The Board of Editors is pleased to announce that the Francis Deák Prize for 2012 was awarded to Robert D. Sloane for his article entitled On the Use and Abuse of Necessity in the Law of State Responsibility, which appeared in the July 2012 issue.

The prize was established by Philip Cohen in memory of Dr. Francis Deák, an international legal scholar and lifelong member of the American Society of International Law, to honor a younger author who has published a meritorious contribution to international legal scholarship in the American Journal of International Law.

The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) establishes a legal framework to govern all uses of the oceans. All of the states bordering the South China Sea—Brunei Darussalam, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Vietnam—are parties to UNCLOS. Taiwan, which also borders the South China Sea, has taken steps to bring its legislation into conformity with UNCLOS.

Just as a newspaper must separate its reporting from its editorials, legal scholarship must distinguish between representations of what the law is and what the author might like it to be. Daniel Bethlehem’s proposed principles and his arguments in support of them are an amalgam of the two that, if actualized under international law, would reverse more than a century of humanitarian and human rights progress: they would undermine the general prohibition against the use of force in international relations as well as the right to life and the scope of a state’s obligation of due process in the deprivation of life.

Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. marks the second time in nine years that the Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) does not provide jurisdiction in a high-profile human rights case, a sequence that might suggest an end to the gilded age of human rights litigation that began with Filártiga v. Peña-Irala. On closer analysis, however, Kiobel, like Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain before it, adopts a rhetoric of caution without foreclosing litigation that fits the Filártiga model. To the contrary, Sosa and Kiobel invite considerably more ATS litigation than they resolve or bar and therefore confirm Justice Antonin Scalia’s memorable encapsulation of the Court’s “Never Say Never Jurisprudence.” All four of the opinions in Kiobel confirm that multiple significant issues remain for future resolution, but it is unrealistic to expect answers on the basis of the Court’s decision because what is law in Kiobel isnt clear and what is clear in Kiobel isn’t law.

Daniel Bethlehem has set down sixteen principles relevant to the scope of a state’s right of self-defense against an imminent or actual armed attack by nonstate actors “with the intention of stimulating a wider debate.” While these principles “are published under [the author’s] responsibility alone,” they have “nonetheless been informed by detailed discussions over recent years with foreign ministry, defense ministry, and military legal advisers from a number of states who have operational experience in these matters.”

The Nominating Committee of the American Journal of International Law’s Board of Editors invites nominations for members of the Board of Editors to be elected in the spring of 2014. Nominations are based primarily on scholarship and creativity, as demonstrated in books, articles, and other written work appearing over a period of years. Other factors taken into account include areas of expertise or professional perspective or discipline.

Access to an effective remedy is part of the third pillar of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (Guiding Principles). It should require states to provide access to judicial remedies for human rights violations, even those that have occurred outside the territory of the state by a corporation domiciled in that state, especially where claimants “cannot access [their] home State courts regardless of the merits of the claim.” While the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. may seem to overwhelm or even drown some of the expectations of such remedies within the United States, the case law in the rest of the world is unlikely to be greatly affected by the ruling due to the jurisdictional and legal system foundations of other states. This article will examine the main case law and judicial remedies sought across the world, with a special emphasis on Europe, where the majority of large non-U.S. transnational corporations have their headquarters.

The International Law Commission held its sixty-fourth session in Geneva from May 7 to June 1, and from July 2 to August 3, 2012, under the chairmanship of Lucius Caflisch. The session marked the first year of a new quinquennium (2012–2016), with the Commission having completed its work during the prior quinquennium (2007–2011) on four major topics: transboundary aquifers, effects of armed conflict on treaties, reservations to treaties, and responsibility of international organizations.

