Amendment to Article I of the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, opened for signature 21 December 2001, 2260 UNTS 82 (entered into force 18 May 2004)Google Scholar

Arms Trade Treaty, opened for signature on 3 June 2013 (entered into force 24 December 2014) adopted as The Arms Trade Treaty, GA Res 67/234B, UN GAOR, 67th sess, 71st plen mtg, Agenda Item 94, UN Doc A/RES/67/234 B (11 June 2013)Google Scholar

Cartagena Declaration on Renunciation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (signed and entered into force 4 December 1991)Google Scholar

Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (signed and entered into force 16 March 1998)Google Scholar

Convention (II) with Respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land and Its Annex: Regulations Concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 29 July 1899, 187 CTS 429 (entered into force 4 September 1900)Google Scholar

Convention (IV) with Respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land and Its Annex: Regulations Concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907, 205 CTS 277 (entered into force 26 January 1910)Google Scholar

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, opened for signature 10 December 1984, 1465 UNTS 85 (entered into force 26 June 1987)Google Scholar

Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, opened for signature 16 November 1972, 1037 UNTS 151 (entered into force 17 December 1975)Google Scholar

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with Regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine, opened for signature 4 April 1997, ETS No 164 (entered into force 1 December 1999)Google Scholar

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, opened for signature 4 November 1950, 213 UNTS 221 (entered into force 3 September 1953)Google Scholar

Convention on Biological Diversity, opened for signature 5 June 1992, 1760 UNTS 79 (entered into force 29 December 1993)Google Scholar

Convention on Prohibition or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, opened for signature 10 October 1980, 1342 UNTS 137 (entered into force 2 December 1983)Google Scholar

Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, opened for signature 10 December 1976, 1108 UNTS 151 (entered into force 5 October 1978)Google Scholar

Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction, opened for signature 10 April 1972, 1015 UNTS 163 (entered into force 26 March 1975)Google Scholar

Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction, opened for signature 3 September 1992, 1974 UNTS 45 (entered into force 29 April 1997)Google Scholar

Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction, opened for signature 18 September 1997, 2056 UNTS 211 (entered into force 1 March 1999)Google Scholar

Convention on the Rights of the Child, opened for signature 20 November 1989, 1577 UNTS 3 (entered into force 2 September 1990)Google Scholar

Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat, opened for signature 2 February 1971, 996 UNTS 245 (entered into force 21 December 1975)Google Scholar

Declaration Renouncing the Use, in Time of War, of Explosive Projectiles under 400 Grammes Weight, signed 29 November 1868, 138 CTS 297 (entered into force 11 December 1868) (‘Declaration of St Petersburg’)Google Scholar

Geneva Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field (First Geneva Convention), opened for signature 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 31 (entered into force 21 October 1950)Google Scholar

Geneva Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea (Second Geneva Convention), opened for signature 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 85 (entered into force 21 October 1950)Google Scholar

Geneva Convention (III) Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (Third Geneva Convention), opened for signature 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 135 (entered into force 21 October 1950)Google Scholar

Geneva Convention (IV) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Fourth Geneva Convention), opened for signature 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 287 (entered into force 21 October 1950)Google Scholar

Hague Declaration (II) on the Use of Projectiles the Object of Which Is the Diffusion of Asphyxiating or Deleterious Gases, opened for signature 29 July 1899, 187 CTS 453 (entered into force 4 September 1900)Google Scholar

International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, opened for signature 1 March 1980, 1249 UNTS 13 (entered into force 3 September 1981)Google Scholar

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, opened for signature 19 December 1966, 999 UNTS 171 (entered into force 23 March 1976)Google Scholar

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, opened for signature 16 December 1966, 993 UNTS 3 (entered into force 3 January 1976)Google Scholar

Joint Declaration on the Complete Prohibition of Chemical and Biological Weapons, Argentina-Brazil-Chile (signed and entered into force 5 September 1991)Google Scholar

Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, opened for signature 4 February 2003, 2375 UNTS 237 (entered into force 22 June 2006)Google Scholar

Project of an International Declaration Concerning the Laws and Customs of War, signed 27 August 1874 (did not enter into force) <https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/INTRO/135>>Google Scholar

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), opened for signature 8 June 1977, 1125 UNTS 3 (entered into force 7 December 1979)Google Scholar

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), opened for signature 8 June 1977, 1125 UNTS 609 (entered into force 7 December 1978)Google Scholar

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Adoption of an Additional Distinctive Emblem (Protocol III), opened for signature 8 December 2005, 2404 UNTS 261 (entered into force 14 January 2007)Google Scholar

Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, opened for signature 17 June 1925, 94 LNTS 65 (entered into force 8 February 1928)Google Scholar

Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons (Protocol IV) to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, opened for signature 13 October 1995, 1380 UNTS 370 (entered into force 30 July 1998)Google Scholar

Protocol on Non-Detectable Fragments (Protocol I) to the Convention on Prohibition or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, opened for signature 10 October 1980, 1342 UNTS 137 (entered into force 2 December 1983)Google Scholar

Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons (Protocol III) to the Convention on Prohibition or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, opened for signature 10 October 1980, 1342 UNTS 171 (entered into force 2 December 1983)Google Scholar

Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II, as amended on 3 May 1996) annexed to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, opened for signature 3 May 1996, 2048 UNTS 93 (entered into force 3 December 1998)Google Scholar

Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices (Protocol II) to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, opened for signature 10 October 1980, 1342 UNTS 137 (entered into force 2 December 1983)Google Scholar

Ratification (with Declarations and Reservations) to Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I): Algeria, registered 16 August 1989, 1552 UNTS 381 (entered into force 16 February 1990)Google Scholar

Ratification (with Declarations and Reservations) to Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I): Austria, registered 13 August 1982, 1289 UNTS 302 (entered into force 13 February 1983)Google Scholar

Ratification (with Declarations and Reservations) to Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I): Australia, registered 21 June 1991, 1642 UNTS 473 (entered into force 21 December 1991)Google Scholar

Ratification (with Declarations and Reservations) to Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I): Belgium, registered 20 May 1986, 1435 UNTS 367 (entered into force 20 November 1986)Google Scholar

Ratification (with Declarations and Reservations) to Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I): Canada, registered 20 November 1990, 1591 UNTS 462 (entered into force 20 May 1991)Google Scholar

Ratification (with Declarations and Reservations) to Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I): France in Official Records of the Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts, Geneva (1974–1977), Volume VII (Federal Political Department, Bern, 1978)Google Scholar

Ratification (with Declarations and Reservations) to Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I): Germany, registered 14 February 1991, 1607 UNTS 526 (entered into force 14 August 1991)Google Scholar

Ratification (with Declarations and Reservations) to Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I): Ireland, registered 12 July 1999, 2073 UNTS 28 (entered into force 19 November 1999)Google Scholar

Ratification (with Declarations and Reservations) to Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I): Italy, registered 27 February 1986, 1425 UNTS 438 (entered into force 17 August 1986)Google Scholar

Ratification (with Declarations and Reservations) to Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I): Netherlands, registered 26 June 1987, 1477 UNTS 299 (entered into force 26 December 1987)Google Scholar

Ratification (with Declarations and Reservations) to Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I): New Zealand, registered 8 February 1988, 1499 UNTS 358 (entered into force 8 August 1988)Google Scholar

Ratification (with Declarations and Reservations) to Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I): Spain, registered 21 April 1989, 1537 UNTS 389 (entered into force 21 October 1989)Google Scholar

Ratification (with Declarations and Reservations) to Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I): United Kingdom, registered 28 January 1998, 2020 UNTS 73 (entered into force 28 July 1998)Google Scholar

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, opened for signature 17 July 1998, 2187 UNTS 91 (entered into force 1 July 2002)Google Scholar

Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, opened for signature 7 July 2017 (entering into force January 2021)Google Scholar

Treaty Relating to the Use of Submarines and Noxious Gases in Warfare, opened for signature 6 February 1922, 25 LNTS 202 (not yet in force)Google Scholar

