International Court of Justice — Jurisdiction — Subject-matter of dispute — Jurisdiction ratione materiae under International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, 1999 (“ICSFT”) — Whether Court having to establish plausibility of claims of Ukraine — Interpretation of Article 2 of ICSFT — Whether ICSFT applying to terrorism financing by State officials — Meaning of “funds”, “knowledge”, “intention” and “purpose” matters for merits — Whether Parties having negotiated a settlement before filing the case — Whether Parties having endeavoured to organize arbitral proceedings for six months before filing the case

International Court of Justice — Jurisdiction — Jurisdiction ratione materiae under International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 1966 (“CERD”) — Whether acts of which Ukraine complains constituting “discrimination” within meaning of Article 1 of CERD matter for merits — Whether rights invoked by Ukraine protected under CERD — Alternative or cumulative character of preconditions under Article 22 of CERD — Whether Ukraine making a genuine attempt to find a negotiated solution before filing the case — Admissibility of claims under CERD — Whether rule on exhaustion of local remedies applicable — Diplomatic protection — Alleged existence of a sustained campaign of racial discrimination

Terrorism — Treaties — Interpretation — Scope — International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, 1999 (“ICSFT”) — Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 — Interpretation of Article 2 of ICSFT — Whether ICSFT applying to terrorism financing by State officials — Meaning of “funds”, “knowledge”, “intention” and “purpose” matters for merits — Whether Court having jurisdiction to entertain Ukraine’s claims under ICSFT — Whether preliminary objection to be upheld

Human rights — Treaties — Interpretation — Scope — International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 1966 (“CERD”) — Whether acts of which Ukraine complains constituting “discrimination” within meaning of Article 1 of CERD matter for merits — Whether rights invoked by Ukraine protected under CERD — Interpretation of Article 22 of CERD — Alternative or cumulative character of preconditions — Whether Ukraine making a genuine attempt to negotiate settlement of dispute — Whether Court having jurisdiction to entertain Ukraine’s claims under CERD — Whether preliminary objection to admissibility of Ukraine’s claims to be upheld

Human rights — Right to fair trial — African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1981, Article 7 — Right to be heard — Right to defence — Right to free legal assistance — International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, Article 14 — Whether Tanzania violating right to fair trial

International tribunals — African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights — Jurisdiction — Material jurisdiction — Whether Court having jurisdiction to hear application — Whether Court sitting in appellate capacity over national courts — Admissibility of application — Exhaustion of local remedies — Whether application filed within reasonable time

Arbitration — Arbitration between two Member States of European Union — Delimitation of maritime and land borders — Arbitration agreement breached — Arbitration agreement unilaterally terminated — Final arbitration award — Validity of arbitration award contested — Arbitration award not implemented — Relationship between arbitration agreement and European Union law — European Union not a party to arbitration agreement between Member States

Jurisdiction — Treaties — European Union — Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union — Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, 2007 — Article 259 — Alleged failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — Competence of the European Union in border dispute — Alleged infringements of EU law ancillary to alleged infringement of arbitration agreement — Relationship between European Union law and arbitration agreement and award

International tribunals — Arbitration agreement — International law governing arbitration agreement — Arbitration award — Relationship between arbitration agreement and arbitration award and European Union law — Obligations of Member States of the European Union — Accession to European Union — Arbitration agreement referred to in accession agreement — Validity of arbitration award contested — Competence of European Union in border dispute — Ratione materiae of European Union law with respect to international legal instruments

International organizations — European Union — Member States — Obligations of Member States of the European Union — Accession to European Union — Arbitration agreement referred to in accession agreement — Where validity of arbitration award contested — Arbitration award not implemented — European Union not party to arbitration agreement between Member States — Relationship between arbitration agreement and arbitration award and European Union law — Scope ratione materiae of EU law in relation to international legal instruments — Competence of European Union in border dispute

