International law — Relation to municipal law — United Nations Charter and law of nations as part of law of State — Statutes as declaratory of international law — The law of the United States of America.

Treaties — Interpretation of — Consideration of preparatory work Article 105 of United Nations Charter — Immunities of employees of United Nations — Charge of espionage against employee Relationship between diplomatic immunities and immunities of employees of United Nations — The law of the United States of America.

International officials — Employee of United Nations — Immunities of — Charge of espionage — Article 105 of United Nations Charter — Customary international law — Headquarters Agreement between United Nations and United States — International Organizations Immunities Act of United States and other United States legislation — Relationship between diplomatic immunities and immunities of employees of United Nations — Interpretation of treaties — Consideration of preparatory work — Proper forum of decision — The law of the United States of America.

Diplomatic and consular intercourse and privileges — Right to privileges and immunities — Officials of United Nations — Charge of espionage — Article 105 of United Nations Charter — Customary international law — Headquarters Agreement between United Nations and United States of America — International Organizations Immunities Act of United States and other United States legislation — Relationship between diplomatic immunities and immunities of employees of United Nations — Interpretation of treaties — Consideration of preparatory work — Proper forum for decision — The law of the United States of America.

International law in general — Relation to municipal law — Definition of war — Whether the same in international law and common law

States as international persons — In general — Sovereignty and independence — Conclusiveness of statements of the Executive — Statement concerning existence of state of war — Whether conclusive in international arbitration under International Chamber of Commerce Rules — Whether conclusive if arbitrator applies municipal law

International organization and administration — The United Nations — Legal nature of the United Nations — Obligations of membership — Armed conflict between members — Whether capable of amounting to war — Presumption against existence of state of war between members of the United Nations

Disputes — Arbitration — In general — The law applied by arbitral tribunals — Arbitration under International Chamber of Commerce Rules — Conclusiveness of Executive statements

War and neutrality — In general — Effects of outbreak of war — On private contracts — Arbitration clause in bank guarantee

War and neutrality — In general — Termination of war — Armistice agreement and agreement to restore normal relations — Whether terminating war — Intention of parties

War and neutrality — In general — Definition and technical meaning of war — Whether one definition of war exists for all purposes Distinction between war and armed conflict not amounting to war — Whether objective or subjective — Animus belligerendi — Evidence of — Broadcast by Head of State — Relevance of parties' membership of the United Nations — Presumption against the existence of a state of war — Declaration of war — Hostilities between India and Pakistan in September 1965 — Whether amounting to war

Termination of war — Whether war can be terminated by armistice agreement — Effects of Tashkent Declaration, 1966

Effects of outbreak of war — On private contracts — Arbitration clause

Arbitration — International commercial arbitration under International Chamber of Commerce Rules — Role of arbitrator — Whether statement by Executive that a State was at war conclusive in international arbitration — Whether statement conclusive if arbitrator is applying municipal law.

State immunity — State agency — Commercial activity — Implied waiver of immunity — Claim for breach of contract and repayment of debt against foreign State and State agency — Application for security for costs — State entity established by decree to manage assets on insolvency of business based in that State — State entity participating in litigation relating to insolvency in United States courts without raising defence of State immunity — Whether an implied waiver — Whether liquidation and management of assets a commercial activity — Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act 1976 — Whether act of State doctrine applicable — The law of the United States

International law — Relation to municipal law — Consistency of municipal statute with treaty — Patent law — The law of the United States of America.

Treaties — Special kinds of — Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between United States and Italy — National treatment with respect to patents — Consistency of municipal statute with treaty — The law of the United States of America.

