Arbitration — Two phases — Tribunal concerning Bank for International Settlements — First phase of arbitration — Bank organized as company limited by shares — Whether Bank an international organization — Applicable law — Bank amending Statutes — Bank compulsorily recalling private shares — Legality of Bank’s actions — Legality of recall of shares and procedures used — Amendment of Statutes by addition of Article 18A — Conformity with Bank’s Statutes — Articles 57 and 58 of Statutes — Interpretation — Conformity with international law principles — Compensation — Adequacy — Valuation of compulsorily recalled shares — Applicable law — Final phase of arbitration — Determination of exact amount Bank owing per share — Valuation of real estate — Bank’s counterclaim against second claimant

International organizations — Bank for International Settlements — Legal character and status — Bank having private shareholders — Bank possessing Constituent Charter granted by Switzerland — Bank created by treaty — Whether Bank an international organization — Origins, functions and purpose — Bank’s Constituent Instruments — 1930 Hague Agreement — Charter — Statutes — Law governing Bank and its relations with private shareholders — Whether Bank having sovereign powers — Legality of Bank’s recall of shares and procedures used — Whether Bank having power to add Article 18A to Statutes — Whether Bank using correct valuation method for compensation

Treaties — 1930 Hague Agreement — Creation of Bank for International Settlements — Bank’s Charter annexe to 1930 Hague Agreement — Company limited by shares — Constituent Instruments of Bank — Treaty origins of Bank — Legal character and status of Bank — Applicable law

Relationship of international law and municipal law — 1930 Hague Agreement — Bank’s Charter annexed to 1930 Hague Agreement — Swiss monist system — Switzerland granting Constituent Charter to Bank — Creation of Bank — Whether Swiss law applicable — Whether international law applicable — Legality of recall of shares and procedures used — Conformity with Statutes — Interpretation of Statutes — Article 31(3)(b) of Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties, 1969 — Conformity with international law principles — Expropriation — Bank’s Constituent Instruments — Status — Relationship of Constituent Instruments with international law

Expropriation — Bank compulsorily repurchasing private shares — Legality of Bank’s actions — Whether contrary to international law of expropriation — Whether Bank’s actions meeting requirements — Public interest — Non-discrimination — Compensation

Damages — Compensation — Adequacy — Whether amount paid by Bank for recalled shares adequate — Valuation of compulso- rily recalled shares — Applicable law — Method of valuation — Valuation of real estate — Bank’s counterclaim against Claimant No 2 — Whether Claimant No 2 breaching Article 54(1) of Bank’s Statutes — Bank’s request for declaratory relief — Interest — Costs and expenses

Arbitration — Dispute — Jurisdiction — Submission of dispute to Arbitral Tribunal — Belgium — Netherlands Arbitration Agreement 2003 — Applicable law — International law — Relevance of European law — Role of tribunal in relation to European Community law — EC Treaty, Article 292 — Arbitral Award — Allocation of costs — Committee of independent experts to quantify — Interpretation of Award

Treaties — Interpretation — Treaty of Separation, 1839, Article XII — Boundary Treaty, 1842 — Iron Rhine Treaty, 1873 — Rights and obligations of Parties — Legal significance of terms — Belgium’s transit right — Legal basis and scope — Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 — Articles 31 and 32 — Principles of interpretation — Ordinary meaning — Context — Good faith — Principle of effectiveness — Principle of restrictive interpretation — Relevance — Intertemporal rule — Evolutive treaty interpretation — Object and purpose of treaty — European law — General international law — International environmental law — Concepts of reasonableness, fairness and balance

Territory — Sovereignty — Separation of Belgium from Netherlands — Communication link between Antwerp and Germany — Article XII of Treaty of Separation, 1839 — Iron Rhine Treaty, 1873 — Netherlands conferring on Belgium right of transit over Netherlands territory — Extent of Netherlands’ sovereignty — Netherlands’ exercise of jurisdiction over Iron Rhine railway — Whether limited by Netherlands’ obligations under international law — Obligations of good faith and reasonableness — Whether Belgium’s right of transit circumscribed by requirements in Article XII of Treaty of Separation, 1839 — Whether Netherlands violating Belgium’s rights under Article XII of Treaty of Separation, 1839 — Netherlands designating the Meinweg as nature reserve — Whether legitimate exercise of Netherlands’ sovereignty — Whether duty to consult — Financial consequences