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, opened for signature 10 December 1982, 1833 UNTS 3 (entered into force 16 November 1994)Google Scholar

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, GA Res 217A (III), UN GAOR, 3rd sess, 183rd plen mtg, UN Doc A/810 (10 December 1948)Google Scholar

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, opened for signature 23 May 1969, 1155 UNTS 331 (entered into force 27 January 1980)Google Scholar

Aerial Herbicide Spraying (Ecuador v Colombia) [2013] ICJ Rep 278Google Scholar

Antipenkov v Russia (European Court of Human Rights, Chamber, Application No 33470/03, 15 October 2009)Google Scholar

Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Uganda) (Judgment) [2005] ICJ Rep 168Google Scholar

Brincat and Others v Malta (European Court of Human Rights, Chamber, Application Nos 60908/11, 62110/11, 62129/11, 62312/11, 62338/11, 24 July 2014)Google Scholar

Čelebići Camp, Prosecutor v Delalić (Zejnil) and ors, Appeal Judgment, Case No IT-96-21-A, ICL 96 (ICTY February 2001)Google Scholar

Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v Nicaragua) (Judgment) (International Court of Justice, General List No 150, 2 February 2018)Google Scholar

Colombia Constitutional Court, Constitutional Case No C-225/95, 18 May 1995Google Scholar

Corfu Channel (United Kingdom v Albania) (Merits) [1949] ICJ Rep 4Google Scholar

Cyprus v Turkey [2001] IV Eur Court HR 1Google Scholar

Esmukhambetov et al v Russia (European Court of Human Rights, Chamber, Application No 23445/03, 29 March 2011)Google Scholar

Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (Spain v Canada) [1998] ICJ Rep 432Google Scholar

Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia) [1997] ICJ Rep 7Google Scholar

Isayeva v Russia (European Court of Human Rights, Chamber, Application Nos 57947/00, 57948/00 and 57949/00, 24 February 2005)Google Scholar

Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana v Namibia) (Judgment) [1999] ICJ Rep 1045Google Scholar

Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 ( 1970 ) (Advisory Opinion) [1971] ICJ Rep 16Google Scholar

Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Advisory Opinion) [2004] ICJ Rep 136Google Scholar

Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965 (Advisory Opinion) (International Court of Justice, General List No 169, 25 February 2019)Google Scholar

Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (Advisory Opinion) [1996] ICJ Rep 226Google Scholar

Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict (Advisory Opinion) [1996] ICJ Rep 66Google Scholar

Loizidou v Turkey (1995) 310 Eur Court HR (ser A)Google Scholar

Marab and Ors v IDF Commander in the West Bank and Anor (2008) 133 ILR 332CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America) (Judgment) [1986] ICJ Rep 14Google Scholar

Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America) (Merits) [1986] ICJ Rep 14Google Scholar

North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany v Denmark) (Merits) [1969] ICJ Rep 3Google Scholar

Nuclear Tests (Australia v France) (Merits) [1974] ICJ Rep 253Google Scholar

Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v France) (Request for an Examination of the Situation in Accordance with Paragraph 63 of the Court’s 1974 Judgment) [1995] ICJ Rep 288Google Scholar

O’Keeffe v Ireland [2014] I Eur Court HR 155Google Scholar

Osman v United Kingdom [1998] VII Eur Court HR 3124Google Scholar

Prosecutor v Boškoski & Tarčulovski (Judgment) (International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Appeals Chamber, Case No IT-04-82-A, 19 May 2010)Google Scholar

Prosecutor v Delalić (Judgment) (International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Trial Chamber, Case No IT-96-21-T, 16 November 1998)Google Scholar

Prosecutor v Galić (Judgment) (International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Trial Chamber I, Case No IT-98-29-T, 5 December 2003)Google Scholar

Prosecutor v Kupreškić (Judgment) (International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Trial Chamber, Case No IT-95-16-T, 14 January 2000)Google Scholar

Prosecutor v Martić (Decision) (International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Trial Chamber, Case No IT-95-11-R61, 8 March 1996)Google Scholar

Prosecutor v Milošević (Judgment) (International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Trial Chamber III, Case No IT-98-29/1-T, 12 December 2007)Google Scholar

Prosecutor v Tadić (Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction) (International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Appeals Chamber, Case No IT-94-1-A, 2 October 1995)Google Scholar

Pulp Mills in the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay) (Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures) (2006) 45 ILM 1025Google Scholar

‘Request for an Examination of the Situation’, Request for an Examination of the Situation in Accordance with Paragraph 63 of the Court's 1974 Judgment in the Case Concerning Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v France) (International Court of Justice, General List No 97, 21 August 1995) <www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/97/7187.pdf>' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=‘Request+for+an+Examination+of+the+Situation’,+Request+for+an+Examination+of+the+Situation+in+Accordance+with+Paragraph+63+of+the+Court's+1974+Judgment+in+the+Case+Concerning+Nuclear+Tests+(New+Zealand+v+France)+(International+Court+of+Justice,+General+List+No+97,+21+August+1995)+>Google Scholar

Ryuichi Shimoda et al v The State (1966) 32 ILR 626 (District Court of Tokyo, Judgment date 7 December 1963)Google Scholar

Santa Domingo Massacre v Colombia (Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Series C No 259, 30 November 2012)Google Scholar

Selvi v State of Karnataka (Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction, 5 May 2010)Google Scholar

Trail Smelter Case (United States v Canada) (1938) 3 RIAA 1905Google Scholar

Tyrer v United Kingdom (1978) 26 Eur Court HR (ser A)Google Scholar

Verbatim Record, Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v France) (Request for an Examination of the Situation in Accordance with Paragraph 63 of the Court’s 1974 Judgment) [1995] ICJ Rep 288 <www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/97/097-19950912-ORA-01-00-BI.pdf>>Google Scholar

Vinter v United Kingdom [2016] III Eur Court HR 317Google Scholar

Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia and New Zealand (intervening) v Japan) (Judgment) (International Court of Justice, General List No 148, 31 March 2014)Google Scholar

Yugoslavia v United States (1999) 38(4) ILM 1188Google Scholar

Article I: Reinforcing the Core Prohibition of the Biological Weapons Convention: Submitted by the United States of America, Eighth Review Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction, UN Doc BWC/CONF.VIII/WP.14 (25 October 2016)Google Scholar

Basic Principles for the Protection of Civilian Populations in Armed Conflicts, GA Res 2675 (XXV), UN GAOR, 25th sess, 1922nd plen mtg, UN Doc A/RES/2675(XXV) (9 December 1970)Google Scholar

Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States, GA Res 3281 (XXIX), UN GAOR, 29th sess, 2315th plen mtg, Agenda Item 48, UN Doc A/RES/29/3281 (12 December 1974)Google Scholar

Chemical and Bacteriological (Biological) Weapons and the Effects of Their Possible Use: Report of the Secretary-General, 24th sess, Agenda Item 2, UN Doc A/7575/Rev/1 (1 August 1969)Google Scholar

Chemical and Bacteriological (Biological) Weapons, GA Res 32/77, UN GAOR, 32nd sess, 100th plen mtg, Agenda Item 39, UN Doc A/RES/32/77 (12 December 1977)Google Scholar

Chemical and Bacteriological (Biological) Weapons, GA Res 3256 (XXIX), UN GAOR, 29th sess, 2309th plen mtg, UN Doc A/RES/3265(XXIX) (9 December 1974)Google Scholar

Chemical and Bacteriological (Biological) Weapons, GA Res 33/59, UN GAOR, 33rd sess, 84th plen mtg, UN Doc A/RES33/59 (14 December 1978)Google Scholar

Code of Professional Ethics for Science Workers in Cuba: Submitted by Cuba [unofficial English translation], Eighth Review Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction, UN Doc BWC/CONF.VIII/WP.2 (30 September 2016)Google Scholar

