Marko Milanovic explores how lies by state officials, whether in authoritarian regimes or democracies, can constitute violations of international human rights, particularly when they affect freedoms of expression, the right to health, or public participation. He argues that such lies are often integral to or even sufficient for committing human rights abuses, and that both domestic and international deception can have serious legal consequences. Milanovic also examines how lying during human rights proceedings may obstruct justice and undermine the credibility and functioning of human rights institutions. Read the full post here.
Giulia Bosi explores Italy’s recent decision to permit conjugal prison visits following the 2024 Constitutional Court ruling recognizing detainees’ right to intimacy. The author notes that this marked a shift toward aligning with European human rights standards, particularly Article 8 ECHR. Though not mandated under international law, such visits are linked to rehabilitation, mental health, and prison safety. The author explores Italy’s legal change, compares it with Council of Europe practices, and highlights international human rights implications and policy benefits. Read the full post here.
Ethan Shattock analyzes the controversy surrounding Irish rap group Kneecap’s alleged terrorism-related charges for displaying a Hezbollah flag, examining it through the lens of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) on freedom of expression. The author argues that while the UK may have a legal basis to restrict such expression for national security reasons, the group’s satirical and political context weighs heavily in favor of protecting their provocative artistic speech. Ultimately, Shattock highlights the tension between safeguarding democratic political expression and preventing incitement linked to proscribed organizations under the ECHR framework. Read the full post here.
Marko Milanovic examines the complex relationship between sanctions, international law, and the right to development, arguing that not all coercive measures are inherently unlawful or human rights violations. He challenges rigid legal binaries and emphasizes the importance of context, proportionality, and justification when assessing whether sanctions interfere with individual or collective rights. Milanovic urges a more nuanced, balanced approach—rejecting both blanket condemnations and unquestioning acceptance of sanctions as legitimate tools of statecraft. Read the full post here.
International Court of Justice (ICJ)
Eugenio Carli analyzes the ICJ’s dismissal of Sudan’s genocide case against the UAE due to the UAE’s reservation to Article IX of the Genocide Convention, which excludes ICJ jurisdiction. The author critiques the Court’s longstanding practice of upholding such reservations, arguing that they undermine the enforcement of obligations erga omnes partes—those owed to all states parties—by disabling judicial accountability. The piece contends that reservations excluding jurisdiction in treaties protecting collective interests, like the Genocide Convention, should be considered incompatible with the treaty’s object and purpose and thus invalid. Read the full post here.
Andreas Zimmermann examines Serbia’s unexplained intervention attempt in the ICJ case Sudan v. UAE, noting the Court’s unusual silence in formally addressing or dismissing it—contrary to its consistent past practice. Though Serbia claimed it wasn’t bound by Article IX of the Genocide Convention, this contradicts prior ICJ rulings. The author argues that, for legal clarity, the ICJ should have formally responded to Serbia’s intervention, especially since past interventions were explicitly dismissed, even after the main case ended. Read the full post here.
Investor–State Dispute Settlement (ISDS)
Joshua Paine discusses the development of a Multilateral Instrument on ISDS Reform (MIIR) by UNCITRAL Working Group III as a way to apply dispute resolution reforms across existing investment treaties. Paine explores the potential for the MIIR to also implement broader substantive reforms, with parallel discussions taking place in the OECD’s Track 2 process. Paine emphasizes the importance of designing a flexible and efficient MIIR that could allow for incremental adoption by subsets of states and support ongoing treaty reform beyond the UNCITRAL process. Read the full post here.
Humanitarian Aid
Julia Emtseva critiques Israel’s replacement of UN humanitarian agencies in Gaza with a private foundation, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), partnered with a private security firm, arguing this privatization undermines international humanitarian law principles of neutrality, impartiality, and state responsibility. Emtseva highlights legal and ethical concerns, including potential violations of the Geneva Conventions, the risk of aid becoming politicized and weaponized, and the lack of transparency and accountability. Ultimately, the text warns that this model threatens to erode the legal protections for civilians in conflict, transforming humanitarian aid from a legal obligation into discretionary, politically controlled benevolence. Read the full post here.
Sources of International Law
Tan Hsien-Li explores how soft law has gained growing legitimacy and influence, especially amid geopolitical shifts and domestic constraints in countries like the U.S. The author critiques the classic view preferring hard-law over soft law. The author highlights the Asia-Pacific region’s growing acceptance of soft law and argues that soft law is not a second-best alternative but a deliberate and effective tool for international cooperation and norm-setting. Read the full post here.
International Criminal Law and the Environment
Daniel Bertram explores the Council of Europe’s newly adopted Convention on the Protection of the Environment through Criminal Law (May 2025), calling it the first international treaty to criminalize conduct akin to ecocide. While innovative in its breadth and procedural mandates, the Convention stops short of explicitly criminalizing ecocide, leaving critical gaps—such as weak penalties and reliance on administrative law. Bertram argues it represents pragmatic progress but not the symbolic breakthrough many ecocide advocates hoped for. Read the full post here.
