International Court of Justice — Jurisdiction — Treaty — Pact of Bogotá — Effect of denunciation — Whether termination of Pact by Colombia precluding the Court from having jurisdiction over claim filed before expiry of one year from denunciation — Articles XXXI and LVI of Pact — Requirement of dispute — Whether there existed a dispute on subject-matter of claim brought by Nicaragua — Dispute over alleged violation by Colombia of sovereign rights — Dispute over alleged violation by Colombia of prohibition of use of force — Whether precondition under Article II of Pact satisfied — Prospect of negotiated settlement — Inherent jurisdiction of the Court — Whether Nicaragua’s claim was an attempt to enforce 2012 judgment

International Court of Justice — Counterclaims — Jurisdiction in respect of counterclaims — Requirement of connection between counterclaim and main claim — Article 80 of Rules of Court — Admissibility of counterclaims — Direct connection — Direct connection in fact — Direct connection in law — Whether Colombia’s counterclaims directly connected with Nicaragua’s original claim — Jurisdiction — Whether lapse of a title of jurisdiction affecting Court’s jurisdiction over Colombia’s counterclaims — Whether there existed a dispute concerning subject-matter of Colombia’s third and fourth counterclaims — Whether precondition under Article II of Pact was met in relation to the third and fourth counterclaims

International Court of Justice — Jurisdiction — Admissibility — American Treaty on Pacific Settlement, 1948 (Pact of Bogotá) — Declarations of acceptance of compulsory jurisdiction — Res judicata — Joinder of proceedings — Expert opinion

Territory — Admissibility of Nicaragua’s claim — Res judicata — Whether International Court of Justice (“ICJ”) having determined Costa Rica’s sovereignty over the coast of Isla Portillos in judgment of 16 December 2015 — Starting point of land boundary — Cleveland Award, 1888 and Alexander Award, 1897 — Assessment of the ICJ-appointed experts — Whether water channel connecting Harbor Head Lagoon to San Juan River — State responsibility — Whether Nicaragua violating Costa Rica’s sovereignty by placing a military camp on Costa Rica’s territory — Whether Nicaragua violating 2015 judgment by placing a military camp on Costa Rica’s territory — Whether Nicaragua obliged to remove military camp

Sea — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 — Articles 15, 74 and 83 — Maritime delimitation — Starting point — Fixed point — Territorial sea — Provisional median line — Special circumstances — Whether convexity and concavity at Punta de Castilla justifying adjusting provisional median line — Whether configuration of coast in vicinity of Salinas Bay justifying adjusting provisional median line — Exclusive Economic Zone — Continental shelf — Three-stage approach — Relevant coast — Relevant area — Radial projections — Frontal projections — Provisional equidistance line — Whether Corn Islands, Paxaro Bovo and Palmenta Cays appropriate base points — Relevant circumstances — Whether three-State concavity inequitably cutting off Costa Rica’s coastal projections — Whether Corn Islands to be given no effect — Whether convexity and concavity around Punta de Castilla justifying adjusting provisional equidistance line — Whether Santa Elena Peninsula and Nicoya Peninsula to be given half effect — Disproportionality test — Simplified maritime boundary

Arbitration — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 — Part XV and Annex VII — Dispute Settlement Mechanism — Dispute between Republic of Malta and Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe — Award on Jurisdiction and the Merits — Finding that Malta entitled to claim reparation in a further phase of proceedings — Suspension of proceedings — Unsuccessful settlement negotiations — Resumption of proceedings — Malta submitting claim and supplementary claim for reparation — São Tomé not participating in reparation phase of proceedings — Whether São Tomé to pay Malta compensation

Damages — Compensation — Quantum — Material damages for lost earnings, value of cargo, payment to secure release of vessel, vessel repairs, classification expenses, administrative expenses, reputational losses — Non-material damages for prosecution and detention of persons — Calculation method — Whether Malta sufficiently substantiating quantum of its claims — Whether Malta establishing causation between its loss and São Tomé’s unlawful conduct for each head of claim — Whether Settlement Agreement mitigating any of damages suffered by owner of the Duzgit Integrity — Whether claims under Settlement Agreement distinct from claims brought by Malta at international law under United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 — Whether acts and omissions of the Duzgit Integrity, its Master, owner and Charterer mitigating any of damages claimed by Malta — Costs — Parties normally bearing expenses in equal share — Implementation of normal rule — Interest payable — Practice of international courts and tribunals