Environment — International environmental law — Development since 1972 Stockholm Conference — Duty to prevent or mitigate significant harm to environment — Need to reconcile economic development with protection of environment — Whether environmental protection measures integral part of reactivation project and costs

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Article XII of Treaty of Separation, 1839 — Netherlands’ obligations under Article XII — Measures envisaged by Netherlands for reactivation of Iron Rhine railway — Netherlands legislation — Whether Netherlands required to apply national legislation and policy with respect to Iron Rhine railway in more favourable way than to other railways in Netherlands — Whether such application amounting to denial of Belgium’s transit right — Whether rendering exercise of transit right unreasonably difficult

Claims — Eritrea — Ethiopia Claims Commission — Eritrean — Ethiopian war 1998-2000 — Eritrea’s claims — Liability phase — Commission deciding on extent of Ethiopia’s liability in Awards — Final phase — Damages phase — Eritrea claiming compensation for violations of international law — Nationality of claims — Eritrea also claiming on behalf of its nationals — Dual nationals and long-term residents — Lack of time and resources — State-to-State claims — Claims divided into two groups — Group Number One comprising war front, prisoner of war and displaced persons claims and preliminary issues — Group Number Two comprising all remaining claims including civilians or home front claims and six individual claims — Quantum of damage

Damages — “Fast-track” damages phase — Monetary compensation — Satisfaction — Quantification of monetary damages — Function of compensation — Chorzów Factory test — Parties’ economic positions — Relevance — Economic conditions — Applicable legal principles — Article 5(13) of Algiers Agreement of 12 December 2000 — Relevant international law rules — Res judicata — Role of evidence and burden of proof — Proof of facts — Causation — Factors in assessment of compensation — Nature, seriousness and extent of unlawful acts — Intention — Mitigating circumstances — Victim numbers — Implication of injuries for victims — Group Number One damages claims — Ethiopia liable for damage on Central and Western Fronts — Loss of personal and business property — Damage to or destruction of buildings — Consequential damages — Damage to cultural property — Mistreatment of prisoners of war — Rape — Displacement of population of Awgaro — Group Number Two damages claims — Deprivation of nationality — Applicability of dominant and effective nationality rule — Wrongful expulsion — Harsh conditions of departure — Property losses by persons previously residing in Ethiopia — Property losses by non-residents — Other non-resident property — Unlawful detention of Eritrean civilians — Diplomatic claim — Individual claims — Compensation awarded to Eritrea for Ethiopia’s violations of jus in bello

State responsibility — Causation — Proximity — Nationality of claims — Responsibility for violations of jus in bello

War and armed conflict — Enforcement and implementation — Damages — For violations of jus ad bellum and jus in bello — Eritrea–Ethiopia Claims Commission

Claims — Eritrea — Ethiopia Claims Commission — Eritrean — Ethiopian war 1998-2000 — Ethiopia’s claims — Liability phase — Commission deciding on extent of Eritrea’s liability in Awards — Eritrea’s liability for violations of jus in bello and jus ad bellum — Final phase — Damages phase — Ethiopia claiming compensation for violations of international law — Scope of jus ad bellum damages — Quantum of damages for jus in bello and jus ad bellum liability — Lack of time and resources — State-toState claims — Claims divided into two groups — Group Number One comprising war front, prisoner of war and displaced persons claims and preliminary issues — Group Number Two comprising all remaining claims including civilians or home front claims — Quantum of damage

Damages — “Fast-track” damages phase — Monetary compensation — Satisfaction — Scope of jus ad bellum damages — Quantum of damages for jus in bello and jus ad bellum liability — Function of compensation — Chorzów Factory test — Parties’ economic positions — Relevance — Economic conditions — Applicable legal principles — Article 5(13) of Algiers Agreement of 12 December 2000 — Relevant international law rules — Res judicata — Role of evidence and burden of proof — Proof of facts — Causation — Factors in assessment of compensation — Nature, seriousness and extent of unlawful acts — Intention — Mitigating circumstances — Victim numbers — Implication of injuries for victims — Moral damages claims — Fixed-sum jus in bello damages claims — Actual amount jus in bello damages claims — Other jus in bello compensation claims — Ethiopia’s claims for compensation for Eritrea’s violation of jus ad bellum

