The International Law Commission's 2019 Draft Conclusions on Peremptory Norms of International Law assert that States have an obligation to cooperate to end serious breaches of peremptory norms. International law provides scarce guidance, however, regarding how States are expected to fulfil that obligation. This article seeks to elaborate: first, whether the prohibition of crimes against humanity and the ‘basic rules’ of international humanitarian law are peremptory norms; second, what States are required to do to fulfil their obligation to cooperate; and third, how States might utilise the General Assembly as a forum through which to fulfil that obligation.

Over the last three decades, transnational certification standards have proliferated to fill perceived ‘governance gaps’ in developing countries. Transnational non-governmental organisations and private standards-setting agencies have developed standards that cover a vast range of areas such as labour rights, social justice and environmental protection. As a form of private transnational regulation, certification standards travel through transnational production networks that link lead firms in developed countries with supplier firms in developing countries. This article draws on a case study about coffee certification to challenge the conventional understanding of transnational certification as a contractual conduit that transfers encoded certification standards from senders to receivers. It shows how transnational certification standards interact with, and remake local regulatory landscapes as they pass through. This interaction between global and local knowledge compels us to see transnational standards as a protean, highly localised regulatory process rather than stable universal norms. The article concludes that transnational certification does not function like an integrated ‘joined-up’ process and it is better understood as a mode of polycentric regulation that decentres and fragments transnational norms and standards.

Relying on examples from international, EU and comparative law and drawing on insights from the class action literature, this article argues that important advances in minority rights protection can be achieved without the revision of substantive legal provisions and the full-scale embracing of collective rights. Allowing minority members to present their claims on behalf of a larger group (collective procedure), even when such claims ultimately rest on the rights of individuals as opposed to those of the group, strengthens minority rights and can transform our vision of them. An overview of eight interrelated benefits shows not only how these advantages occur, but also why the procedural approach avoids the issues that motivate negative critiques of group rights.

European private international law has long been recognised as improperly set up to deal with cross-border collective redress. In light of this shortcoming, it seems unfortunate that the private international law implications of the Representative Actions Directive (Directive (EU) No 2020/1828) have not yet been addressed coherently by the European legislator. This article examines to what extent the policy of promoting collective redress can be supported, even if only partially, through a reinterpretation of the jurisdictional rules of the Brussels Ia Regulation. Furthermore, it discusses which legislative measures need to be adopted to better accommodate collective redress mechanisms within the Brussels regime.

This article analyses the fraught relationship between host States’ obligations under investment agreements and their regulatory powers in the field of public health. First, tribunals addressing the merits of health measures have exercised considerable deference to States under existing treaties. Second, the recent generation of treaties spells out health considerations to encourage respondents or tribunals to adopt broad interpretations of the right to regulate, general exceptions, or article-specific carve-outs. Clauses modelled on GATT exceptions may prove difficult to invoke due to the ‘necessity’ threshold. Finally, the Kyoto Protocol may serve as a model of incentivising private investment in the public health sector.

This article explores the role of international law in relation to the extension of arbitration agreements contained in contracts concluded by States (or State entities) with non-signatory State entities (or States). As contract-based arbitrations involving States or State entities are on the rise, identifying the legal framework governing which parties are covered by the relevant arbitration agreements is of practical importance. The analysis demonstrates that international law forms part of the relevant law, alongside other applicable laws including law of contract, law of the seat and transnational law, concerning the extension of arbitration agreements concluded by States or State entities to non-signatories. Previous analyses have neglected the role of international law by not distinguishing contract-based arbitrations involving private parties from contract-based arbitrations involving States or State entities. Public international law recognises that arbitration agreements can be extended to non-signatories on the basis of implied consent, or abuse of separate legal personality and estoppel. Therefore, foreign investors can rely on international law to extend arbitration agreements to non-signatories in arbitrations conducted under investment contracts concluded by States or State entities, even if the relevant domestic law is agnostic or hostile to this. This has significant legal, and practical, importance.

This article consists of a comparative study of the basic principles underlying the rules of jurisdiction in private international law in commercial cases in the law of the European Union, the United States and England. It considers the objectives which these rules seek to achieve (protection of the rights of the parties and respect for the interests of foreign States) and the extent to which these objectives are attained. It takes tort claims, especially in the field of products-liability, as an example and considers which system has the most exorbitant rules. It suggests explanations for the differences found.

States hold international human rights obligations to protect rights-holders from infringements by third parties and to fulfil access to rights. States also increasingly rely on businesses to provide essential human rights resources, including for housing, food, and healthcare. How these obligations apply where States rely on businesses has not been adequately conceptualised, particularly regarding the scope of business infringements in this context, and how the obligation to fulfil relates to market regulation. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has not directly addressed these questions, but recent General Comments develop ambitious regulatory obligations in this area. However, their methodology is questionable, often collapsing the distinction between obligations to protect and to fulfil. This article reconstructs the obligations to provide distinct content under each. It delineates State duties to protect from profiteering and to fulfil human rights through market regulation. It concludes by arguing that this reconstruction may challenge central aspects of globalised capitalism based on the human rights harm inherent therein.

With the constant flow of data across jurisdictions, issues regarding conflicting laws and the protection of rights arise. This article considers the EU–US data transfer relationship in the aftermath of the decision in Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland and Maximillian Schrems where the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) invalidated an EU–US data transfer agreement for the second time in just five years. This judgment continues the line of cases emphasising the high value the Court places on securing EU personal data in accordance with EU data protection standards and fundamental rights. This article assesses the implications of the ruling for the vulnerable EU–US data transfer relationship.