impinged on the operation of the State Immunity Act 1978 in the first 40 years of its operation and some of the ways in which it has been supplemented by judicial decisions. It addresses, in particular, the initial need for legislation in this field, the circumstances in which agents of a State may be entitled to immunity, the relationship between State immunity in domestic law and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the relationship of State immunity and rules of jus cogens, and the respective scope of State immunity and principles of non-justiciability.

Environmental assessment (EA) is established in most countries as a procedure to ensure that administrative authorities are aware of the environmental impacts likely to result from the activities they approve. Many jurisdictions have moved towards including consideration for climate change mitigation in EA. Through a review of the law and practice of various States, this article suggests that such Climate Assessment is now emerging as a norm of customary international law.

Existing approaches to ‘algorithmic accountability’, such as transparency, provide an important baseline, but are insufficient to address the (potential) harm to human rights caused by the use of algorithms in decision-making. In order to effectively address the impact on human rights, we argue that a framework that sets out a shared understanding and means of assessing harm; is capable of dealing with multiple actors and different forms of responsibility; and applies across the full algorithmic life cycle, from conception to deployment, is needed. While generally overlooked in debates on algorithmic accountability, in this article, we suggest that international human rights law already provides this framework. We apply this framework to illustrate the effect it has on the choices to employ algorithms in decision-making in the first place and the safeguards required. While our analysis indicates that in some circumstances, the use of algorithms may be restricted, we argue that these findings are not ‘anti-innovation’ but rather appropriate checks and balances to ensure that algorithms contribute to society, while safeguarding against risks.

Owing to soaring energy needs and improved drilling technology, offshore hydrocarbon activities have been on the rise in recent years. A delimited maritime boundary is an essential precondition for the establishment of a safe and stable environment which will facilitate investment and development. Nevertheless, the conclusion of delimitation agreements can be a difficult task due to competing interests and long-standing enmities among neighbouring countries. Significant maritime areas remain undelimited. In order to avoid the problems of both unilateral activities and a complete ‘moratorium’ in undelimited areas, Articles 74(3) and 83(3) of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea impose two obligations of conduct: pending delimitation agreement, States are under duty to ‘make every effort to enter into provisional arrangements of a practical nature’, while, at the same time, the interested parties should refrain from acts that might ‘jeopardize or hamper the reaching of the final agreement’. Bearing this in mind, it is argued that unilateral drilling and, under certain circumstances, unilateral seismic surveys in undelimited maritime areas should not be allowed and such conduct might trigger State responsibility. However, given that complete inactivity in such areas was not the intention of the drafters of the Convention, it is argued that several activities may be permitted as long as they are performed in good faith and do not put any final agreement at risk.

Punitive measures taken against vessels listed on RFMO IUU vessel lists often have very direct effects on the individuals associated with those vessels, such as the owner or operator. With developments such as cross-listing mechanisms and cross-references in international agreements, the number of actors that are encouraged or obliged to take measures against listed vessels now extends to a much wider group, well beyond just the Members of the listing RFMO. The impacts of these punitive measures on such individuals are accordingly very significant. Despite this, however, these listing procedures contain relatively limited due process features. This article considers whether this could contribute to diminishing the perceived legitimacy of IUU listings and generate a risk of reluctance by some actors within the international community to impose punitive measures on listed vessels.

Movement towards enhanced due process in decision-making processes appears to be emerging within many international organizations in recognition of the fact that increasingly, individuals are directly affected by decisions of international organizations. Examining such developments in other fora, this article considers possible adjustments to listing procedures, which might assist in safeguarding the legitimacy and effectiveness of IUU vessel lists. IUU lists play a significant role in international efforts to combat IUU fishing, and upholding their effectiveness is accordingly of critical importance.

Current political challenges facing the WTO Appellate Body raise fundamental questions about the relationship between rules and values in international adjudication. This article applies insights from legal philosophy to identify the role values should play in WTO adjudication. It argues that nothing about the specifics of WTO law would justify excluding values from adjudication; that the doctrinal, political and institutional context of WTO adjudication makes a positivist account of the role of values untenable; but an anti-positivist account requires complementing established economic accounts of WTO law's purpose with an account of fairness and justice in trade and trade regulation.

The effectiveness and legitimacy of the Council of Europe can be undermined by the actions of Member States which fail to comply with their international law obligations of genuine cooperation with the organization. This article first briefly examines the practice of international organizations in applying sanctions such as expulsion and suspension to their members. It then explains why it is necessary to discuss potential sanctions that the Council can apply in the context of current controversies involving the Council and Member States. It will be argued that the scale and intensity of challenges distinguish the current state of affairs from other ‘problematic’ periods in the Council's history. It proceeds to outline the considerations that should be taken into account in deciding whether a Member State should be suspended or expelled. These considerations include the implications of sanctions on the legitimacy of the Council of Europe, the level of human rights protection and the financial stability of the organization.

On 7 June 2018, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (UKSCt) issued its decision on, inter alia, whether Northern Ireland's near-total abortion ban was compatible with the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). This article critically assesses the UKSC's treatment of international law in this case. It argues that the UKSCt was justified in finding that Northern Ireland's ban on abortion in cases of rape, incest, and FFA was a violation of Article 8, but that the majority erred in its assessment of Article 3 ECHR and of the relevance of international law more generally.