One of the most striking features of Chief Justice John Roberts’s majority opinion in the U.S. Supreme Court’s judgment in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. is how it pays homage to foreign governments’ opposition to the extraterritorial application of the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), as voiced most prominently from European foreign ministries. “[F]oreign policy concerns” and the overarching goal to avoid diplomatic tensions with foreign sovereigns are themes heavily informing the Roberts opinion. The majority found the presumption against extraterritoriality applicable to the ATS in large part due to fear of “unwarranted judicial interference in the conduct of [U.S.] foreign policy” if the Court allowed the ATS to “reach conduct occurring in the territory of a foreign sovereign.” In that light, the Kiobel judgment can be understood primarily as a decision prohibiting the overreach of U.S. law and protecting jurisdictional prerogatives of lex loci delicti and state of incorporation alike.

On April 3, 2013, Professors Lori Fisler Damrosch and Bernard H. Oxman completed ten years of service as editors in chief. At the 107th Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law, Professors Damrosch’s and Oxman’s ten years of service to the Journal were celebrated. The Board of Editors, like the Society as a whole, is profoundly grateful to the outgoing editors for their devotion to the Journal and its exacting standards for scholarship.

On November 19, 2012, the International Court of Justice rendered its judgment in a dispute involving territorial and maritime claims raised by Nicaragua against Colombia in the Caribbean Sea. The Court considered Nicaragua’s requests for a declaration of Nicaraguan sovereignty over seven disputed maritime features and delimitation of a single maritime boundary between the continental shelves and exclusive economic zones appertaining to Nicaragua and Colombia. The Court awarded all disputed territory to Colombia and delimited the maritime boundary between the states’ continental shelves and exclusive economic zones by using a novel mix of weighted base points, geodetic lines, parallels of latitude, and enclaving.

For the first time since the Corfu Channel case of 1949, the International Court of Justice (Court) has awarded damages. The Court did so on June 19, 2012, in its third judgment in the Diallo case, brought by the Republic of Guinea for human rights violations committed against a Guinean citizen by the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). The judgment was also the Court’s first on damages in a human rights case.

The International Court of Justice rendered four judgments in 2012: on February 3, a ruling on the merits in Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy; Greece intervening), finding that Italy had violated its obligations under customary international law and requiring Italy to ensure that the decisions of its judicial authorities that infringed Germany’s immunities would cease to have effect; on June 19, a ruling on the compensation owed by the respondent in Diallo (Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo), awarding Guinea $85,000 for non material injury to Diallo and $10,000 for material injury to his personal property;on July 20, a ruling on jurisdiction, admissibility, and the merits in Questions Relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal), finding jurisdiction and admissibility, and holding that Senegal had breached its obligations under Articles 6 and 7 the UN Convention Against Torture (CAT); and on November 19, a ruling on admissibility and the merits in Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), finding admissible one of Nicaragua’s final submissions(which Colombia had challenged as a new claim), deciding that Colombia has sovereignty over a number of contested maritime features, and establishing a single maritime boundary delimiting the continental shelf and exclusive economic zones of the two countries.

In a landmark decision, on December 21, 2011, the Court of Justice upheld the extension to international aviation activities of the greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme (ETS) of the European Union (Union or EU) against a challenge that it violates several treaties and principles of customary international law. In addition to its broader significance in the context of global versus unilateral approaches to tackling climate change, and its related role in fueling a major international trade dispute, the ruling pronounces on important aspects of international aviation law and clarifies the principles governing conformity of EU internal legislation with international law.

In Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., the Supreme Court held that “the presumption against extraterritoriality applies to claims under the [Alien Tort Statute (ATS)], and that nothing in the statute rebuts that presumption.” The Court preserved the possibility that claims arising from conduct outside the United States might be actionable under the ATS “where the claims touch and concern the territory of the United States ... with sufficient force to displace the presumption against extraterritorial application.” However, the Court’s decision apparently sounds the death knell for “foreign-cubed” human rights claims under the ATS—that is, cases in which foreign defendants committed human rights abuses against foreign plaintiffs in foreign countries.

