International organisations are inherently purposive actors within the international legal system, created and empowered by States to pursue finite common objectives. This teleological dimension has come to play a prominent role in the way in which international law rationalises international organisations, with their purposes given a significant, often determinative, role in delimiting their competences. This article argues that this is the product of a conscious shift in legal reasoning that took place in the aftermath of World War II. Through an analysis of a series of key post-War decisions, it identifies the common features of this ‘teleological turn’ and, disentangling it from other forms of legal reasoning, examines its unique underlying logic and normative claims. It demonstrates that while the teleological turn offers prospects for the systemic development of international governance, an increasingly abstract approach to the concept and identification of an organisation's ‘purpose’ raises a number of unresolved questions which cast a shadow of indeterminacy over the law of international organisations.

This article considers the under-studied question of the interests that the international community may have in the protection of the marine environment within national jurisdiction. This question is addressed on the basis of a comprehensive analysis of the major documents that reveal the convictions of the international community, including UN General Assembly resolutions, major international treaties and the outcomes of multilateral conferences. The core argument is that, despite the dominance of the zonal jurisdictional regime in the law of the sea, the international community has, in fact, clearly and consistently demonstrated an interest in the protection of the marine environment within national jurisdiction. Although a finding of community interest does not affect the character of the coastal State's primary environmental protection obligations, it may have implications for the rights of third States to challenge a coastal State's failure to protect its own marine environment. Whether third States choose to exercise this right in practice remains to be seen; however, this article's findings should indicate to States that their actions and policies concerning the protection of the marine environment of their own maritime zones are a matter of concern to all States.

The systematic protection of persons at sea remains flawed. This problem has become even more acute during the Covid-19 pandemic when port closures have caused an unprecedented humanitarian crisis at sea. This article looks at the impact of port closures on the rights of persons at sea and considers how international law can protect those rights. While persons at sea are afforded significant rights protections in international law, the rights and duties of States often clash, with the result that persons at sea can find themselves in something of a legal vacuum. In order to address this problem, this article argues that the various rights and duties of States must be interpreted and applied in a way that fully recognises the rights of persons at sea.

This article calls for a reassessment of the methodology in determining the place of contractual performance under Article 7(1) of the Brussels I Regulation Recast. The first part of the article deals with Article 7(1)(a). It argues that in light of the adoption of autonomous linking factors under Article 7(1)(b), more types of contracts presently not covered within the ambits of Article 7(1)(b) should centralise jurisdiction at the places of performance of their characteristic obligations. The second part of the article considers the way Article 7(1) operates when there are multiple places of performance under the contract. The test devised by the Court of Justice of the European Union in this regard is not only difficult to apply, but the application of the test also often does not guarantee a close connection between the claim and the court taking jurisdiction. This article argues that when a claim is made in respect of a contractual obligation to be performed in more than one Member State, Article 4 should be applied instead of Article 7(1).

This article explores a solution to the choice-of-law issues concerning both voluntary and involuntary assignments arising in a domestic forum. The focus is on English private international law rules relating to cross-border assignments. A distinction is made between primary and extended parties as the foundation for choice-of-law analysis. Drawing on insights from the distinction of the use value and exchange value of debts found in economics, this article proposes a new analytical framework for choice-of-law based on a modified choice-of-law theory of interest-analysis.

This article argues that State autonomy in setting the level of protection for permissible regulatory aims can be better operationalised in the investment treaty regime. The article draws on comparative insights from WTO law, where it is established that WTO members have the right to determine the level of protection for permissible regulatory aims, although significant disciplines are placed on the means used to achieve those aims. It is then argued that investment treaties are, properly interpreted, consistent with the idea that States retain autonomy to determine the level of protection for permissible regulatory aims. Finally, the article proposes removing from the fair and equitable treatment and indirect expropriation standards proportionality balancing stricto sensu, as this undermines State autonomy in setting the level of protection. Overall, this article argues for a partial reorientation of investment law, in which non-discriminatory measures that pursue a permissible regulatory aim, including at a particular level, should not amount to a breach of a treaty where a State uses the means that involve the least possible restriction of the competing interests protected by relevant investment treaty obligations.

International courts are increasingly called upon to adjudicate socially divisive disputes. They are therefore exposed to a heightened risk of backlash that questions their authority and impedes the implementation of their judgments. This article puts forward an analytical framework for mapping the resilience techniques used by international courts to counter this growing resistance. Case studies involve the Court of Justice of the European Union, which has been cautious in its stance regarding democratic backsliding in Hungary and Poland, and the Caribbean Court of Justice, which has engaged in legal diplomacy while adjudicating both on the land rights of indigenous groups and on Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Queer and Intersex (LGBTQI) rights. It is argued that, in order to effectively avoid and mitigate backlash, international courts should deploy resilience techniques that go beyond merely exercising their judicial function. The successful deployment of resilience techniques can allow international courts to become significant actors in global governance during a time of crisis for the international liberal order.

This article examines the developments on future action concerning the 2001 ILC Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA) in the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly. It reviews the past 20 years, from the presentation of the final draft at the 56th session in 2001, to the most recent debate at the 74th session in 2019. In scrutinising the procedural actions taken over the relevant period, it argues that the ARSIWA have ossified in the Sixth Committee even as they have continued to gain authority through application in practice. This ossification is due not only to divisions amongst delegations on future action but also to disagreements on a select number of provisions. Whilst these substantive issues have narrowed, debate is made fruitless by entrenched positions that do not take account of the application of the ARSIWA in practice.

Adopted in October 2020, the Artemis Accords are a set of 13 provisions establishing a principled framework for the sustainable human exploration of the Moon and the other celestial bodies, including the exploitation of their natural resources. This article examines the extent to which the Artemis Accords comply with international law and international standards. It argues that, while rooted on the provisions of the Outer Space Treaty, the Artemis Accords introduce a significant innovation in international space law by replacing the anticipatory approach to the regulation of outer space activities with the staged principle of adaptive governance.