International Court of Justice — Advisory jurisdiction — Extent of jurisdiction — Discretion to decline to give opinion — Requirement of compelling reasons for Court to decline to give opinion — Requesting organ — General Assembly — Court asked by General Assembly to give opinion on matter within powers of Security Council — Question posed — Whether Court empowered to reformulate question — Whether matter already determined by General Assembly

International organizations — United Nations — Organs — Powers — Security Council — Decisions under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter — Transitional administration of territory — Whether imposing obligations on non-State actors — Resolution 1244 (1999) — Transitional administration of Kosovo — Character — Final status negotiations — General Assembly — Whether possessing role — Whether proper for General Assembly to seek advisory opinion from International Court of Justice

State — Independence — Territorial integrity — Declarations of independence — Whether declaration of independence in accordance with international law — General international law regarding declarations of independence — Whether declaration of independence prohibited — Whether groups within a State have a right to independence — Right of self-determination — Specific legal regime applicable to territory under international administration — Kosovo

Human rights — Self-determination — Extent of right of self-determination — Relationship with right of territorial integrity — Remedial self-determination — Kosovo

International criminal law — International Criminal Court (“ICC”) — Rome Statute, Articles 27, 87 and 98 — Duty of cooperation of States parties in enforcing warrant of arrest — Situation in Darfur — Referral to the ICC by the Security Council of the United Nations — Warrant of arrest for Head of State of State not party to Rome Statute — Whether entitled to immunity before ICC — Whether entitled to immunity before national authorities

State immunity — Head of State — Immunity from criminal proceedings — Whether extending to proceedings before international court — International Criminal Court — Whether Head of State of State not party to Rome Statute entitled to immunity — Obligations of States parties to Rome Statute to cooperate in enforcing warrant of arrest

Sea — Seabed — Area — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982, and related instruments — Exploration and exploitation of mineral resources in the Area — Responsibility and obligations of sponsoring States — Notion of sponsorship — Definition of activities in the Area — Developing States

State responsibility — Meaning of “responsibility” and “liability” — Responsibility referring to primary obligations — Liability referring to consequences of breach of primary obligations — Distinction between direct obligations of States and responsibility to ensure certain behaviour by others — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982, and related instruments — Exploration and exploitation ofmineral resources in the Area — Responsibility and obligations of sponsoring States — Obligation of due diligence — Precautionary approach

Environment — Marine environment — Deep seabed mining — Duty to protect the marine environment — Precautionary principle — Obligation of due diligence — International standards — Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration

International tribunals — International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea — Seabed Disputes Chamber — Advisory jurisdiction — Admissibility

Arbitration — Provisional measures of protection — Court of Arbitration — Indus Waters Treaty, 1960 — Power of Court to order measures if necessary to avoid prejudice to final solution — Criteria — Whether party seeking measures required to demonstrate urgency and risk of irreparable harm — Relevance of criteria identified by International Court of Justice

Rivers — Legal regulation — Indus Waters Treaty, 1960 — Possible diversion of waters — Arbitration — Court of Arbitration — Provisional measures — Kishenganga Hydro-Electric Project

Human rights — Prohibition of torture — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Article 3 — Deportation of non-national to State of nationality — Whether substantial grounds for believing deportee would face a real risk of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in receiving State — Assurances of good treatment in Memorandum of Understanding — Nature of assurances — Provision for monitoring — Whether sufficient to establish that deportation would not entail violation of Article 3

Human rights — Right to liberty — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Article 5 — Whether applicable in expulsion case — Deportation of non-national to State of nationality — Whether substantial grounds for believing that deportee would face a real risk of flagrant breach of Article 5 standards in receiving State

Human rights — Due process — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Article 6 — Deportation of non-national to State of nationality — Whether substantial grounds for believing deportee would face real risk offlagrant injustice in receiving State — Retrial for crimes of which deportee convicted in absentia — Risk that evidence obtained by torture would be admitted

Terrorism — Right of State to take firm stand against those involved in terrorism — Right to deport non-nationals suspected of involvement in terrorism — Absolute character of prohibition on torture, inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment — Whether substantial grounds for believing deportee would face a real risk of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in receiving State

Treaties — Non-binding arrangements — Memorandum of Understanding — Relevance to question whether substantial grounds for believing deportee would face a real risk of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in receiving State

Human rights — Scope and extent — Jurisdiction — Whether persons outside the territory of the State nevertheless within its jurisdiction — Military operation by forces of one State in the territory of another — Individuals brought within the control of agents of the former State — Whether treatment of those individuals subject to requirements of human rights law — American Convention on Human Rights, 1969

Human Rights — Scope and extent — International humanitarian law — Relationship with international human rights law — Whether mutually exclusive — Significance of international humanitarian law as lex specialis — American Convention on Human Rights, 1969

International tribunals — Inter-American Commission on Human Rights — Jurisdiction — Inter-State cases — American Convention on Human Rights, 1969, Article 45

Claims — Local remedies rule — Purpose of rule — Burden of proof — Respondent State bearing burden of proving effective remedies available — Human rights

War and armed conflict — Applicable law — Counter-terrorist military operation by forces of Colombia in territory of Ecuador — Whether human rights law applicable

Aliens — Refugees — Determination of refugee status — Refoulement — Removal of person claiming refugee status — Removal to third country — Determination of claim to refugee status to be made in third country — Requirement that third country meet certain criteria — Agreement between Australia and Malaysia — Australian minister required to make good faith assessment of whether Malaysia met criteria

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Refugees Convention — Agreement between Australia and Malaysia regarding asylum-seekers — Effects in municipal law — The law of Australia

Arbitration — Investor — State arbitration — NAFTA Chapter 11 — Jurisdiction — Standard for challenge before national court — Scope of protection under NAFTA Chapter 11 — Whether tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by awarding damages for loss of profits by United States company in respect of sales to Mexican subsidiary

Treaties — Interpretation — Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, Article 31(3)(b) — Subsequent practice of the parties — Whether NAFTA Parties had manifested common position — Whether NAFTA Chapter 11 tribunal exceeded jurisdiction if it disregarded that position — The law of Canada

State immunity — Jurisdiction — 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 — The law of the Czech Republic

State immunity — Jurisdiction — Limitation to sovereign acts — Human rights — Access to court — Whether State immunity a limitation on right of access to court in civil proceedings — Whether complying with international law on State immunity a legitimate aim — Jus cogens — Whether limiting State immunity — Crimes against international law — Terrorism — Whether limiting State immunity — The law of France