International Court of Justice — Jurisdiction — American Treaty on Pacific Settlement, 1948 (“Pact of Bogotá”), Article XXXI — Nicaragua instituting proceedings against Colombia — Nicaragua’s First Request concerning delimitation of continental shelf between Parties in area beyond 200 nautical miles from Nicaraguan coast — Nicaragua’s Second Request requesting Court to determine principles and rules of international law governing right and duties of two States in relevant area pending delimitation — Whether Court having jurisdiction to entertain application — Colombia raising preliminary objections — Whether Court lacking jurisdiction ratione temporis — Pact of Bogotá — Denunciation by Colombia — Interpretation of Pact of Bogotá — Whether Article XXXI of Pact of Bogotá remaining in force on date of application — Effect of second paragraph of Article LVI — Whether effet utile principle applicable — Travaux préparatoires — Whether Court having “continuing jurisdiction” — Whether Court having already fully dealt with Nicaragua’s claims regarding delimitation of continental shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 nautical miles of Nicaraguan coast — 2012 Judgment — Whether Nicaragua’s claim barred by way of res judicata — Issue concerning Article 76(8) of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 — Whether application attempt to revise 2012 Judgment — Admissibility of application

Treaties — Denunciation — Effect — Interpretation — American Treaty on Pacific Settlement, 1948 (“Pact of Bogotá”) — Whether Article XXXI of Pact of Bogotá remaining in force on date of application — Effect of second paragraph of Article LVI — Transmission of notification — One-year period between denunciation and termination of Pact — Institution of proceedings during one-year period — Object and purpose of Pact — A contrario interpretation — Effet utile principle — Whether applicable — Travaux préparatoires — Whether Court having jurisdiction by means of Article XXXI of Pact of Bogotá — Whether necessary for Court to consider other bases of jurisdiction

General principles of international law — Res judicata — Identity between parties, object and legal ground — Final and definitive determination of Nicaragua’s extended continental shelf claim — Scope of 2012 Judgment — Meaning of operative clause established by reference to reasoning of Judgment — Nicaragua’s obligation to submit information on limits of extended continental shelf to Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (“CLCS”) — Article 76 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 (“UNCLOS”) — Whether Nicaragua’s claim to a continental shelf barred by res judicata

Sea — Maritime delimitation — Delimitation of continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles — Role and function of Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (“CLCS”) — Delineation not delimitation — Article 76 of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 (“UNCLOS”) — Delimitation of continental shelf governed by Article 83 of UNCLOS — Whether obligation to obtain recommendation by CLCS before International Court of Justice could delimit continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles

Arbitration — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 (“UNCLOS”), Part XV and Annex VII — Award on Jurisdiction — Award on Merits — Russia in breach of its obligations to the Netherlands under UNCLOS — Heads of damage for which compensation due — Quantum of compensation

Damages — Compensation — Compensable and non-compensable claims — Restitution — Return of confiscated equipment and items — Material damage for vessel repairs and replacement of objects belonging to vessel — Material damage for loss of use of vessel — Material damage for bail and security — Material damage for injury to personal belongings — Material damage for unpaid deposits to arbitration tribunal — Non-material damage for wrongful arrest, prosecution and detention of persons

Damages — Compensation — Quantum of compensation — Compensation in form of a lump sum — Compensation on an equitable basis — Interest rate — Start date for calculation of interest

Evidence before international courts and tribunals — Review of evidence by experts — Methodology for reviewing evidence — Assessment of evidence by tribunal

Aliens — Migration crisis — Humanitarian crisis — Applicants leaving Tunisia as part of mass migration — Migrants held in reception centre on island of Lampedusa in Italy — Migrants subsequently held on ships in Palermo Harbour — Applicants lodging complaints against Italian Government with European Court of Human Rights — Complaints concerning confinement and conditions in reception centre and on ships — Whether applicants subjected to collective expulsion — Whether applicants having effective remedy under Italian law — Italian Government objecting to admissibility of complaints — Whether Italian Government estopped from raising objection concerning non-exhaustion of domestic remedies — Whether objection raised in timely manner — Italian Government objecting to applicability of Article 5 — Whether European Court of Human Rights having jurisdiction ratione materiae to examine applicants’ complaints — State having right to control aliens’ entry into and residence in its territory — Whether right exercised in accordance with European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Whether Italian Government violating Articles 3, 5 and 13 of European Convention and Article 4 of Protocol No 4 to Convention