State responsibility — Causation — Proximity — Extent of responsibility for damage caused by lawful acts of war resulting from breach of the jus ad bellum

War and armed conflict — Enforcement and implementation — Damages — For violations of jus ad bellum and jus in bello — Eritrea — Ethiopia Claims Commission

State immunity — Head of State immunity — Head of State acting in private capacity — Scope of immunity — Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 (Cth) — Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Act 1967 (Cth) — Treatment of Head of State immunity based on approach taken in State Immunity Act 1978 (UK) — Decision of House of Lords in Pinochet (No 3) — Relevance — Australian and United Kingdom Acts virtually identical in practical effect — Acts of Head of State in private capacity regulated by Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Act 1967 (Cth) following United Kingdom example — Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961, Articles 31 and 39 — Whether exceptions to immunity applicable — Whether geographical limitation on diplomatic immunity

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961 — Articles 31 and 39 — Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Act 1967 (Cth) and Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964 (UK) giving legal effect to relevant provisions of Vienna Convention — The law of Australia

Sea — Jurisdiction — Fisheries — Sovereignty — Svalbard Fishing Protection Zone — Norway sovereign over Svalbard — Article 1 of Svalbard Treaty, 1920 — Norwegian regulation only permitting fishing by nationals of States traditionally fishing in Protection Zone — Icelandic defendants appealing illegal fishing conviction — Whether regulation violating Svalbard Treaty, 1920 — Whether outer limit of Protection Zone correct — Islands — Characteristics of an island — Whether small island “Abeloeya” baseline for Protection Zone — Whether island rock — Law of the Sea Convention, 1982 — Whether Icelandic vessels fishing outside Protection Zone

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Svalbard Treaty, 1920 — Equal treatment requirement in Articles 2 and 3 of Treaty — Discrimination — Whether Norwegian regulation discriminating on basis of nationality — Whether regulation violating Articles 2 and 3 of Treaty — Traditional fisheries — International practice — Law of the Sea Convention, 1982

Treaties — Svalbard Treaty, 1920 — Geographical scope — Ratifying States only entitled to invoke rights in Treaty — Article 34 of Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties, 1969 — Iceland ratifying Treaty in 1994 — Interpretation — Application to forms of title not existing when Treaty concluded — Law of the Sea Convention, 1982 — The law of Norway

Human rights — Freedom of speech and expression — Freedom of press — Definition — Democratic importance — Constitution of Uganda 1995 — Article 29 of Constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech and expression, including freedom of press — Section 50 of Penal Code Act making publication of false news a criminal offence — Limitation on enjoyment of constitutional right — Article 43(2)(c) of Constitution providing conditions for validity of limitation valid — Whether directed to prevent or remove prejudice to public interest — Whether acceptable and demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society — Whether limitation falling within parameters of Article 43 — Whether Section 50 valid limitation under Constitution — Whether Section 50 of Penal Code Act contravening Article 29 of Constitution

Treaties — Human rights — Freedom of expression — Definition — International instruments to which Uganda party — African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights 1981, Article 9 — International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, Article 19 — The law of Uganda

Human rights — Right to life — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Article 2 — Substantive and procedural obligations — Relationship between these obligations — Whether State obliged by Article 2 not to commit forces to armed conflict except in accordance with international law — Relationship between European Convention and Charter of the United Nations — Whether procedural obligation under Article 2 entitles relatives of service personnel killed in Iraq to independent investigation into steps taken by Government to determine whether military operation lawful

War and armed conflict — Resort to force — Enforcement action — Military action in Iraq 2003 — Whether lawful — United Nations Security Council resolutions on Iraq — Resolutions 678 (1990), 687 (1991) and 1441 (2002) — Whether legality of use of force justiciable in an English court — Occupation of Iraq — Security Council resolution 1546 (2004) — The law of England

