Legal scholars continue to revisit historical treaties between Western and non-Western nations to challenge long-standing accounts of non-Western peoples’ engagement with international law. Following this trend, new scholarship has stressed African agency in Euro-African treaty-making. However, legal scholars have generally overlooked African perspectives, pointing to a lack of sources. Focusing on nineteenth-century treaty-making between France and the polities of the Western Sudan in West Africa, this article excavates African perspectives through a novel reading of Euro-African treaties in an African context. This reading analyses treaties within the Western Sudan’s broader diplomatic corpus in both French and Arabic. By focusing on markers of translation, transcription, and negotiation left on different copies of treaties, this method brings to light arguments and practices that have been obscured in published European-language versions. Reading Franco-Sudanian treaties in a Sudanian context reveals that different norms governed the ratification of treaties in the Western Sudan and Europe. Treaties that scholars have long considered unratified were in fact ratified according to Western Sudanian norms, which designated the governor of French Senegal rather than the French president as the official competent to ratify treaties for France. However, when French officials sought to use treaties to claim sovereign rights in West Africa against Great Britain, they pressed the president to ratify them again. Presidential ratification thus served to transpose Franco-Sudanian treaties from an African to a Western normative order. Uncovering the African origins of Euro-African treaties thus reveals their differential operation across autonomous inter-polity orders.

Do recent increases in women’s representation around the world have implications for international relations? We argue that greater representation of women in legislatures increases the likelihood of human rights treaty ratification for two reasons. First, given their shared gendered experiences of exclusion and discrimination, women legislators will advocate on behalf of marginalized groups on an international scale as transnational surrogate representatives. Second, women legislators may be more inclined to prioritize the ratification of human rights treaties because these treaties align with their domestic policy preferences, which aim to support marginalized groups. We contend that, in countries where ratification depends upon legislative approval, legislatures are more likely to ratify human rights treaties as women’s presence increases. Using an original dataset of 201 multilateral treaties, we find that countries become more likely to ratify human rights treaties as levels of women’s legislative representation increase.

The violent and competitive context in which trade relations between the states of Senegambia and Europeans evolved required moments of calm and stability, which were decisive and important factors in the cohabitation of trade actors. Diplomacy was a fundamental political lever for European trade in Senegambia. It had become a major stake in the daily lives of the actors. Diplomacy was generally reserved for field actors from different political cultures and with different political and economic ambitions. Diplomacy took the form of negotiations, and took the form of simple agreements of principle, notably in the context of palavers, or the conclusion of trade and peace treaties. The aim of diplomacy, for example, was to establish strong, peaceful commercial relations between trade players and to regularize the tax system, which was the fundamental basis of trade and the expression of the sovereignty of local chiefs towards the Europeans.

The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) is one of the most important mega-regional trade agreements signed to date. Yet, it failed to include an Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism in its investment chapter. What explains this omission? To unpack this, we examine international negotiations as a two-step process. In the first stage, we theorize that initial preferences towards ISDS are based on countries’ orientation toward foreign direct investment (FDI), experience with ISDS, and past treaty practice. Second, we theorize that during protracted negotiations, adverse regime developments and domestic politics can have a profound impact on treaty design. To test our framework, we examine the RCEP negotiations. Our analysis shows that mounting cases as well as the eroding norm of ISDS in other treaties lowered support for ISDS as the negotiations progressed. Then, a change of government in Malaysia shifted that country’s position dramatically, which tipped the balance against ISDS in the final round of negotiations. Our findings have important implications for the international investment regime. They highlight the factors that determine countries’ initial preferences while also demonstrating the importance of developments during the negotiations, which can lead to the abandonment of the institutional status quo.

Human rights — Scope of application — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Article 1 — Applicants’ relatives murdered in part of Cyprus controlled by Cypriot Government — Murder suspects fleeing to northern part of Cyprus — Northern part of Cyprus occupied by Turkey — “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” — “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” not recognized as a State under international law — Cypriot Government seeking surrender and extradition of murder suspects — Applicants alleging failure of authorities to conduct effective investigation into killing of their relatives — Procedural obligation under Article 2 of Convention — Duty to cooperate under procedural limb of Article 2 — Whether applicants’ complaint in respect of Turkey compatible ratione loci with Convention — Whether “jurisdictional link” existing for purposes of Article 1 of Convention in cases where death occurring outside territory of Contracting State in respect of which procedural obligation under Article 2 of the Convention said to arise — Whether institution of investigation or proceedings by that Contracting State sufficient to establish “jurisdictional link” — Principles — “Special features” — Human rights protection in legal space of Convention — Whether Turkey having jurisdiction under Article 1 of Convention in respect of applicants’ complaint under procedural limb of Article 2 of Convention