Commission on Human Rights, Study on the Situation of Trade in and Production of Equipment Which Is Specifically Designed to Inflict Torture or Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, Its Origin, Destination and Forms, Submitted by Theo van Boven, Special Rapporteur on Torture, Pursuant to Resolution 2002/38 of the Commission on Human Rights, 59th sess, Agenda Item 11(a), UN Doc E/CN.4/2003/69 (13 January 2003)Google Scholar

Commission on Human Rights, Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment: Report of the Special Rapporteur on Torture, Theo Van Boven, 61st sess, Agenda Item 11(a), UN Doc E/CN.4/2005/62 (15 December 2004)Google Scholar

Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No 15: The Right to Water, 29th sess, Agenda Item 3, UN Doc E/C.12/2002/11 (20 January 2003)Google Scholar

Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No 14: The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health, 22nd sess, Agenda Item 3, UN Doc E/C.12/2000/4 (11 August 2000)Google Scholar

Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No 15: The Right to Water, 29th sess, Agenda Item 3, UN Doc E/C.12/2002/11 (20 January 2003)Google Scholar

Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No 12: The Right to Adequate Food (Art 11), 20th sess, Agenda Item 7, UN Doc E/C.12/1999/5 (12 May 1999)Google Scholar

Common Understandings Reached by the Meetings of States Parties during the Intersessional Programme Held from 2012 to 2015, Eighth Review Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction, UN Doc BWC/CONF.VIII/PC/5 (2 June 2016)Google Scholar

Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effect, GA Res 39/56, UN GAOR, 39th sess, 97th plen mtg, Agenda Item 50, Supp No 51, UN Doc, A/RES/39/56 (12 December 1984)Google Scholar

Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, GA Res 40/84, UN GAOR, 40th sess, 113th plen mtg, Agenda Item 54, Supp No 53, UN Doc A/RES/40/84 (12 December 1985)Google Scholar

Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, GA Res 41/50, UN GAOR, 41st sess, 94th plen mtg, Agenda Item 51, Supp No 53, UN Doc A/RES/41/50 (3 December 1986)Google Scholar

Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, GA Res 45/64, UN GAOR, 45th sess, 54th plen mtg, Agenda Item 64, Supp No 49, UN Doc A/RES/45/64 (4 December 1990)Google Scholar

Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, GA Res 46/40, UN GAOR, 46th sess, 65th plen mtg, Agenda Item 64, Supp No 49, UN Doc A/RES/46/40 (6 December 1991)Google Scholar

Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, GA Res 47/56, UN GAOR, 47th sess, 81st plen mtg, Agenda Item 65, Supp No 49, UN Doc A/RES/47/56 (9 December 1992)Google Scholar

Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, GA Res 48/79, UN GAOR, 48th sess, 81st plen mtg, Agenda Item 75, Supp No 49, UN Doc A/RES/48/79 (7 January 1994)Google Scholar

Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, GA Res 49/79, UN GAOR, 49th sess, 90th plen mtg, Agenda Item 66, Supp No 49, UN Doc A/RES/49/79 (11 January 1995)Google Scholar

Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, GA Res 50/74, UN GAOR, 50th sess, 90th plen mtg, Agenda Item 74, Supp No 49, UN Doc A/RES/50/74 (10 January 1996)Google Scholar

Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, GA Res 51/49, UN GAOR, 51st sess, 79th plen mtg, Agenda Item 75, Supp No 49, UN Doc A/RES/51/49 (8 January 1997)Google Scholar

Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, GA Res 54/58, UN GAOR, 54th sess, 69th plen mtg, Agenda Item 80, Supp No 49, UN Doc A/RES/54/58 (31 December 1999)Google Scholar

Convention on the Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, GA Res 38/66, UN GAOR, 38th sess, 97th plen mtg, Agenda Item 51, Supp No 47, UN Doc A/RES/38/66 (15 December 1983)Google Scholar

Conventional Weapons Convention, GA Res 52/42, UN GAOR, 52nd sess, 67th plen mtg, Agenda Item 75, Supp No 49, UN Doc A/RES/52/42 (31 December 1997)Google Scholar

Conventional Weapons Convention, GA Res 53/81, UN GAOR, 53rd sess, 79th plen mtg, Agenda Item 75, Supp No 49, UN Doc A/RES/53/81 (8 January 1999)Google Scholar

Draft Articles on the Effects of Armed Conflicts on Treaties, with Commentaries in ‘Report on the Work of the International Law Commission Sixty-Third Session (26 April–3 June and 4 July–12 August 2011)’ [2011] II(2) Yearbook of the International Law Commission 108Google Scholar

Final Declaration, Fourth Review Conference of the Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction, UN Doc BWC/CONF.IV/9 (25 November–6 December 1996)Google Scholar

Final Review Document of the Seventh Review Conference, Seventh Review Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction, UN Doc BWC/CONF.VII/COW/CRP.2 (5–22 December 2011)Google Scholar

General and Complete Disarmament, GA Res 2932 A (XXVII), UN GAOR, 27th sess, 2093rd plen mtg, UN Doc A/RES/2932(XXVII) (29 November 1972)Google Scholar

Human Rights Committee, Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties under Article 40 of the Covenant: Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee – Israel, 99th sess, UN Doc CCPR/C/ISR/CO/3 (3 September 2010)Google Scholar

Human Rights Committee, Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties under Article 40 of the Covenant: Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee – Kosovo (Serbia), 87th sess, UN Doc CCPR/C/UNK/CO/1 (14 August 2006)Google Scholar

Human Rights Committee, Decision: Communication No 45/1979, 15th sess, UN Doc C/CCPR/OP/1 (31 March 1982) (‘de Guerrero v Colombia’)Google Scholar

Human Rights Committee, Decision: Communication No 52/1979, 13th sess, UN Doc CCPR/C/OP/1 (19 July 1981) (‘de Lopez v Uruguay’)Google Scholar

Human Rights Committee, Decision: Communication No 67/1980, 17th sess, UN Doc CCPR/C/17/D/67/1980 (27 October 1982) (‘EHP v Canada’)Google Scholar

Human Rights Committee, Decision: Communication No 429/1990, 47th sess, UN Doc CCPR/C/47/D/429/1990 (29 April 1993) (‘EW v Netherlands’)Google Scholar

Human Rights Committee, Decision: Communication No 1453/2006, 88th sess, UN Doc CCPR/C/88/D/1453/2006 (18 October 2006) (‘Brun v France’)Google Scholar

Human Rights Committee, General Comment No 14: Article 6 (Right to life), 16th sess, UN Doc HRI/GEN/1/Rev.7 (12 May 2004)Google Scholar

Human Rights Committee, General Comment No 14: Article 6, 23rd sess, UN Doc HRI/GEN/1/Rev.1 (2 November 1984)Google Scholar

Human Rights Committee, General Comment No 14: Nuclear Weapons and the Right to Life (Article 6), 16th sess, UN Doc HRI/GEN/1/Rev.6 (12 May 2003)Google Scholar

Human Rights Committee, General Comment No 20: Article 7 (Prohibition of Torture, or Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment), 44th sess, UN Doc A/47/40 (10 March 1992)Google Scholar

Human Rights Committee, General Comment No 24: Issues Relating to Reservations Made upon Ratification or Accession to the Covenant or the Optional Protocols thereto, or in Relation to Declarations under Article 41 of the Covenant, 52nd sess, UN Doc CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.6 (4 November 1994)Google Scholar

Human Rights Committee, General Comment No 29: States of Emergency (Article 4), 1950th mtg, UN Doc CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.11 (31 August 2001)Google Scholar

Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 36 (2018) on Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the Right to Life, 124th sess, UN Doc CCPR/C/GC/36 (30 October 2018)Google Scholar

Human Rights Committee, General Comment No 36 on Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the Right to Life (Advanced Unedited Version) <www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/CCPR/GCArticle6/GCArticle6_EN.pdf>>Google Scholar