Territory — Sea — Slovenia — Croatia — Delimitation of land and sea borders — Power to determine territory retained by European Union Member States — Delimitation of borders contested — Arbitration award delimiting borders contested — Action would require determination of borders between two European Union Member States — The law of the European Union

States — Legal personality of States under international law — European Union — State not Member of the European Union — Whether possessing legal personality under European Union law — European Union sanctions against Venezuela — Whether Venezuela entitled to challenge sanctions before European Union courts

Comity — International organizations — European Union — Standing before courts of European Union — Third States — Whether third States can challenge economic restrictions before European Union courts — Reciprocity — Whether access to European Union courts by third States conditional on agreement — Whether third States having standing to annul European Union Regulations — Whether third States having access to European Union courts — Whether third States directly affected by a European Union Regulation

Treaties — Interpretation — Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, 2007 — Article 263 — Fourth paragraph of Article 263 — Meaning of “legal person” — Whether third State a “legal person” — Rule of law — Whether access to European Union courts can be subjected to condition of reciprocity — Meaning of directly and individually concerned — Whether a third State is directly affected by a regulation

Economics, trade and finance — Restrictive measures — Venezuela — Whether regulation restricting European Union nationals directly concerning third State — Whether access of third States to European Union courts placing European Union at disadvantage — The law of the European Union

Human rights — Right to a fair trial — Right to an effective remedy — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Articles 6(1) and 13 — Application by State not party to the Convention — Applicant alleging breach of Convention by Belgium — Whether possible for applicant to refer alleged breach to Court — Whether applicant’s complaint inter-State under Article 33 of Convention — Whether possible for applicant to make individual application under Article 34 of Convention — Whether applicant non-governmental organization — Exercise of public power — Whether application incompatible ratione personae with Convention — Whether application admissible

States — Legal personality — Application to European Court of Human Rights by State — Applicant State not party to the European Convention on Human Rights — Standing

Human rights — Fair trial — Freedom of association — Participation in elections — Right to be elected — International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 (“ICCPR”) — Whether detention, sentence and conviction of former president of the Republic of Maldives violating ICCPR Articles 14, 22 and 25 — United Nations Human Rights Committee

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Effect in municipal law — International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 — Article 12(4) — Right not to be arbitrarily deprived of right to enter one’s own country — Cancellation of permanent visa — Whether visa cancellation contrary to Article 12(4) right — Whether procedural fairness requiring respondent to notify visa-holder of possible non-compliance with Article 12(4) and to invite submissions on same prior to cancellation — Whether potential non-compliance with Article 12(4) is mandatory relevant consideration — Decision in Teoh — Effect — United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989 — Relevance

Aliens — Visa cancellation — Migration Act 1958 (Cth) — Australia’s international obligations — Whether Minister required to consider international obligations if not arising from representations made on behalf of affected person — International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 — Article 12(4) — Whether decision of Minister consistent with Article 12(4) — Decision in Teoh — Effect — United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989 — Relevance — The law of Australia

State immunity — Employment — Immunity in disputes arising out of an employment contract with an embassy — United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, 2004 — Article 11(1) and (2)(a) of Jurisdictional Immunities Convention constituting customary international law — Whether employee was employed to perform sovereign activities — Whether determinative — Whether States enjoying immunity regarding disputes with employees performing activities closely functionally related to diplomatic and consular functions of the State — The law of Austria

State immunity — Jurisdiction — Property — Functional nature of immunity — Acta jure imperii and acta jure gestionis — Immunity confined to acta jure imperii — Failure of lower courts to take this limitation into account — Premises of a diplomatic mission — Korean Embassy in Prague — Whether Republic of Korea immune from proceedings in Czech courts

Diplomatic relations — Immunity — Property — Korean Embassy in Prague — Whether Republic of Korea immune from proceedings in Czech courts — Whether Korean Embassy unjustly enriched — Whether immovable property used for purposes of State’s diplomatic mission — Inviolability of premises of diplomatic mission and performance of mission’s functions — Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961, Article 22 — United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, 2004, Article 13 — Whether first instance decision correct — The law of the Czech Republic