Human rights — Right to life — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Article 2 — Procedural element — Applicants’ relatives murdered in part of Cyprus controlled by Cypriot Government — Murder suspects fleeing to northern part of Cyprus — Northern part of Cyprus occupied by Turkey — “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” — “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” not recognized as a State under international law — Cypriot Government seeking surrender and extradition of murder suspects — Effectiveness of investigation into murder of applicants’ relatives — Adequacy of investigation — Duty to cooperate as a component of the procedural obligation under Article 2 of Convention — Transnational cases — Transnational cases involving a Contracting State and a de facto entity under effective control of another Contracting State — Absence of diplomatic relations between Cyprus and Turkey — Council of Europe conventions — Relevance — Whether failure to cooperate — Whether Cyprus violating Article 2 of Convention under its procedural limb — Whether Turkey violating Article 2 of Convention under its procedural limb

Recognition — States — Jurisdiction — Exercise of jurisdiction in unrecognized entities — Unlawful occupation of northern part of Cyprus by Turkey — De facto entity in Cyprus’s internationally recognized territory — “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” — “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” not recognized as a State under international law — Turkey having effective control for purposes of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Obligation to cooperate component of procedural obligation under Article 2 of Convention — Alleged lack of cooperation involving de facto entity — Responsibility of Turkey engaged under Convention

Territory — Occupation — Unlawful occupation of northern part of Cyprus by Turkey — De facto entity in Cyprus’s internationally recognized territory — “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” — “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” not recognized as a State under international law — Turkey having effective control for purposes of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Absence of formal diplomatic relations between Cyprus and Turkey — International treaties to which both States parties — Relevance — Indirect channels of cooperation — Duty to cooperate under procedural limb of Article 2 of Convention — Whether failure to cooperate — Whether Cyprus violating Article 2 of Convention under its procedural limb — Whether Turkey violating Article 2 of Convention under its procedural limb

Treaties — Applicability — Council of Europe conventions — European Convention on Extradition, 1957 — European Convention on Mutual Assistance on Criminal Matters, 1959 — Relevance — Obligation to cooperate under procedural limb of Article 2 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Interpretation of obligation to cooperate — Whether Cyprus and Turkey using all available possibilities to cooperate — Whether treaties sole reference framework — Absence of formal diplomatic relations — Indirect channels of cooperation — Cooperation in criminal matters — Norms and principles of international law — Whether failure to cooperate by Cyprus and Turkey in violation of Article 2 of Convention in its procedural limb

Damages — Pecuniary damage — Non-pecuniary damage — Whether claim for pecuniary damage substantiated — Whether applicants to be afforded just satisfaction — Suffering caused by gravity of crime and failure of respondent Governments to cooperate to bring perpetrators to justice — Whether non-pecuniary damage could be compensated solely by finding of a violation — Costs and expenses — Application of Article 41 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

State immunity — Restrictive doctrine of State immunity — Whether acts of this case private legal acts — Whether acts of this case sovereign — Assessment — Customary international law — International conventions — Legislative trends in various countries — Case law — International Court of Justice — Italian courts — Whether exceptions to State immunity — Whether this case exceptional — Sovereign acts — Peremptory norms — Crimes against humanity — Whether reasonable for Korean court to have jurisdiction over Japan — Whether State immunity applicable

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Customary international law — State immunity — Applicability — Treaties — Korean written laws — Relevance — Customary international law — International conventions — Legislative trends in various countries — Case law — International Court of Justice — Italian courts — Whether exceptions to State immunity — Whether this case exceptional — Sovereign acts — Peremptory norms — Crimes against humanity — Interpretation of law — Whether conclusions unreasonable or unjust — Korean Constitution — Whether highest norm in legal order — Rights of victims — Damage to individuals — Reparations for individuals — Failure of lawsuits in other countries — Respect for sovereign States — Whether exception to State immunity where State violating peremptory norm — Whether State immunity applicable — Whether Korean court having jurisdiction

Jurisdiction — Crimes against humanity — Use of “comfort women” in Korea — Whether Korean court having jurisdiction — Whether State immunity applicable — Whether Korean court having international jurisdiction over this case — Whether exception to State immunity where State violating peremptory norm — Whether State immunity applicable — International jurisdiction — Relevant legal principles — Assessment — Article 2(1) of Private International Act — Whether Korean court having jurisdiction over litigation relating to extraterritorial cases when venue Korea

International criminal law — Crimes against humanity — Whether acts of this case constituting crime against humanity — Whether exception to State immunity where State violating peremptory norm — Whether State immunity applicable — Whether Korean court having jurisdiction