Human Rights Committee, Views: Communication No 1275/2004, 94th sess, UN Doc CCPR/C/94/D/1275/2004 (30 October 2008) (‘Umetaliev and Tashtanbekova v Kyrgyzstan’)Google Scholar

Incendiary and Other Specific Conventional Weapons Which May Be the Subject of Prohibitions or Restrictions of Use for Humanitarian Reasons, GA Res 31/64, UN GAOR, 31st sess, 96th plen mtg, Agenda Item 35, Supp No 39, UN Doc A/RES/31/64 (10 December 1976)Google Scholar

Incendiary and Other Specific Conventional Weapons Which May Be the Subject of Prohibitions or Restrictions of Use for Humanitarian Reasons, GA Res 32/152, UN GAOR, 32nd sess, 106th plen mtg, Agenda Item 38, Supp No 45, UN Doc A/RES/32/152 (19 December 1977)Google Scholar

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Third Report on Human Rights in Colombia, Organization of American States, Doc No OEA/Ser.L/V/II.102 Doc 9 Rev 1 (26 February 1999)Google Scholar

International Committee of the Red Cross, Biological Weapons Review Conference: ICRC Statement (8 November 2016) <www.icrc.org/en/document/biological-weapons-review-conference-statement-icrc>>Google Scholar

International Law Commission, Draft Conclusions of Identification of Customary International Law, with Commentaries, UN GAOR, UN Doc A/73/10 (2018)Google Scholar

Jacobsson, Marie, Preliminary Report on the Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflicts, UN GAOR, 66th sess, UN Docs A/CN.4/674 (30 May 2014) and A/CN.4/674/Corr.1 (11 August 2014)Google Scholar

Jacobsson, Marie, Report of the International Law Commission, Sixty-third Session, UN GAOR, 66th sess, Supp No 10, UN Doc A/66/10 (2011) Annex E (‘Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflicts’)Google Scholar

Jacobsson, Marie, Second Report on the Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflicts, UN GAOR, 67th sess, UN Doc A/CN.4/685 (28 May 2015)Google Scholar

Jacobsson, Marie, Third Report on the Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflicts, UN GAOR, 68th sess, UN Doc A/CN.4/700 (3 June 2016)Google Scholar

Koskenniemi, Martti, Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law, International Law Commission, 58th sess, UN Doc A/CN.4/L.682 (13 April 2006)Google Scholar

Napalm and Other Incendiary Weapons and All Aspects of Their Possible Use, GA Res 3076 (XXVIII), UN GAOR, 28th sess, 2192nd plen mtg, Agenda Item 34, Supp No 30, UN Doc A/RES/3076(XXVIII) (6 December 1973)Google Scholar

Napalm and Other Incendiary Weapons and All Aspects of Their Possible Use, GA Res 3255 (XXIX), UN GAOR, 29th sess, 2309th plen mtg, Agenda Item 27, Supp No 31, UN Doc A/RES/3255(XXIX)A-B (9 December 1974)Google Scholar

Office of General Counsel, Department of Defense Law of War Manual (May 2016) United States Department of Defense <www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/DoD_Law_of_War_Manual-June_2015_Updated_May_2016.pdf>>Google Scholar

Peaceful Settlement of Disputes between States, GA Res 37/10, UN GAOR, 37th sess, 68th plen mtg, UN Doc A/RES/37/10 (15 November 1982) annexGoogle Scholar

Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources, GA Res 1803 (XVII), UN GAOR, 17th sess, 1194th plen mtg, UN Doc A/RES/17/1803 (14 December 1962)Google Scholar

Promotion of and Respect for International Humanitarian Law, Organization of American States, GA Res 1565 (XXVIII-O/98), 3rd plen sess, OAS Doc AG/RES 1565 (XXVIII-O/98) (2 June 1998)Google Scholar

Protection of the Environment in Times of Armed Conflict, GA Res 47/37, UN GAOR, 47th sess, 73rd plen mtg, Agenda Item 136, UN Doc A/RES/47/37 (9 February 1993)Google Scholar

Regulation No 2000/15 On the Establishment of Panels with Exclusive Jurisdiction over Serious Criminal Offences, UNTAET, UN Doc UNTAET/REG/2000/15 (6 June 2000)Google Scholar

‘Report of the Commission to the General Assembly on the Work of Its Forty-Sixth Session’ [1994] II(2) Yearbook of the International Law CommissionGoogle Scholar

Report of the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament, Volume I, UN GAOR, 31st sess, Supp No 27, UN Doc No A/31/27 (1976)Google Scholar

Report of the Secretary-General on the Work of the Organization, GA Res 37/67, UN GAOR, 37th sess, 91st plen mtg, UN Doc A/RES/37/67 (3 December 1982)Google Scholar

Report of the Secretary-General Prepared Pursuant to General Assembly Resolution ES-10/13, UN Doc A/ES-10/248 (24 November 2003)Google Scholar

Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, 3–14 June 1992, UN GAOR, UN Doc A/CONF.151/26 Vol. I (12 August 1992) annex (‘Rio Declaration on Environment and Development’)Google Scholar

Report of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment: Stockholm, 5–16 June 1972, UN Doc A/CONF.48/14/Rev.1 (1972) (‘Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment’)Google Scholar

Respect for Human Rights in Armed Conflict, GA Res 2444 (XXIII), UN GAOR, 23rd sess, 1748th plen mtg, UN Doc A/RES/2444(XXIII) (19 December 1968)Google Scholar

Respect for Human Rights in Armed Conflicts, GA Res 3102 (XXVIII), UN GAOR, 28th sess, 2197th plen mtg, Agenda Item 96, Supp No 30, UN Doc A/Res/3102(XXVIII) (12 December 1973)Google Scholar

Respect for International Humanitarian Law, Organization of American States, GA Res 1270 (XXIV-O/94), 9th plen sess, OAS Doc AG/RES 1270 (XXIV-O/94) (10 June 1994)Google Scholar

Review of Developments in Science and Technology: Key Points from the 2012–2015 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention Intersessional Programme: Submitted by the United Kingdom, Eighth Review Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction, UN Doc BW C/CONF.VIII/WP.17 (1 November 2016)Google Scholar

SC Res 582, UN SCOR, 41st sess, 2666th mtg, UN Doc S/RES/582 (24 February 1986)Google Scholar

SC Res 598, UN SCOR, 42nd sess, 2750th mtg, UN Doc S/RES/598 (20 July 1987)Google Scholar

SC Res 612, UN SCOR, 43rd sess, 2812nd meeting, UN Doc S/RES/612 (9 May 1988)Google Scholar

SC Res 620, UN SCOR, 43rd sess, 2825th mtg, UN Doc S/RES/620 (26 August 1988)Google Scholar

SC Res 687, UN SCOR, 47th sess, 2981st mtg, UN Doc S/RES/687 (8 April 1991)Google Scholar

SC Res 1540, UN SCOR, 59th sess, 4956th mtg, UN Doc S/RES/1540 (28 April 2004)Google Scholar

SC Res 1977, UN SCOR, 66th sess, 6518th mtg, UN Doc S/RES/1977 (20 April 2011)Google Scholar

Scientific and Technological Developments of Relevance to the Convention and the Assessment of Benefits and Risks: Submitted by Switzerland, Meeting of the States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction, UN Doc BWC/MSP/2019/MX.2/WP.2 (10 July 2019)Google Scholar

Secretary-General’s Bulletin – Observance by United Nations Forces of International Humanitarian Law, UN Doc ST/SGB/1999/13 (6 August 1999)Google Scholar

Statement of the President of the Security Council, UN SCOR, 5705th plen mtg, UN Doc S/PRST/2007/22 (25 June 2007)Google Scholar

Stockholm Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Report of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, 21st plen mtg, UN Doc A/CONF.48/14 and Corr.1 (16 June 1972)Google Scholar