Human rights — Jurisdiction — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — General duty of Contracting States under Article 1 of Convention — Extraordinary rendition — United States Central Intelligence Agency rendition programme — High-Value Detainees Programme — Secret detention of terrorist suspects — Ill-treatment of terrorist suspects — Applicant complaining respondent State violating his rights under Articles 3, 5, 6(1), 8, 10 and 13 of Convention, and Articles 2 and 3 of Convention taken together with Article 1 of Protocol No 6 to Convention — Respondent State raising preliminary objection — Whether non-exhaustion of domestic remedies — Whether to be joined to merits — Obligation to furnish all necessary facilities under Article 38 of Convention — Confidentiality and national security issues — Relevance — Whether responsibility of respondent State engaged in respect of applicant at material time — Whether respondent State responsible for applicant’s treatment and detention by foreign officials on its territory — Whether respondent State responsible for applicant’s removal from its territory — Whether respondent State violating Convention

Human rights — Prohibition on torture and inhuman and degrading treatment — Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Allegations of ill-treatment by applicant — Admissibility of applicant’s complaints — Procedural aspect of Article 3 — Whether respondent State failing to carry out effective investigation of applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment when in United States custody on territory of respondent State — Substantive aspects of Article 3 — Whether derogation from Article 3 permitted in difficult circumstances of terrorism — Whether respondent State complicit in United States Central Intelligence Agency High-Value Detainees Programme — Whether respondent State enabling United States authorities to subject applicant to torture and ill-treatment on its territory — Whether treatment amounting to torture — Whether respondent State enabling United States authorities to transfer applicant from its territory despite existence of a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 — Whether respondent State violating Article 3 of Convention

Human rights — Right to liberty and security of person — Article 5 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Allegations of arbitrary detention by applicant — Applicant’s detention on territory of respondent State — Whether real risk of further undisclosed detention following transfer by United States authorities enabled by respondent State — Admissibility of applicant’s complaints — Extraordinary rendition — United States Central Intelligence Agency rendition programme — Secret detention of terrorist suspects — Removal of legal protection and safeguards from individuals — Programme operating outside United States’ jurisdiction — Programme requiring cooperation of host countries and overseas detention facilities — Whether respondent State responsible for applicant’s detention on its territory — Respondent State enabling transfer of applicant from its territory to Central Intelligence Agency secret detention facilities — Whether respondent State responsible for exposing applicant to foreseeable serious risk of detention conditions not complying with Convention — Whether respondent State violating Article 5 of Convention

Human rights — Right to respect for private and family life — Article 8 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Applicant separated from family while detained and transferred — Admissibility of applicant’s complaint — Notion of private life — Whether covering person’s moral and physical integrity — Acts and omissions of respondent State in respect of applicant’s detention and transfer — Whether amounting to interference with applicant’s right in accordance with law — Whether respondent State’s responsibility engaged — Whether respondent State violating Article 8 of Convention

Human rights — Right to an effective remedy — Article 13 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Applicant complaining of lack of effective remedy in respect of grievances under Article 3 of Convention — Admissibility of applicant’s complaints — Complaint linked to complaint under procedural aspect of Article 3 — Whether complaints arguable — Whether criminal investigation effective — Requirements of Article 13 — Whether respondent State violating Article 13 of Convention

Human rights — Right to a fair trial — Article 6(1) of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Applicant complaining transfer from respondent State’s territory exposing him to real risk of flagrant denial of justice — Admissibility of applicant’s complaint — Whether real risk that trial before United States military commission would be flagrant denial of justice — Whether United States military commission guaranteeing impartiality and independence — Whether United States military commission “established by law” — Probability of admission of evidence obtained by torture — Whether responsibility of respondent State engaged — Whether respondent State violating Article 6(1) of Convention

Terrorism — Terrorist suspects — Extraordinary rendition — United States Central Intelligence Agency rendition programme — High-Value Detainees Programme — Programme operating outside United States’ jurisdiction — Cooperation of host countries and overseas detention facilities — High-Value Detainees Programme — Secret detention of terrorist suspects — Ill-treatment of terrorist suspects — Applicant detained in CIA-run secret detention facility in respondent State — Applicant ill-treated by CIA — Applicant transferred by CIA from respondent State — Complicity of respondent State — Whether responsibility of respondent State engaged with respect to detention on its territory — Whether responsibility of respondent State engaged with respect to transfer from its territory — Whether respondent State violating European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