War and armed conflict — Treatment of civilians — Annexation of territory — Imperial Japan occupying Korean Peninsula — Annexation Treaty, 1910 — Asia-Pacific War — Military strategy of Imperial Japan — Wartime “comfort stations” — Wartime “comfort women” — Imperial Japan mobilizing “comfort women” from Korean Peninsula — Plaintiffs subjected to violence and sexual assaults by Japanese soldiers — Plaintiffs suffering physical and psychological damage — Plaintiffs seeking compensation from Japan — Reparations for individuals — Whether State immunity applicable — Whether Korean court having jurisdiction

Damages — Compensation — Post-war — Wartime “comfort stations” — Imperial Japan mobilizing “comfort women” from Korean Peninsula — Military strategy of Imperial Japan — Plaintiffs claiming reparations for physical and psychological damage — Whether acts of this case constituting crime against humanity — Responsibility for indemnification for damages — Applicable law — Assessment of illegality of acts of this case — Scope of responsibility for indemnification for damages — Reparations for individuals — Plaintiffs seeking reparations from Japan as successor to Imperial Japan — Whether Japan obligated to pay reparations to plaintiffs

Treaties — Application — Scope — Claims Agreement, 1965 — 2015 Agreement — Effect on plaintiffs’ right to claim reparations for damage — Whether Agreements extinguishing plaintiffs’ right to claim — The law of the Republic of Korea

Arbitration — Jurisdiction — Admissibility — Treaties — North American Free Trade Agreement, 1994 — Treaty interpretation — Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 — Effet utile doctrine — Whether one treaty interpretation technique dominating others

Arbitration — Consent to arbitration — North American Free Trade Agreement, 1994 (“NAFTA”) — Pre-arbitration requirements under Article 1119 — Whether consent to arbitration conditioned upon fulfilment of Article 1119 requirements — Notice of intent — Purpose of notice of intent under Article 1119 of NAFTA — Whether defect in notice of intent vitiating consent under Article 1122 of NAFTA — Whether pre-arbitration procedural matters jurisdictional or admissibility issues — Standard and scope of review of tribunals’ decisions — International Commercial Arbitration Act 2017

Treaties — Interpretation — Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 — Article 31(3) — Legal submissions as subsequent practice — Whether NAFTA Parties’ legal submission constituting subsequent practice under Article 31(3)(b) of Vienna Convention — Definition of subsequent practice — Jurisdictional error

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — North American Free Trade Agreement, 1994 — Decisions of international courts and tribunals — Decisions of Ontario Court of Appeal — Whether binding — Review of international arbitration awards — International Commercial Arbitration Act 2017 — Whether international arbitration tribunals acting within their authority — The law of Canada

State immunity — Immunity from prosecution — Criminal proceedings — Instrumentalities of foreign States — Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act 1976 (“FSIA”) — Whether District Court having jurisdiction to prosecute instrumentalities of foreign States — 18 USC Section 3231 — Scope — Whether terms of Section 3231 encompassing alleged criminal offences — Doctrine of foreign sovereign immunity — FSIA — Relevance — Whether FSIA addressing civil suits only — Whether FSIA providing instrumentalities of foreign States with absolute immunity from criminal prosecution in United States courts

Treaties — Interpretation — Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act 1976 — Whether addressing civil suits exclusively — Whether providing foreign States and their instrumentalities with immunity from criminal proceedings — The law of the United States

Arbitration — Jurisdiction — North American Free Trade Agreement — Article 1121 — Consequences of a failure to comply with Article 1121 — Whether particular formulation of words required to provide valid consent to arbitration — Whether failure to comply with requirements of Article 1121 denying Tribunal jurisdiction — Article 1119 — Article 1122 — Whether defect in notice of intent to submit claim to arbitration under Article 1119 and 1122 denying Tribunal jurisdiction — Whether defect in notice of intent to submit a claim to arbitration a curable issue of admissibility

Arbitration — Procedure — North American Free Trade Agreement — Chapter 11 — Procedure for submitting a claim to arbitration — Procedure for valid notice of intent to submit a claim to arbitration — Defects in notice — Consequence of defect in notice — Efficient administration of justice — Prejudice to respondent

Economics, trade and finance — Foreign investment — North American Free Trade Agreement — Article 1117 — Meaning of ownership or control of an enterprise — Full or virtually full ownership — Shareholding required to demonstrate full or virtually full ownership of an enterprise — Control of an enterprise — De facto control — Collective shareholding and alignment of votes

Treaties — Interpretation — North American Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”) — Article 1119 — Article 1122 — Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 — Article 31 — Failure to comply with requirements of Article 1119 — Whether failure to comply with requirements of Article 1119 vitiating other Party’s consent to arbitration under Article 1122 — Context of Chapter 11 NAFTA — Object and purpose of NAFTA