The Federal Ministry of Defence of the Federal Republic of Germany, Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts, German Manual, VR II 3 (1992) [trans of: Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten (first published 1992)] <www.humanitaeres-voelkerrecht.de/ManualZDv15.2.pdf>>Google Scholar

The Future We Want, GA Res 66/288, UN GAOR, 66th sess, 123rd plen mtg, Agenda Item 19, UN Doc A/RES/66/288 (11 September 2012)Google Scholar

The Human Right to Water and Sanitation, GA Res 264/92, UN GAOR, 64th sess, 108th plen mtg, Agenda Item 48, UN Doc A/RES/64/292 (3 August 2010)Google Scholar

Towards a Global Pact for the Environment, GA Res 72/277, UN GAOR, 72nd sess, Agenda Item 14, UN Doc A/RES/72/277 (14 May 2018)Google Scholar

Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, GA Res 70/1, UN GAOR, 70th sess, 4th plen mtg, Agenda Items 15 and 116, UN Doc A/RES/70/1 (21 October 2015)Google Scholar

United Kingdom Ministry of Defence, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict (Oxford University Press, 2004)Google Scholar

United Nations Compensation Commission, Governing Council Decision 7: Criteria for Additional Categories of Claims, UN SCOR, 3rd sess, 18th mtg, UN Doc /AC.25/1991/7/Rev.1 (17 March 1992)Google Scholar

United Nations Compensation Commission Governing Council, Report and Recommendations Made by the Panel of Commissioners Concerning the Fifth Instalment of ‘F4’ Claims, UN Doc S/AC.26/2005/10 (30 June 2005)Google Scholar

United Nations Conference on Prohibitions or Restrictions of Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, GA Res 33/70, UN GAOR, 33rd sess, 84th plen mtg, Agenda Item 49, Supp No 45, UN Doc A/RES/33/70 (14 December 1978)Google Scholar

United Nations Conference on Prohibitions or Restrictions of Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, GA Res 34/82, UN GAOR, 34th sess, 97th plen mtg, Agenda Item 41, Supp No 46, UN Doc A/RES/34/82 (11 December 1979)Google Scholar

United Nations Conference on Prohibitions or Restrictions of Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious of to Have Indiscriminate Effects, GA Res 35/153, UN GAOR, 35th sess, 94th plen mtg, Agenda Item 43, Supp No 48, UN Doc A/RES/35/153 (12 December 1980)Google Scholar

United Nations Conference on Prohibitions or Restrictions of Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, GA Res 36/93, UN GAOR, 36th sess, 91st plen mtg, Agenda Item 52, Supp No 51, UN Doc A/RES/36/93 (9 December 1981)Google Scholar

United Nations Conference on Prohibitions or Restrictions of Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, GA Res 37/79, UN GAOR, 37th sess, 98th plen mtg, Agenda Item 51, Supp No 51, UN Doc A/Res/37/79 (9 December 1982)Google Scholar

United States Department of Army, Field Manual No. 3-36 Electronic Warfare (9 November 2012) <https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-36.pdf>>Google Scholar

World Charter for Nature, GA Resolution 37/7, UN GAOR, 48th plen mtg, UN Doc A/RES/37/7 (28 October 1982)Google Scholar

Altmann, Jürgen and Gubrud, Mark, ‘Risks from Military Uses of Nanotechnology: The Need for Technology Assessment and Preventive Control’ (Paper presented at Nanotechnology – Revolutionary Opportunities and Societal Implications, 3rd JOINTEC-NSF Workshop on Nanotechnology, Lecce, Italy, 31 January–1 February 2002) <https://e3.physik.tu-dortmund.de/p&d/pubs/riskmilnt_lecce.pdf>>Google Scholar

Defence Science Institute and Defence Science and Technology Organisation, Symposium: ‘Future Technologies for Personal Protection’, 7–8 November 2013Google Scholar

Feynman, Richard, ‘There’s Plenty of Room at the Bottom’ (Paper presented at American Physical Society, Pasadena, 29 December 1959) <www.pa.msu.edu/~yang/RFeynman_plentySpace.pdf>>Google Scholar

Kibong, Kim, ‘Thermobarics: Promises, Challenges, and Recommendations’ (Paper presented at 7th Joint Bombs/Warheads & Ballistics Symposium, Monterey, United States, 2004)Google Scholar

Kica, Evisa and Wessel, Ramses, ‘Transnational Arrangements in the Governance of Emerging Technologies: The Case of Nanotechnology’ (Paper presented at ECPR Standing Group on Regulatory Governance Conference, Barcelona, 25–27 June 2014) <http://reggov2014.ibei.org/bcn-14-papers/67-218.pdf>>Google Scholar

Koval, Romona, ‘On the Whispering of Bones’, Speech delivered at Wheeler Centre Gala Night: Stories for the Dead, Melbourne, Australia, 26 February 2017Google Scholar

Kritsiotis, Dino, ‘An Uncensored History of International Law’ (Lecture delivered at Master of Laws program, The University of Melbourne, 2 June 2018)Google Scholar

Mathews, Robert, ‘The 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons: A Useful Framework Despite Earlier Disappointments’ (Paper presented at the Australian Defence Force Conference on ‘Pushing the Envelope: The ADF Contribution to International & Operations Law’, University of Melbourne, 20–22 February 2002)Google Scholar

Sassòli, Marco, ‘Transnational Armed Groups and International Humanitarian Law’ (Occasional Paper series No 6, Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research, Harvard University, Winter 2006)Google Scholar

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, ‘United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity’ (Paper presented at Twelfth Conference of the Parties, Pyeongchang, Republic of Korea, 29 September–17 October 2014)Google Scholar

United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA), ‘Final Document of the Seventh Review Conference’ (Paper presented at Seventh Review Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and Their Destruction, Geneva, Switzerland, 5–22 December 2011)Google Scholar

Wang, Jun and Dortmans, Peter, ‘Nanotechnology: Selected Topics and Potential Military Application’ (Paper presented at Land Warfare Conference, Melbourne, Australia, 27–30 September 2004) <http://dspace.dsto.defence.gov.au/dspace/handle/1947/2559>>Google Scholar

Abbott, Kenneth, Sylvester, Douglas and Marchant, Garry, ‘Transnational Regulation: Reality or Romanticism?’ in Hodge, Graeme, Bowman, Diana and Maynard, Andrew (eds), International Handbook on Regulating Nanotechnologies (Elgar, 2010)Google Scholar

Ach, Johann and Luttenberg, Beate (eds), Nanobiotechnology, Nanomedicine and Human Enhancement (Lit Verlag, 2008)Google Scholar

Akhavan, Jackie, The Chemistry of Explosives (Royal Society of Chemistry, 2004)Google Scholar

Allhof, Fritz and Lin, Patrick (eds), Nanotechnology & Society (Springer, 2008)Google Scholar

Alston, Philip and Goodman, Ryan, International Human Rights: Text and Materials (Oxford University Press, 2013)Google Scholar

Altmann, Jürgen, ‘Preventing Hostile and Malevolent Use of Military Technology After 15 Years of the US National Nanotechnology Initiative’ in Martellini, Maurizio and Malizia, Andrea (eds), Cyber and Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, Explosive Challenges (Springer, 2017)Google Scholar

Altmann, Jürgen, Military Nanotechnology: Potential Applications and Preventive Arms Control (Routledge, 2006)Google Scholar

Austin, Jay and Bruch, Carl (eds), The Environmental Consequences of War: Legal, Economic, and Scientific Perspectives (Cambridge University Press, 2000)Google Scholar

Baskin, Toney and Holcomb, John, ‘Bombs, Mines, Blast, Fragmentation and Thermobaric Mechanisms of Injury’ in Mahoney, Peter et al (eds), Ballistic Trauma: A Practical Guide (Springer, 2nd ed, 2005)Google Scholar

Bassiouni, M Cherif, A Manual on International Humanitarian Law and Arms Control Agreements (Transnational Publishers, 2000)Google Scholar