Jérôme de Hemptinne considers whether criminalizing ecocide could meaningfully address the large-scale exploitation and killing of animals. The author concludes that existing international crimes, such as genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes, are ill-suited to protect animals, as they are primarily designed to safeguard human interests. Therefore, an ecocide framework could more directly target the systemic destruction of ecosystems and mass harm to animal populations. Read the full post here.
International Criminal Law
Patrycja Grzebyk addresses common misconceptions about the upcoming review of the Kampala Amendments on the crime of aggression at the International Criminal Court. Grzebyk argues in favor of harmonizing the Court’s jurisdiction over aggression with that of other core crimes, clarifying that the review process is longstanding, not politically targeted, and legally sound. The author dispels seven specific myths, emphasizing that reform is both necessary and feasible despite political, procedural, and institutional challenges. Read the full post here.
Treaty Law
Ayelet Berman and Indira Dewi Kantiana explain the new WHO Pandemic Agreement, created to improve global pandemic response by emphasizing equity and solidarity between countries. The authors argue that the new agreement marks a major legal milestone but has limited enforcement and unresolved issues, like fair pathogen sharing. The authors further argue that despite its promise, the agreement’s real impact is uncertain, especially without U.S. involvement. Read the full post here.
Diplomacy and International Law
Parthiban Babu argues that states use strategic legal storytelling—“delegation diplomacy”—to shape international law narratives and assert legitimacy, as seen in India’s post-2025 Kashmir attack efforts. This narrative turn reveals how legal meaning is constructed through performance, venue selection, and selective framing, often reflecting power imbalances that favor dominant actors. While such storytelling can advance political aims, it risks turning law into a tool of persuasion rather than genuine accountability, marginalizing dissenting voices. Read the full post here.
The Legality of Using Force
Marko Milanovic examines whether Israel’s recent use of force against Iran, targeting its nuclear program can be justified as lawful self-defense under international law. Examining the formulations of the discussion, Milanovic concludes that: “unless Israel is able to provide substantially more compelling evidence than is currently publicly available, it cannot reasonably be argued that Iran would imminently attack Israel, or that using force was the only option to stop that attack. Israel is therefore using force against Iran unlawfully, in violation of Article 2(4) of the Charter. It is committing aggression.” Read the full post here.
Listen to EJIL: The Podcast! Episode 34: In the Family: Family Tropes in International Law here.
Two Weeks in Review, 2 – 15 June 2025
Written by Tal GrossHuman Rights Law
Marko Milanovic explores how lies by state officials, whether in authoritarian regimes or democracies, can constitute violations of international human rights, particularly when they affect freedoms of expression, the right to health, or public participation. He argues that such lies are often integral to or even sufficient for committing human rights abuses, and that both domestic and international deception can have serious legal consequences. Milanovic also examines how lying during human rights proceedings may obstruct justice and undermine the credibility and functioning of human rights institutions. Read the full post here.
Giulia Bosi explores Italy’s recent decision to permit conjugal prison visits following the 2024 Constitutional Court ruling recognizing detainees’ right to intimacy. The author notes that this marked a shift toward aligning with European human rights standards, particularly Article 8 ECHR. Though not mandated under international law, such visits are linked to rehabilitation, mental health, and prison safety. The author explores Italy’s legal change, compares it with Council of Europe practices, and highlights international human rights implications and policy benefits. Read the full post here.
Ethan Shattock analyzes the controversy surrounding Irish rap group Kneecap’s alleged terrorism-related charges for displaying a Hezbollah flag, examining it through the lens of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) on freedom of expression. The author argues that while the UK may have a legal basis to restrict such expression for national security reasons, the group’s satirical and political context weighs heavily in favor of protecting their provocative artistic speech. Ultimately, Shattock highlights the tension between safeguarding democratic political expression and preventing incitement linked to proscribed organizations under the ECHR framework. Read the full post here.
Marko Milanovic examines the complex relationship between sanctions, international law, and the right to development, arguing that not all coercive measures are inherently unlawful or human rights violations. He challenges rigid legal binaries and emphasizes the importance of context, proportionality, and justification when assessing whether sanctions interfere with individual or collective rights. Milanovic urges a more nuanced, balanced approach—rejecting both blanket condemnations and unquestioning acceptance of sanctions as legitimate tools of statecraft. Read the full post here.
International Court of Justice (ICJ)
Eugenio Carli analyzes the ICJ’s dismissal of Sudan’s genocide case against the UAE due to the UAE’s reservation to Article IX of the Genocide Convention, which excludes ICJ jurisdiction. The author critiques the Court’s longstanding practice of upholding such reservations, arguing that they undermine the enforcement of obligations erga omnes partes—those owed to all states parties—by disabling judicial accountability. The piece contends that reservations excluding jurisdiction in treaties protecting collective interests, like the Genocide Convention, should be considered incompatible with the treaty’s object and purpose and thus invalid. Read the full post here.