On December 15, 2012, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (Tribunal or ITLOS) ordered Ghana to resupply and, upon payment of security, to refuel and release the Argentine naval frigate ARA Libertad, which was being held by authorities in the Ghanaian port of Tema. The Tribunal ordered release of the vessel in response to Argentina’s request for provisional measures under Article 290(5) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Convention or UNCLOS). The Tribunal accepted Argentina’s prima facie showing that the Libertad, a tall, three-masted sailing ship commissioned in the Argentine Navy being used as a training vessel for officer cadets, qualifies as a “warship” under Article 29 of UNCLOS, and was therefore entitled to immunity and release to avoid irreparable harm to Argentina pending the final outcome of the case (paras. 93–95).

In a Mexican challenge against U.S. criteria for labeling tuna products as “dolphin-safe,” the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization (WTO), on May 16, 2012, held against the United States while reversing various findings of the panel. The case was one of three WTO Appellate Body decisions issued in 2012 that interpreted and applied the key substantive provisions of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement or TBT) for the first time. Systemically, the decision is important for its interpretation of the TBT Agreement’s substantive obligations, the types of labeling that fall within the scope of the Agreement, the legitimacy of labeling based on foreign process and production methods (PPMs), and the relation of other international law to WTO law.

The U.S. Supreme Court has finally decided Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. It is the Court’s second modern decision applying the cryptic Alien Tort Statute (ATS), which was enacted in 1789. Since the 1980 court of appeals decision in Filartiga v. Pena-Irala permitting a wide of range human rights cases to go forward under the statute’s auspices, the ATS has garnered worldwide attention and has become the main engine for transnational human rights litigation in the United States. The statute itself and the decisions that it generates also serve as state practice that might contribute to the developing customary international law of civil universal jurisdiction, immunity for defendants in human rights cases, the duties of corporations, and the right to a remedy for violations of fundamental human rights. During the 1990s, the ATS became the focal point for academic disputes about the status of customary international law as federal common law. Indeed, to the extent that the “culture wars” have played out in U.S. foreign relations law, the ATS has been their center of gravity.

On May 6, 2013, in the combined reports Canada—Certain Measures Affecting the Renewable Energy Generation Sector and Canada—Measures Relating to the Feed-in Tariff Program (Canada—Renewable Energy/Feed-in Tariff), the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization (WTO) upheld some key conclusions of a decision of the WTO’s dispute settlement panel (the panel), finding Ontario’s feed-in tariff (FIT) program in violation of certain of Canada’s WTO obligations. The FIT program permits qualified Ontario-based renewable energy producers to enter into long-term fixed-price electricity purchase contracts at premium rates in exchange for feeding into the grid. Japan and the European Union had challenged the program on two grounds: first, that conditioning FIT program eligibility on the use of locally produced materials discriminates against foreign goods, contrary to “national treatment” obligations; and, second, that it constitutes an unlawful subsidy (the provision of a financial contribution by the government that confers a benefit on a specific recipient), contrary to WTO requirements under the Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM) Agreement. While affirming the panel’s decision on the first ground, the Appellate Body reversed its finding on the second, that the complainants had failed to establish a FIT-based “benefit” for electricity producers within the meaning of WTO law. But the Appellate Body itself could not eventually confirm the fact of illegal subsidization.

In the judgment Pringle v. Ireland, the full Court of Justice of the European Union (Court or ECJ) upheld the validity of the decision of the European Council enabling the simplified amendment of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union(TFEU). In its Decision 2011/199/EU, the Council had provided for the establishment of a permanent European Stability Mechanism (ESM) by those member states of the European Union (Union or EU) that had adopted the euroas their common currency and legal tender. The Court also found in this judgment that those member states had not violated EU law by negotiating and concluding the Treaty Establishing the European Stability Mechanism (ESM Treaty). The Court based the latter finding on the long-awaited clarification of the scope and content of the TFEU’s “no-bailout clause” (Art. 125(1)), which had been the subject of intense controversies among legal scholars, in particular in Germany.