Benameur, Laila, Wei, Liu and Botta, Alain, ‘Genotoxicity of Nanoparticles’ in Bhushan, Bharat (ed), Encyclopedia of Nanotechnology (Springer, 2012)Google Scholar

Bernauer, Thomas, The Projected Chemical Weapons Convention: A Guide to Negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament (United Nations, 1990)Google Scholar

Bertolotti, Mario, The History of the Laser (Institute of Physics Publishing, 2005)Google Scholar

Berube, David, Nano-Hype: The Truth behind the Nanotechnology Buzz (Prometheus Books, 2006)Google Scholar

Besson, S, ‘Theorizing the Sources of International Law’ in Besson, S and Tasioulas, J (eds), The Philosophy of International Law (Oxford University Press, 2008)Google Scholar

Best, Geoffrey, Humanity in Warfare (Columbia University Press, 1980)Google Scholar

Bjorge, Eirik and Miles, Cameron (eds), Landmark Cases in Public International Law (Hart Publishing, 2018)Google Scholar

Blix, Hans, ‘Means and Methods of Combat’ in Henry Dunant Institute, International Dimensions of Humanitarian Law (Martinus Nijhoff, 1988)Google Scholar

Boothby, William (ed), New Technologies: The Law in War and Peace (Cambridge University Press (2019)Google Scholar

Boothby, William, Conflict Law: The Influence of New Weapons Technology, Human Rights and New Actors (Asser Press, 2014)Google Scholar

Boothby, William, The Law of Targeting (Oxford University Press, 2012)Google Scholar

Boothby, William, Weapons and the Law of Armed Conflict (Oxford University Press, 2009)Google Scholar

Boothby, William, ‘The Law of Weaponry: Is It Adequate?’ in Schmitt, Michael and Pejic, Jelena (eds), International Law and Armed Conflict: Exploring the Faultlines (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2007)Google Scholar

Bothe, Michael et al, The New Chemical Weapons Convention: Implementation and Prospects (Kluwer, 1998)Google Scholar

Bothe, Michael et al, New Rules for Victims of Armed Conflict: Commentary on the Two 1977 Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 (Martinus Nijhoff, 1982)Google Scholar

Bowman, Michael and Kritsiotis, Dino (eds), Conceptual and Contextual Perspectives on the Modern Law of Treaties (Cambridge University Press, 2018)Google Scholar

Bradley, Curtis, Custom’s Future: International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2016)Google Scholar

Bratspies, Rebecca, ‘Trail Smelter’s (Semi) Precautionary Legacy’ in Bratspies, Rebecca and Miller, Russell (eds), Transboundary Harm in International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2006)Google Scholar

Cahier, Phillipe, ‘La Charte des Nations Unies et les Etats tiers’ [in French] in Cassese, Antonio (ed), Current Problems of International Law: Essays on UN Law and on the Law of Armed Conflict (A Giuffrè, 1975)Google Scholar

Capco, David and Chen, Yongsheng (eds), Nanomaterials: Impacts on Cell Biology and Medicine (Springer, 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Čapek, Karel, R.U.R. (Rossum’s Universal Robots) (Claudia Novack trans, Penguin Books, 2004) [trans of: R.U.R. (Rossumovi Univerzální Roboti (first published 1920)]Google Scholar

Carson, Rachel, Silent Spring (Houghton Mifflin, first published 1962, 2002 ed)Google Scholar

Carter, Matt and Shieh, Jennifer, Guide to Research Techniques in Neuroscience (Elsevier, 2nd ed, 2015)Google Scholar

Casey-Maslen, Stuart, Corney, Neil and Dymond-Bass, Abi, ‘The Review of Weapons under International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law’ in Casey-Maslen, Stuart (ed), Weapons under International Human Rights Law (Cambridge University Press, 2014)Google Scholar

Casey-Maslen, Stuart, Weapons under International Human Rights Law (Cambridge University Press, 2014)Google Scholar

Cassese, Antonio (ed), The Human Dimension of International Law: Selected Papers (Oxford University Press, 2008)Google Scholar

Cassese, Antonio, The New Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflict (Editoriale Scientifica, 1979)Google Scholar

Charlesworth, Hilary, ‘Law-making and Sources’ in Crawford, James and Koskienniemi, Martii (eds), The Cambridge Companion to International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2012)Google Scholar

Christiansen, Sonja Boehmer, ‘The Precautionary Principle in Germany: Enabling Government’ in O’Riordan, Tim and Cameron, James (eds), Interpreting the Precautionary Principle (Earthscan, 1994)Google Scholar

Clapham, Andrew and Gaeta, Paola (eds), The Oxford Handbook of International Law in Armed Conflict (Oxford University Press, 2014)Google Scholar

Coleman, Stephen, ‘Ethical Challenges of New Military Technologies’ in Nasu, Hitoshi and McLaughlin, Robert (eds), New Technologies and the Law of Armed Conflict (Asser Press, 2014)Google Scholar

Corn, Geoffrey et al (eds), The Law of Armed Conflict: An Operational Approach (Wolters Kluwer, 2012)Google Scholar

Crawford, James, Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law (Oxford University Press, 2012)Google Scholar

Crowley, Michael, Chemical Control: Regulation of Incapacitating Chemical Agent Weapons, Riot Control Agents and Their Means of Delivery (Palgrave Macmillan, 2016)Google Scholar

Dando, Malcolm, A New Form of Warfare: The Rise of Non-lethal Weapons (Brasseys, 1996)Google Scholar

Darcy, Shane, Judges, Law and War (Cambridge University Press, 2016)Google Scholar

Davison, Neil, ‘Non-Lethal’ Weapons (Palgrave, 2009)Google Scholar

De Grasse Tyson, Neil and Lang, Avis, The Unspoken Alliance between Astrophysics and the Military: Accessory to War (W W Norton & Company, 2018)Google Scholar

de Hemptinne, Jérôme, ‘Challenges Regarding the Protection of Animals during Warfare’ in Peters, Anne (ed), Studies in Global Animal Law (Springer, 2020)Google Scholar

De Schutter, Olivier, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food 2008–14, cited in Simone Hutter, Starvation as a Weapon: Domestic Policies of Deliberate Starvation as a Means to an End under International Law (Brill, 2015)Google Scholar

Del Monte, Louis A, Nanoweapons: A Growing Threat to Humanity (University of Nebraska Press, 2017)Google Scholar

Delissen, Astrid and Tanja, Gerard (eds), Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflict: Challenges Ahead (Martinus Nijhoff, 1991)Google Scholar

Detter, Ingrid, The Law of War (Ashgate Publishing, 2013)Google Scholar

Dhasmana, Anupam et al, ‘Nanoparticles: Applications, Toxicology and Safety Aspects’ in Kesari, Kavin (ed), Perspectives in Environmental Toxicology (Springer, 2017)Google Scholar

Dinstein, Yoram, ‘The Principle of Proportionality’ in Larsen, Kjetil Mujezinović, Cooper, Camilla Guldahl and Nystuen, Gro (eds), Searching for a ‘Principle of Humanity’ in International Humanitarian Law (Cambridge University Press, 2012)Google Scholar

Dinstein, Yoram, International Law of Belligerent Occupation (Cambridge University Press 2009)Google Scholar

Dörr, Oliver and Schmalenbach, Kirsten (eds), Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: A Commentary (Springer, 2012)Google Scholar

Doswald-Beck, Louise, ‘Human Rights Law and Nuclear Weapons’ in Nystuen, Gro, Casey-Maslen, Stuart and Bersagel, Annie Golden (eds), Nuclear Weapons under International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2014)Google Scholar

Doswald-Beck, Louise, ‘Humanitarian Law in Future Wars’ in Schmitt, Michael and Green, Leslie (eds), The Law of Armed Conflict: Into the Next Millennium (US Naval War College, 1998)Google Scholar