Andreas Zimmermann examines Serbia’s unexplained intervention attempt in the ICJ case Sudan v. UAE, noting the Court’s unusual silence in formally addressing or dismissing it—contrary to its consistent past practice. Though Serbia claimed it wasn’t bound by Article IX of the Genocide Convention, this contradicts prior ICJ rulings. The author argues that, for legal clarity, the ICJ should have formally responded to Serbia’s intervention, especially since past interventions were explicitly dismissed, even after the main case ended. Read the full post here.
Investor–State Dispute Settlement (ISDS)
Joshua Paine discusses the development of a Multilateral Instrument on ISDS Reform (MIIR) by UNCITRAL Working Group III as a way to apply dispute resolution reforms across existing investment treaties. Paine explores the potential for the MIIR to also implement broader substantive reforms, with parallel discussions taking place in the OECD’s Track 2 process. Paine emphasizes the importance of designing a flexible and efficient MIIR that could allow for incremental adoption by subsets of states and support ongoing treaty reform beyond the UNCITRAL process. Read the full post here.
Humanitarian Aid
Julia Emtseva critiques Israel’s replacement of UN humanitarian agencies in Gaza with a private foundation, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), partnered with a private security firm, arguing this privatization undermines international humanitarian law principles of neutrality, impartiality, and state responsibility. Emtseva highlights legal and ethical concerns, including potential violations of the Geneva Conventions, the risk of aid becoming politicized and weaponized, and the lack of transparency and accountability. Ultimately, the text warns that this model threatens to erode the legal protections for civilians in conflict, transforming humanitarian aid from a legal obligation into discretionary, politically controlled benevolence. Read the full post here.
Sources of International Law
Tan Hsien-Li explores how soft law has gained growing legitimacy and influence, especially amid geopolitical shifts and domestic constraints in countries like the U.S. The author critiques the classic view preferring hard-law over soft law. The author highlights the Asia-Pacific region’s growing acceptance of soft law and argues that soft law is not a second-best alternative but a deliberate and effective tool for international cooperation and norm-setting. Read the full post here.
International Criminal Law and the Environment
Daniel Bertram explores the Council of Europe’s newly adopted Convention on the Protection of the Environment through Criminal Law (May 2025), calling it the first international treaty to criminalize conduct akin to ecocide. While innovative in its breadth and procedural mandates, the Convention stops short of explicitly criminalizing ecocide, leaving critical gaps—such as weak penalties and reliance on administrative law. Bertram argues it represents pragmatic progress but not the symbolic breakthrough many ecocide advocates hoped for. Read the full post here.
Jérôme de Hemptinne considers whether criminalizing ecocide could meaningfully address the large-scale exploitation and killing of animals. The author concludes that existing international crimes, such as genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes, are ill-suited to protect animals, as they are primarily designed to safeguard human interests. Therefore, an ecocide framework could more directly target the systemic destruction of ecosystems and mass harm to animal populations. Read the full post here.
International Criminal Law
Patrycja Grzebyk addresses common misconceptions about the upcoming review of the Kampala Amendments on the crime of aggression at the International Criminal Court. Grzebyk argues in favor of harmonizing the Court’s jurisdiction over aggression with that of other core crimes, clarifying that the review process is longstanding, not politically targeted, and legally sound. The author dispels seven specific myths, emphasizing that reform is both necessary and feasible despite political, procedural, and institutional challenges. Read the full post here.
Treaty Law
Ayelet Berman and Indira Dewi Kantiana explain the new WHO Pandemic Agreement, created to improve global pandemic response by emphasizing equity and solidarity between countries. The authors argue that the new agreement marks a major legal milestone but has limited enforcement and unresolved issues, like fair pathogen sharing. The authors further argue that despite its promise, the agreement’s real impact is uncertain, especially without U.S. involvement. Read the full post here.
Diplomacy and International Law
Parthiban Babu argues that states use strategic legal storytelling—“delegation diplomacy”—to shape international law narratives and assert legitimacy, as seen in India’s post-2025 Kashmir attack efforts. This narrative turn reveals how legal meaning is constructed through performance, venue selection, and selective framing, often reflecting power imbalances that favor dominant actors. While such storytelling can advance political aims, it risks turning law into a tool of persuasion rather than genuine accountability, marginalizing dissenting voices. Read the full post here.
The Legality of Using Force
Marko Milanovic examines whether Israel’s recent use of force against Iran, targeting its nuclear program can be justified as lawful self-defense under international law. Examining the formulations of the discussion, Milanovic concludes that: “unless Israel is able to provide substantially more compelling evidence than is currently publicly available, it cannot reasonably be argued that Iran would imminently attack Israel, or that using force was the only option to stop that attack. Israel is therefore using force against Iran unlawfully, in violation of Article 2(4) of the Charter. It is committing aggression.” Read the full post here.
Listen to EJIL: The Podcast! Episode 34: In the Family: Family Tropes in International Law here.
See EJIL’s “Roll of Honour” here.
Share this:
Related
Categories
Tags
Leave a Comment
Comments