Aliens — Immigration and deportation — Respondents deemed to be danger to national security — Respondents appealing against deportation orders — Whether respondents would face ill- treatment upon return to State of nationality — Whether deportation would breach respondents’ rights under European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Article 3 — Libya — United Kingdom Memorandum of Understanding — Whether Libya would act in breach of Memorandum — Decision of Special Immigration Appeals Commission allowing respondents’ appeals against deportation orders — Whether Commission erring in law

Human rights — Prohibition of torture — Whether substantial grounds for believing respondents would face a real risk of suffering torture on return to Libya — Whether Special Immigration Appeals Commission misunderstanding or misapplying proper test — Libya — United Kingdom Memorandum of Understanding — Whether assurances in Memorandum reducing risks of torture to acceptable level — Whether Libya would abide by terms of Memorandum — Extent of risk Libya would not comply — Whether Commission bound to accept view of expert witness — Whether Commission misdirecting itself in law — Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

Terrorism — Respondents Islamist extremists with terrorist links — Respondents deemed to be danger to national security — Deportation of respondents to native Libya — Whether United Kingdom breaching obligations under European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — The law of England

Aliens — Asylum claim — Appellant claiming asylum in United Kingdom — Refusal of asylum by Home Secretary — Refusal of asylum upheld by Asylum and Immigration Tribunal — Article 1F(c) of Refugee Convention, 1951 — Whether appellant guilty of acts contrary to purposes and principles of United Nations — Terrorism

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Refugee Convention, 1951 — Convention having domestic force to extent adopted by national legislation — Convention given effect by European Community directive which was itself directly effective in domestic law — European Communities Act 1972 — Council Directive 2004/83/EC — Qualification of application of Section 1 of Terrorism Act 2000 to proceedings under Article 1F of Refugee Convention, 1951

Treaties — Interpretation — Refugee Convention, 1951 — Straightforward language of Convention — Scope and purpose of Convention — Article 1F(c) of Convention — Principles and purposes of United Nations — Whether terrorism contrary to principles and purposes of United Nations — Whether individual acts of terrorism within reach of Article 1F(c) — United Nations Charter — Meaning and scope — Relevant Security Council resolutions — Resolution 1624 — Centrality of principles and purposes of United Nations to adjudication — Article 1F(c) of Refugee Convention, 1951

Terrorism — Whether acts of terrorism constituting acts contrary to principles and purposes of United Nations — Article 1F(c) of Refugee Convention, 1951 — Whether Article 1F(c) of Convention confined to state actors

Human rights — Torture — Evidence obtained by torture — Repudiation of torture as means of obtaining evidence — Whether appellant’s Egyptian convictions obtained by torture — Weight to be given to evidence obtained by torture — Whether Asylum and Immigration Tribunal erring in law by giving weight to Egyptian convictions — The law of England

Human rights — Right to liberty — Aliens — Detention — Detention of aliens outside United States sovereign territory during wartime — Appellant detained at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba — Appellant filing habeas petition with District Court challenging his detention — Whether detention lawful — Whether detention lawful under United States law — Whether detention lawful under international law — Whether defect in District Court’s habeas procedure — Boumediene — Procedure due to military detainees challenging their detention in habeas corpus proceedings — Whether District Court improperly admitting hearsay evidence

Relationship of international law and municipal law — International laws of war — Nature — Relevance — Whether source of authority for United States courts — Whether limiting war powers granted by United States statutes — Whether United States statutes intending international laws of war to limit President’s war powers — Powers of Congress

War and armed conflict — Terrorism — Combatants — Attacks on United States on 11 September 2001 — Detention of appellant — Whether detention lawful under United States law — Whether detention authorized by United States statute — Whether appellant falling within original and modified definitions — Whether appellant “part of” or “substantially supporting” Taliban or Al-Qaeda forces or associated forces engaged in hostilities against United States or its coalition partners — Authorization for Use of Force Act 2001 — Detainee Treatment Act 2005 — Military Commissions Acts 2006 and 2009 — Whether appellant falling within scope of President’s statutory detention powers — Determination of limits of President’s war powers — Whether United States Government having authority to detain the appellant — The law of the United States