Drexler, K Eric, Engines of Creation (Oxford University Press, 1990)Google Scholar

Drexler, K Eric, Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology (Anchor Press, 1986)Google Scholar

Drexler, Kim, Radical Abundance: How a Revolution in Nanotechnology Will Change Civilization (Perseus Books, 2013)Google Scholar

Dugué, Guillaume, Akemann, Walther and Knöpfel, Thomas, ‘A Comprehensive Concept of Optogenetics’ in Knöpfel, Thomas and Boyden, Edward (eds), Optogenetics: Tools for Controlling and Monitoring Neuronal Activity (Elsevier, 2012)Google Scholar

Dunworth, Treasa, Humanitarian Disarmament: An Historical Enquiry (Cambridge University Press, 2021)Google Scholar

Dworkin, Ronald, Law’s Empire (Harvard University Press, 1986)Google Scholar

Eide, Asbjörn, ‘Internal Disturbances and Tensions’ in Henry Dunant Institute, International Dimensions of Humanitarian Law (Martinus Nijhoff, 1988)Google Scholar

Elshtain, Jean (ed), Just War Theory (New York University Press, 1992)Google Scholar

Emanuelli, Claude, International Humanitarian Law (Éditions Yvon Blais, 2009)Google Scholar

Falk, Richard, Revitalizing International Law (Iowa State University Press, 1989)Google Scholar

Faunce, Thomas, Nanotechnology for a Sustainable World (Edward Elgar, 2012)Google Scholar

Fleck, Dieter (ed), The Handbook of International Humanitarian International Law (Oxford University Press, 2008)Google Scholar

Fleck, Dieter, ‘Environment: Legal and Policy Perspectives’ in Fox, Hazel and Meyer, Michael A (eds), Effecting Compliance (British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 1993)Google Scholar

Fox, Hazel and Meyer, Michael A (eds), Effecting Compliance (British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 1993)Google Scholar

Fries, Amos and West, Clarence, Chemical Warfare (McGraw Hill, 1921)Google Scholar

Frinking, Erik, Sinning, Paul and Bontje, Eva, The Increasing Threat of Biological Weapons: Handle with Sufficient and Proportionate Care (Hague Centre for Strategic Studies, 2017)Google Scholar

Gardiner, Richard, Treaty Interpretation (Oxford University Press, 2015)Google Scholar

Gasman, Lawrence, Nanotechnology: Applications and Markets (Artech House, 2006)Google Scholar

Gates, Bill, ‘Introduction’ in Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, 2008 SIPRI Yearbook: Armaments, Disarmament and International Security (Oxford University Press, 2008)Google Scholar

Gill, Terry and Fleck, Dieter (eds), The Handbook of the International Law of Military Operations (Oxford University Press, 2010)Google Scholar

Gillard, Emanuela-Chiara, ‘Protection of Civilians in the Conduct of Hostilities’ in Liivoja, Rain and McCormack, Tim (eds), Routledge Handbook of the Law of Armed Conflict (Routledge, 2016)Google Scholar

Goldblat, Jozef, Agreements for Arms Control: A Critical Survey (Taylor & Francis, 1982)Google Scholar

Göring, Hermann, Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 14 November 1945–1 October 1946 (1947)Google Scholar

Gowlland-Debbas, Vera, ‘The Right to Life and the Relationship between Human Rights and Humanitarian Law’ in Tomuschat, Christian, Lagrange, Evelyne and Oeter, Stefan (eds), The Right to Life (Martinus Nijhoff, 2010)Google Scholar

Green, Leslie, The Contemporary Law of Armed Conflict (Manchester University Press, 2008)Google Scholar

Grotius, Hugo, De Jure Belli ac Pacis Libri Tres (1625) quoted in John O’Connor, Good Faith in International Law (Dartmouth, 1991)Google Scholar

Haber, Ludwig Fritz, The Poisonous Cloud: Chemical Warfare in the First World War (Clarendon Press, 1986)Google Scholar

Haines, Steven, ‘The Developing Law of Weapons: Humanity, Distinction and Precautions in Attack’ in Clapham, Andrew and Gaeta, Paola (eds), The Oxford Handbook of International Law in Armed Conflict (Oxford University Press, 2014)Google Scholar

Hakimi, Monica, ‘Custom’s Method and Process: Lessons from Humanitarian Law’ in Bradley, Curtis A (ed), Custom’s Future: International Law in a Changing World (Cambridge University Press, 2016)Google Scholar

Harding, Ronnie, ‘Toxics, Industry and Precaution: What Role for Science’ in Harding, Ronnie and Fisher, Elizabeth (eds), Perspectives on the Precautionary Principle (Federation Press, 1999) 209Google Scholar

Heller, Kevin Jon, ‘The Use and Abuse of Analogy in IHL’ in Ohlin, Jens (ed), Theoretical Boundaries of Armed Conflict and Human Rights (Cambridge University Press, 2016)Google Scholar

Henckaerts, Jean-Marie and Beck, Louise Doswald, Customary International Humanitarian Law (Cambridge University Press, 2005)Google Scholar

Henderson, Ian, The Contemporary Law of Targeting: Military Objectives, Proportionality and Precautions in Attack under Additional Protocol I (Martinus Nijhoff, 2009)Google Scholar

Higgins, Polly, Eradicating Ecocide (Shepheard-Walwyn, 2015)Google Scholar

Hitz, Breck, Ewing, James and Hecht, Jeff, Introduction to Laser Technology (IEEE Press, 4th ed, 2012)Google Scholar

Hodge, Graeme, Bowman, Diana and Maynard, Andrew (eds), International Handbook on Regulating Nanotechnologies (Edward Elgar, 2010)Google Scholar

Hodge, Graeme, Bowman, Diana and Ludlow, Karinne (eds), New Global Frontiers in Regulation: The Age of Nanotechnology (Edward Elgar, 2007)Google Scholar

Hollis, D B (ed), The Oxford Guide to Treaties (Oxford University Press, 2012)Google Scholar

Houdy, Philippe, Lahmani, Marcel and Marano, Francelyne, Nanoethics and Nanotoxicology (Springer, 2010)Google Scholar

Hull, Matthew and Bowman, Diana, Nanotechnology Environmental Health and Safety: Risks, Regulation and Management (Elsevier, 2nd ed, 2014)Google Scholar

Hull, William, The Two Hague Conferences and Their Contributions to International Law (Athenaeum Press, 1908)Google Scholar

Hulme, Karen, War Torn Environment: Interpreting the Legal Threshold (Brill Academic, 2004)Google Scholar

Humphreys, Stephen, ‘Structural Ambiguity: Technology Transfer in Three Regimes’ in Young, Margaret A (ed), Regime Interaction in International Law: Facing Fragmentation (Cambridge University Press, 2012)Google Scholar

Hunt, Geoffrey and Mehta, Michael, Nanotechnology: Risks, Ethics and Law (Routledge, 2013)Google Scholar

International Committee of the Red Cross, Commentary on the First Geneva Convention: Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field (Cambridge University Press, 2017)Google Scholar

International Committee of the Red Cross, The Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 – Commentary (1952–1960) vols I–IVGoogle Scholar

International Committee of the Red Cross, The Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 – Commentary: IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Times of War (1958)Google Scholar

International Court of Justice Yearbook 1999–2000 (United Nations Publications, 2002)Google Scholar

International Institute for the Unification of Private Law, UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (UNIDROIT, 2004)Google Scholar

Johnson, James Turner, Just War Tradition and the Restraint of War: A Moral and Historical Inquiry (Princeton University Press, 1981)Google Scholar

Joseph, Sarah and Castan, Melissa, The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Cases, Materials, and Commentary (Oxford University Press, 3rd ed, 2013)Google Scholar

Joseph, Sarah, Schultz, Jenny and Castan, Melissa, The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Cases, Materials and Commentary (Oxford University Press, 2012)Google Scholar

Jungk, Robert, Brighter than a Thousand Suns: A Personal History of the Atomic Scientists (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 1958)Google Scholar