Evidence before international courts and tribunals — European Court of Human Rights — Procedure and rules of Court — Treaties — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 38 — Obligation to furnish all necessary facilities — Whether respondent State complying — Confidentiality and national security issues — Relevance — Whether respondent State’s refusal to submit evidence based on alleged lack of procedural safeguards justified — Whether domestic law justifying refusal to submit evidence — Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 — Articles 25(d) and 26 — Whether Court entitled to draw inferences from respondent State’s conduct

Evidence before international courts and tribunals — European Court of Human Rights — Assessment of evidence and establishment of facts — Standard of proof — Whether approach of national legal systems relevant — Role and approach of Court — Article 19 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Burden of proof — Case law under Articles 2 and 3 of Convention — Extreme secrecy surrounding United States’ rendition operations — Respondent Government’s failure to cooperate — Circumstantial evidence — Whether respondent State’s responsibility under Article 1 of Convention engaged — Whether respondent State responsible for securing Convention rights for applicant at material time

State responsibility — Principles under European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Responsibility of respondent State under Article 1 of Convention — Principles deriving from case law of European Court of Human Rights — United States Central Intelligence Agency rendition programme — High-Value Detainees Programme — Programme operating outside United States’ jurisdiction — Responsibility of State under Convention for acts performed by foreign officials on its territory with acquiescence or connivance of its authorities — Responsibility of State where individual removed from its territory exposed to foreseeable violation of Convention rights in country of destination — Whether real risk of flagrant breach of Convention rights in destination country — Role of respondent State — Whether responsibility of respondent State engaged with respect to detention on its territory — Whether responsibility of respondent State engaged with respect to transfer from its territory — Whether complaints and extent to which events complained of imputable to respondent State could be examined

Evidence before international courts and tribunals — European Court of Human Rights — Evidence obtained by torture — Whether admissible in criminal trial — Legal systems based on rule of law — Trial process cornerstone of rule of law — Whether admission of evidence obtained by torture irreparably damaging trial process — Whether evidence obtained by torture reliable — Whether flagrant denial of justice if evidence obtained by torture admitted in criminal trial — Probability of United States military commission admitting evidence obtained by torture — Whether real risk that trial before United States military commission would be flagrant denial of justice — Whether responsibility of respondent State engaged — Whether respondent State violating Article 6(1) of Convention

Human rights — Right to life — Article 2 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 3 of Convention — Article 1 of Protocol No 6 to Convention — Abolition of death penalty — Applicant complaining transfer from respondent State’s territory exposing him to real risk of imposition of death penalty — Admissibility of applicant’s complaint — Extradition — Extraordinary rendition of suspected terrorist facing capital charges — Whether substantial and foreseeable risk applicant would be subjected to death penalty following trial before United States military commission — Whether acts and omissions of respondent State engaging its responsibility under Convention — Whether respondent State required to seek appropriate diplomatic assurances from United States under Article 46 of Convention — Whether respondent State violating Articles 2 and 3 of Convention taken together with Article 1 of Protocol No 6 to Convention

Damages — Non-pecuniary damage — Serious violations of several provisions of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Whether applicant suffering non-pecuniary damage — Whether finding of violations sufficient — Article 41 of Convention

British Commonwealth of Nations — Whether Court in One Dominion has Power to Order Transfer of a Suit to a Court in Another Dominion — Indian Independence — Effect of.

Human rights — International law — Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, 1951, Article 33(2) — Non-refoulement principle — Relationship with wider human rights obligations — Effect in national law — Constitution of Kenya

Aliens — Refugees — Non-refoulement — Exceptions for national security and crime — Whether exceptions to be construed restrictively — Relationship between Article 33(2) of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, 1951 and human rights instruments — Requirement of individual assessment — The law of Kenya

Warfare on land — Occupation of enemy territory — Nature and effects of — Applicability of local law to members of occupying forces — Local law relating to formalities of marriage — Applicability to member of forces associated with and under control of occupying forces — Status of Polish Army in Germany in 1945 — Whether Polish forces were in belligerent occupation of Germany — The law of England.

Warfare on land — Appropriation, utilization and destruction of enemy property — Sequestration of German-owned patents — London Accord concerning the treatment of German-owned patents, 1946 — Disposal of German-owned patents (Article 1) — Right of signatory Governments to protect rights acquired by non-Germans (Article 4) — Application of — The law of France.