Sea — Treaties — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 — Annex VII — UNCLOS Article 49(3) — Archipelagic waters — Sovereignty of coastal State — Arbitration Tribunal finding violation of Article 49(3) by São Tomé — Reparation phase of proceedings — Article 9 of Annex VII to UNCLOS — Whether claims of Malta well-founded in fact and law — Full reparation — Material damages — Non-material damages — Interest — Appropriate damages payable by São Tomé for breach of UNCLOS Article 49(3) — Rights of flag State under UNCLOS — Claims brought by Malta at international law under UNCLOS

State responsibility — Law of State responsibility — Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts 2001, Article 15 — Detention of the Duzgit Integrity by São Tomé — Point at which detention unlawful — When detention incompatible with United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982, Article 49 — Whether São Tomé’s breach of Article 49 taking form of composite act — First of actions of composite act — Length of actions not in conformity with international obligation — Whether Malta to be compensated for loss of hire of the Duzgit Integrity during its detention — Full reparation — Interest as element of full reparation recognized in Articles on State Responsibility

Human rights — Right to respect for private and family life — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 8 — Applicability — Whether communications in workplace covered by concepts of “private life” and “correspondence” — Compliance with Article 8 — Employment — Personal data — Data protection — Electronic communications — Whether case concerning State’s negative or positive obligations — Whether respondent State required to set up legislative framework to protect applicant’s right in context of professional relationship with private employer — Margin of appreciation — Whether domestic authorities adequately protecting applicant’s right — Whether striking fair balance between interests of individual and community as whole — Whether respondent State violating Article 8 of Convention

Damages — Non-pecuniary damage — Finding of violation of Article 8 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Whether applicant suffering non-pecuniary damage — Whether finding of violation constituting in itself sufficient just satisfaction — Article 41 of Convention

Human rights — Discrimination — Indirect discrimination — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Article 14 — Protocol No 1 to European Convention, Article 1 — Discrimination against women — Discrimination against children — Caps on welfare payments — United Kingdom Regulations implementing benefit cap affecting greater number of women in non-working lone parent households in receipt of benefits — Whether Regulations contrary to Article 14 of European Convention read together with Article 1 of Protocol No 1

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Human rights treaties — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Interpretation — Unincorporated treaties — Effect — United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989 — Article 3(1) — Relevance for determining whether any breach of European Convention — Whether part of United Kingdom law — Primary interest of children in welfare cases — The law of the United Kingdom

State immunity — Immunity from execution — Whether property of State in use for non-commercial purposes — Consular activities — Whether property leased to private company to outsource consular activities immune from execution — Nature of activity of processing visa and passport applications — Enforcement — State Immunity Act 1978, Section 13 — Arbitration exception to State immunity — Enforcement of judgment

Diplomatic relations — Property of State — Whether forming part of State’s diplomatic mission — Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964, Section 2 — Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961, Article 22 — The law of England

Jurisdiction — State immunity — Immunity from suit — Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, Section 31 — State Immunity Act 1978, Section 5 — Whether judgment against a State obtained in a foreign jurisdiction can be enforced in English courts

State immunity — Procedure — Service of proceedings on a foreign State — State Immunity Act 1978, Section 12 — Whether service of proceedings in compound of Ministry of Foreign Affairs of a foreign State constituting good service — Whether service was received by a foreign State where its Ministry of Foreign Affairs had refused to accept service — Whether service by email to Ministry of Foreign Affairs of a foreign State constituting good service

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Human rights — Right to a fair trial — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Article 6 — State Immunity Act 1978, Section 5 — Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, Section 31(1)(b) — English court’s interpretation of United Kingdom legislation — Whether Article 6 of European Convention having role to play

Terrorism — State-sponsored terrorism — Money damages awarded in United States judgments — Whether act of State-sponsored terrorism governmental or private act — Whether Section 3 of State Immunity Act 1978 applicable — The law of England

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Interpretation — Enforceability — Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, 1968 — Article VI of Treaty — United States Constitution — Supremacy Clause of Constitution — State Party seeking to enforce its treaty rights in domestic court of another State Party — Enforceability of treaty provisions in United States’ courts — Separation of powers — Diplomatic negotiations — Decision-making with respect to nuclear disarmament — Whether falling to Executive or Judiciary — Enforceability of Article VI — Self-execution — Standing and redressability — Political question doctrine — Whether United States’ federal court able to grant plaintiff judicial relief

Treaties — Interpretation — Self-executing and non-self-executing treaties — Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, 1968 — Article VI of Treaty — Whether non-self-executing — Enforceability — Whether Article VI enforceable in domestic courts — Treaty text — Context — Aids to interpretation — Negotiation and drafting history — Post-ratification understanding of signatory nations — Whether Article VI providing basis for justiciable claim — The law of the United States