This article presents an account of international law and its possible future that revolves around three key themes: responsibility, fraternity, and sustainability. These three themes were promoted by Charles Doherty Gonthier, visionary justice of the Supreme Court of Canada from 1989 to 2003, for whom the inaugural lecture where this article was presented is named.

The legal status of the Northwest Passage (NWP) has been the subject of much debate in academic, government, and media circles. To date, much of this discussion has centred on the legal regime governing maritime navigation. However, the question of whether the NWP is subject to guaranteed freedoms or Canada’s unqualified sovereign control also involves the right of overflight. This article investigates the circumstances that led to the inclusion of the freedom of overflight in Part III of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. It then highlights some of the legal standards that would govern air navigation if the NWP were to be considered an international strait.

International institutions involved in the fight against corruption and in the protection of human rights have evolved in isolation since their inception. However, recent studies have shown the need to integrate, within anti-corruption policies, an approach oriented towards the protection of human rights. This need flows from the negative impacts that institutionalized practices of corruption have on the enjoyment of human rights. The American continent is no exception to this reality: it is, on the one hand, struggling with grave problems of corruption that have important repercussions for the protection of human rights in the region. It has, on the other hand, institutional and regulatory frameworks related to the fight against corruption and the protection of human rights, which have evolved in parallel. This article therefore assesses the extent to which Inter-American human rights standards may effectively contribute to improving anti-corruption policies and strategies on the continent.

International criminal law, like all areas of law, must continue to evolve to reflect contemporary realities. This article demonstrates that the current subject matter jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court under the Rome Statute is very much an artefact of history, and it argues that the historical and reactive line that the statute draws between “core” international crimes and other serious international or transnational crimes is inadequate. In order to ensure that international criminal law continues to evolve in a reasoned and principled manner, states need to better articulate the criteria by which conduct is included within the category of “the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole.” Using a primarily inductive approach, the article considers a number of such criteria that have been considered over the years. It concludes that, when assessed in the context of their systematic and organized perpetration, many other serious international and transnational crimes raise some of the same concerns that underpin the current core international crimes, suggesting that it may be time for the international community to consider redrawing the line.

This article argues that Canada’s policy of refusing extraterritorial electoral constituencies within its borders does not protect its territorial sovereignty or add any protection against foreign interference in its domestic affairs. Rather, its main effect is to alienate thousands of dual or foreign nationals residing in Canada by preventing them from being directly represented in their home state’s national assembly or legislature and, in some cases, from exercising their only voting rights.

To be characterized as a crime against humanity under Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the acts listed must have been committed as part of a systematic or widespread attack in furtherance of a State or organizational policy. Both variants of the attack, that is to say its “systematic” or “generalized” nature are alternative requirements. However, some of the legal literature since the preparatory work to draft the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in 1998 considers that the requirement of a policy makes both variants cumulative, hence creating a conflict between Article 7(1) and Article 7(2) of the Rome Statute. The controversy over the content and the legal scope of the concept of policy is worsened by the absence of definitions of the notions of policy and systematic attack in the core legal texts of the ICC. What definition have Chambers of the ICC given to the notion of policy? What sources have Chambers relied on? Does ICC case law provide tools to avoid possible conflict between Article 7(1) and Article 7(2) of the Rome Statute? These are the issues this study attempts to examine.

In a recent award involving Gold Reserve Inc., an international investment arbitral tribunal concluded that Venezuela had to pay compensation of US $713 million for violations of the fair and equitable treatment provision of an international investment agreement between Canada and Venezuela. This decision contrasts sharply with the outcome of other investment disputes concerning Canadian extractive companies. Relying on a detailed analysis of awards involving EnCana Corporation, Glamis Gold Ltd. and Vannessa Ventures Ltd., this article recalls that host states can take measures to increase the benefits and limit the negative impacts of extractive industries’ activities without breaching their obligations under international investment law.