International Organizations — Officials — Termination of Employment — Reduction of Staff — Distinction between Technical Assistance Staff and Regular Establishment Staff — Priority of Permanent Officials over Temporary Officials for Retention in Service — Discretionary Powers of Director-General of Food and Agriculture Organization.

Extradition — In General — Expulsion in Lieu of Extradition — Detention as Preliminary to Expulsion.

Extradition — Political Offences — Expulsion in Lieu of Extradition — Detention as Preliminary to Expulsion.

Aliens — Expulsion of — Extradition — Extradition Act — Aliens Act — The Law of India.

Jurisdiction — Territorial — Irregular apprehension — Sailors of foreign navy — Desertion in port — Apprehension in third State — Return to country of origin — Under treaty — Function of consuls — Aliens — Expulsion of — The law of the United States of America.

Aliens — Expulsion of — Sailors of foreign navy — Desertion in port — Apprehension in third State — Return to country of origin — Under treaty — Function of consuls — The law of the United States of America.

Consuls — Position and functions of — Under treaty — Sailors of foreign navy — Desertion in port — Return to country of origin Aliens — Expulsion of — The law of the United States of America.

Treaties — Interpretation of — Principles and rules of — Whether word should be interpreted by reference to municipal law of one Party — “Desertion“ — Treaty of Friendship between United States of America and Spain — The law of the United States of America.

Extradition — Miscellaneous — Sailors of foreign navy — Desertion in port — Apprehension in third State — Return to country of origin — Under treaty — Function of consuls — Aliens — Expulsion of — The law of the United States of America.

International law in general — Relation to municipal law — Treaties — Effect on private rights — Merller of Jind into Patiala Union Effect of Covenant of merger — Act of State — The law of India.

State territory — In general — Effects of changes of sovereignty — Covenant for merger of former independent Indian States into Patiala Union, 1948 — Effect on rights of subjects of those States based on prior contract with Ruler — Act of State — The law of India.

State succession — Succession with regard to contractual obligations — Concessions — Agreement as to rate of income-tax — Agreement between Ruler of Jind and a company — Effect of merger of Jind into Patiala Union — Effect on concession — Act of State — Whether previous obligations of Ruler Incorporated into Constitution of new State — The law of India.

Jurisdiction — Territorial — Applicability of English statute — Respondent bank registered and carrying on business in Jersey — Whether respondent out of jurisdiction of court — Section 238(2) of Insolvency Act 1986 — “Any person” — Meaning intended by Parliament — Whether encompassing “foreign” bank — Principles of statutory construction — Whether territorial scope of legislation unlimited — Whether Parliament intending limitation of application of statute — Court possessing discretion providing safeguards — Sufficient connection with England — Service out of jurisdiction — The law of England

Jurisdiction — Territorial — Exemptions from and restrictions upon — Foreign armed forces — Crew members of visiting foreign naval vessel — Whether subject to local immigration legislation — Deportation order — The law of Australia.

Aliens — Expulsion of — Right of expulsion — Deportation of person claiming political asylum — Crew members of visiting foreign naval vessel — Whether deportation order is misuse of executive power which is subject to examination by the courts — The law of Australia.

Extradition — In General — Absence of Treaty of Extradition — Reciprocity — The Law of Venezuela.

Permanent Court of International Justice — Jurisdiction of — Optional Clause of Article 36 of the Statute — Limitation ratione temporis — Meaning of the Words “in any disputes which may arise after the ratification of the present declaration with regard to situations or facts subsequent to such ratification” — Situation Extending beyond the Date of Ratification — Alleged Unlawful Acts Leading to that Situation and Preceding the Ratification — Alleged Continued Denial of Justice Subsequent to Ratification.

State Responsibility — Acts of Revolutionary de facto Governments — Considerations to be Taken into Account by an Equity Tribunal.

Claims — Nationality of — Claims by Insurance Companies in Respect of Losses Suffered by Nationals of the Defendant State.

Extradition — Conditions of — Principle of Double Criminality — Sufficiency of Evidence — Extradition Treaty between the United States and Italy.