Human rights — Right to liberty and security of person — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Article 5 — Article 5(1) — Exceptions — Article 5(1)(f) — State permitted to control liberty of aliens in immigration context — Whether applicants’ deprivation of liberty falling within Article 5(1)(f) — Whether having requisite legal basis in Italian law — Relevance of migration crisis — Article 5(2) — Whether applicants informed why being deprived of liberty — Article 5(4) — Ability of applicants to challenge lawfulness of their deprivation of liberty — Whether Italian Government violating Articles 5(1), (2) and (4) of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

Human rights — Prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Article 3 — Whether conditions in which applicants held in reception centre constituting inhuman or degrading treatment — Whether conditions in which applicants held on ships constituting inhuman or degrading treatment — Absolute prohibition — Requirement that any ill-treatment attain minimum level of severity — Relevant factors — Persons deprived of liberty being in vulnerable situation — Whether impugned regulations and practices defective to point of constituting a violation — Whether State’s right to control aliens’ entry into and residence in territory exercised in accordance with Convention — Evidence — Mass migration crisis — Whether situation faced by Italian authorities in 2011 following Arab Spring exceptional — Relevance — Whether Italian Government violating Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

Human rights — Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens — Article 4 of Protocol No 4 to European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Whether removal of applicants from Italian territory to Tunisia against their will constituting expulsion — Whether expulsion as a group — Whether applicants undergoing identification — Whether nationality of applicants established — Whether applicants afforded genuine and effective possibility of arguing against their expulsion — Whether Italian Government violating Article 4 of Protocol No 4

Human rights — Right to an effective remedy — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Article 13 — Whether violation of Article 13 taken together with Article 3 of Convention — Whether any remedies available to applicants for complaining about conditions at reception centre and on ships — Whether violation of Article 13 taken together with Article 4 of Protocol No 4 — Whether applicants could appeal against refusal-of-entry orders — Whether allegations of real risk of violation of rights guaranteed under Articles 2 and 3 of Convention in destination country — Whether lack of suspensive effect of removal decision in itself constituting violation of Article 13 — Whether Italian Government violating Article 13 of Convention

Human rights — Right to freedom from cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment — Right to privacy — Right to equality and non-discrimination — Prohibition of abortion in a non-viable pregnancy — Whether Ireland violating its obligations under Articles 2(1), 3, 7, 17, 19 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 — United Nations Human Rights Committee

Extradition — Treaties — European Convention on Extradition, 1957 — Extradition for criminal prosecution — Whether permissible for Russian Federation to request extradition of Ukrainian nationals for crimes committed in Crimea prior to incorporation of Crimea

War and armed conflict — Force — Use or threat of force — Charter of the United Nations, 1945, Article 2(4) — Prohibition of the use or threat of force a peremptory norm — Whether conduct of Russian Federation in relation to Crimea violating prohibition

State responsibility — Peremptory norms — Obligation not to recognize situations created in violation of peremptory norms — International Law Commission, Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, 2001, Article 41(2) — Customary status of Article 41(2) — Whether Austria having an obligation not to recognize incorporation of Crimea

Territory — Annexation — Occupation — Treaties — Treaty between Russian Federation and Republic of Crimea on Accession of Republic of Crimea to Russian Federation and on Forming New Constituent Entities within Russian Federation of 18 March 2014 — Legal status of Crimea under international law — Whether incorporation of Crimea by Russian Federation lawful under international law — Whether sovereign acts by Russian authorities for or pertaining to Crimea valid under international law

Treaties — Legal effects — 2014 Accession Treaty between Russian Federation and Republic of Crimea — Territorial scope of European Convention on Extradition, 1957 — Whether treaties between Russian Federation and Austria extending to Crimea — The law of Austria

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Treaty Establishing the European Stability Mechanism, 2012 — Article 4(4) — Emergency procedure — Callable capital stock — Estonia signing but not ratifying Treaty — Whether Article 4(4) of Treaty in conflict with Constitution of Estonia — Whether petitioner having competence to challenge Treaty — Principle of parliamentary democracy — Principle of parliamentary reservation — Budgetary powers of Parliament — Sovereignty clause in Constitution — Interpretation — Financial sovereignty — Whether State waiving part of its sovereignty in entering into international agreements — Democratic State subject to rule of law — Budgetary powers — Whether interference with constitutional principles permissible — Whether Article 4(4) of Treaty in conflict with Constitution of Estonia

Treaties — Treaty Establishing the European Stability Mechanism, 2012 — Whether satisfying requirements of Article 2(1)(a) of Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 — Article 4(4) of Treaty — Emergency procedure — Callable capital stock — Constitutionality of Treaty — Whether petitioner having competence to challenge Treaty — Financial sovereignty — Whether State waiving part of its sovereignty in entering into international agreements — Democratic State subject to rule of law — Budgetary powers — Whether interference with constitutional principles permissible — Whether Article 4(4) of Treaty in conflict with Constitution of Estonia

Economics, trade and finance — Euro area — Economic and financial stability — European Stability Mechanism — Financial sovereignty — Treaty Establishing the European Stability Mechanism, 2012, Article 4(4) — Constitution of Estonia — Budgetary powers — Whether Article 4(4) of Treaty in conflict with Constitution of Estonia

International organizations — European Union — Treaties — Law of the European Union — Treaty Establishing the European Stability Mechanism, 2012 — Whether Treaty on European Stability Mechanism part of European Union law

Treaties — Treaty on European Union, 2009 — Treaty on Functioning of the European Union, 2009 — Further delegation of powers — Necessity of referendum on more extensive integration — The law of Estonia

International organizations — Immunities and privileges — Jurisdictional immunity — Representative to international organization — Permanent Representative to International Maritime Organization — Headquarters Agreement between United Kingdom and International Maritime Organization — International Maritime Organization (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2002 — Whether court entitled to conduct functional review of appointment of Permanent Representative

Jurisdiction — Immunity — Diplomatic immunity — International organizations — Permanent Representative to international organizations — United Nations Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of Specialized Agencies, 1948 — Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961 — Permanent residents only entitled to immunity in exercise of official functions — Definition of permanent residency — The law of England

Recognition — States — Legal personality of a State under English law — Whether recognized as a State by United Kingdom Government — Whether Ukraine having capacity to issue bonds — Bond issuance illegal under Ukrainian law

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Dealings between sovereign States — Governments — Rule of non-justiciability of dealings between sovereign States in English courts — Public policy exception — Whether public policy exception applicable — Duress — Whether defence of duress justiciable — Jus cogens — Use of force — Russia — Threat of force — Relationship of jus cogens with municipal law

Reprisals and countermeasures — Countermeasures — Ukraine — Russia — Violation of territorial sovereignty — Whether non-repayment of bonds justified as a proportionate countermeasure — Whether doctrine of countermeasures recognized under domestic law — Relationship of international law and municipal law — The law of England

Nationality — Statelessness — United Nations Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, 1961 — Article 8 — British nationality — British Nationality Act 1981, Section 40(2) — Interpretation — Whether a person can be deprived of his status as a British citizen on the basis of repudiating his obligation of loyalty — Whether a person can be deprived of nationality on that basis if not posing a risk to national security — Dual nationality — Terrorism — Individual serving long prison sentence in third State — Whether capable of posing current threat — The law of England

Economics, trade and finance — UK Export Control Act 2002 — 1998 EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports — European Council Common Position 2008/944/CFSP — Whether Criterion 2(c) triggered by Saudi Arabia conduct of hostilities in Yemen

Relationship of international law and municipal law — International humanitarian law — Requirement that licences for arms sales not be granted by United Kingdom if clear risk that items will be used to commit serious violations of IHL — Obligation of decision-maker to carry out sufficient inquiry to assess prospective risk — Whether court could intervene to override finely balanced determination by the executive

War and armed conflict — Mixed international and internal armed conflict — International humanitarian law — Conflict in Yemen — Whether Saudi Arabia in breach of IHL obligations — Consequences of non-compliance with IHL on licensing of arms sales from United Kingdom to Saudi Arabia — Rationality standard to assess whether clear risk of non-compliance with IHL obligations in the future — Whether rational to dismiss evidence from external agencies pointing to breaches of IHL violations by Saudi Arabia — Whether “serious violations” synonymous with “war crimes” and “grave breaches” — The law of England

International organizations — Immunity — Absolute immunity — Restrictive immunity — International Finance Corporation — International Organizations Immunities Act 1945 (“IOIA”) — Whether IOIA conferring same immunity on international organizations as foreign governments enjoying under Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act 1976 — Whether international organizations enjoying absolute or limited immunity under United States Federal law — Whether restrictive immunity meaning unlimited exposure to suit

Jurisdiction — Immunity — Immunity from suit — International Organizations Immunities Act 1945 — Privileges and immunities of international organizations comparable to those enjoyed by foreign governments — Whether international organizations enjoying absolute or limited immunity under United States Federal law — Whether restrictive immunity meaning unlimited exposure to suit — Whether International Finance Corporation enjoying absolute immunity from suit

Environment — Pollution — Construction and operation of coal-fired power plant in India — International Finance Corporation (“IFC”) making loan to Indian company for construction of plant — Non-compliance of Indian company with environmental and social action plan — Loan agreement allowing IFC to revoke financial support if terms of agreement not complied with — Petitioners bringing claims against IFC — Whether IFC having immunity from suit under International Organizations Immunities Act 1945 — The law of the United States