Kalshoven, Frits and Zegveld, Liesbeth, Constraints on the Waging of War (ICRC, 2001)Google Scholar

Kalshoven, Frits, Reflections on the Law of War (Martinus Nijhoff, 2007)Google Scholar

Klabbers, Jan, ‘Treaties and Their Preambles’ in Bowman, Michael J and Kritsiotis, Dino (eds), Conceptual and Contextual Perspectives on the Modern Law of Treaties (Cambridge University Press, 2018)Google Scholar

Klapötke, Thomas, Chemistry of High-Energy Materials (de Gruyter, 2011)Google Scholar

Kolb, Robert and Hyde, Richard, An Introduction to the Law of Armed Conflicts (Hart Publishing, 2008)Google Scholar

Kosal, Margaret, Nanotechnology for Chemical and Biological Defense (Springer, 2009)Google Scholar

Le Bouthillier, Yves, ‘Article 32 Supplementary Means of Interpretation’ in Corten, Olivier and Klein, Pierre (eds), The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: A Commentary (Oxford University Press, 2011)Google Scholar

Lee, Steven, ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction: Are They Morally Special?’ in May, Larry (ed), War: Essays in Political Philosophy (Cambridge University Press, 2008)Google Scholar

Lefebure, Victor, The Riddle of the Rhine: Chemical Strategy in Peace and War (Collins Clear-Type, 1921)Google Scholar

Leins, Kobi and Bowman, Diana, ‘Nanomaterials: A Tale of Two Applications’ in Boothby, William (ed), New Technologies: The Law in War and Peace (Cambridge University Press, 2019) 285Google Scholar

Leins, Kobi, Environmental Law in War: Legal Limitations on Harming the Environment during Armed Conflict (Monash University, 2001)Google Scholar

Levi-Faur, David and Comaneshter, Hanna, ‘The Risks of Regulation and the Regulation of Risks: The Governance of Nanotechnology’ in Hodge, Graeme, Bowman, Diana and Ludlow, Karinne (eds), New Global Regulatory Frontiers in Regulation: The Age of Nanotechnology (Edward Elgar, 2007) 149Google Scholar

Liivoja, Rain and Saumets, Andres (eds), The Law of Armed Conflict: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives (Tartu University Press, 2012)Google Scholar

Liivoja, Rain, Leins, Kobi and McCormack, Tim, ‘Emerging Technologies of Warfare’ in Liivoja, Rain and McCormack, Tim (eds), Routledge Handbook of the Law of Armed Conflict (Routledge, 2016)Google Scholar

Mahoney, Peter (ed), Ballistic Trauma a Practical Guide (Springer, 2nd ed, 2005)Google Scholar

Marchant, Gary, Abbott, Kenneth and Allenby, Braden (eds), Innovative Governance Models for Emerging Technologies (Edward Elgar, 2013)Google Scholar

Martin, Francisco et al (eds), International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law: Treaties, Cases, & Analysis (Cambridge University Press, 2006)Google Scholar

Mathews, Robert and McCormack, Timothy, ‘The Relationship between International Humanitarian Law and Arms Control’ in Durham, Helen and McCormack, Timothy (eds), The Changing Face of Conflict and the Efficacy of International Humanitarian Law (Martinus Nijhoff, 1999)Google Scholar

Mathews, Robert, ‘Chemical and Biological Weapons’ in Liivoja, Rain and McCormack, Tim (eds), Routledge Handbook of the Law of Armed Conflict (Routledge, 2016)Google Scholar

Matsuura, Jeffrey, Nanotechnology Regulation and Policy Worldwide (Artech House, 2006)Google Scholar

Maynard, Andrew and Stilgoe, Jack (eds), The Ethics of Nanotechnology, Geoengineering and Clean Energy (Routledge, 2017)Google Scholar

McBride, Sean, ‘The Legality of Weapons of Social Destruction’ in Swinarski, C (ed), Studies and Essays on International Humanitarian Law and Red Cross Principles in Honour of Jean Pictet (Martinus Nijhoff, 1984)Google Scholar

McNeill, J R, ‘Global Environmental History: The First 150,000 Years’ in McNeill, J R and Mauldin, E S (eds), A Companion to Global Environmental History (Wiley-Blackwell, 2012)Google Scholar

Meron, Theodor, ‘Human Rights in Time of Peace and in Time of Armed Strife: Selected Problems’ in Burgenthal, Thomas (ed), Contemporary Issues in International Law: Essays in Honor of Louis B Sohn (NP Engel, 1984)Google Scholar

Meyer, Michael and McCoubrey, Hilaire (eds), Reflections on Law and Armed Conflicts (Kluwer Law, 1998)Google Scholar

Ministry for Foreign Affairs, The International Peace Conference, The Hague, May 18–July 29 1899 (Martinus Nijhoff, 1907)Google Scholar

Monica, John, Calster, Geert Van and Agapi, Patsa, ‘A Nanotechnology Legal Framework’ in Hull, Matt and Bowman, Diana M (eds), Nanotechnology Environmental Health and Safety: Risks, Regulation and Management (Elsevier Science, 2nd ed, 2014)Google Scholar

Moore, William, Gas Attack!: Chemical Warfare 1915–1918 and Afterwards (Leo Cooper, 1987)Google Scholar

Mulhall, Douglas, Our Molecular Future: How Nanotechnology, Robotics, Genetic and Artificial Intelligence Will Transform Our World (Prometheus Books, 2002)Google Scholar

Murashov, Vladimir and Howard, John (eds), Nanotechnology Standards (Springer, 2011)Google Scholar

Murray, Daragh et al (eds), Practitioners’ Guide to Human Rights Law in Armed Conflict (Oxford University Press, 2016)Google Scholar

Nasu, Hitoshi and McLaughlin, Robert (eds), New Technologies and the Law of Armed Conflict (Asser Press, 2014)Google Scholar

National Research Council, Committee on Military and Intelligence Methodology for Emergent Neurophysiological and Cognitive/Neural Science Research in the Next Two Decades, Emerging Cognitive Neuroscience and Related Technologies (National Academies Press, 2008)Google Scholar

National Research Council, Committee on Toxicologic and Radiologic Effects from Exposure to Depleted Uranium During and After Combat Committee on Toxicology, Review of Toxicologic and Radiologic Risks to Military Personnel from Exposure to Depleted Uranium during and after Combat (National Academies Press, 2008)Google Scholar

National Research Council of the National Academies, Review of the Federal Strategy for Nanotechnology-Related Environmental, Health, and Safety Research (National Academies Press, 2009)Google Scholar

Ndiaye, Tafsir and Wolfrum, Ruediger (eds), Law of the Sea, Environmental Law and Settlement of Disputes (Martinus Nijhoff, 2007)Google Scholar

Nowak, Manfred and McArthur, Elizabeth, The United Nations Convention against Torture: A Commentary (Oxford University Press, 2008)Google Scholar

Nowak, Manfred, ‘Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment’ in Clapham, Andrew and Gaeta, Paola (eds), The Oxford Handbook of International Law in Armed Conflict (Oxford University Press, 2014)Google Scholar

Nowak, Manfred, UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: CCPR Commentary (NP Engel, 2nd ed, 2005)Google Scholar

O’Donnell, Erin, Legal Rights for Rivers: Competition, Collaboration and Water Governance (Routledge, 2019)Google Scholar

O’Riordan, Tim, Cameron, James and Jordan, Andrew, ‘The Evolution of the Precautionary Principle’ in O’Riordan, Tim, Cameron, James and Jordan, Andrew (eds), Reinterpreting the Precautionary Principle (Cameron May, 2001)Google Scholar

Pais, Abraham, Subtle Is the Lord: The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein (Oxford University Press, 2005)Google Scholar

Payne, Cymie and Sand, Peter (eds), Gulf War Reparations and the United Nations Compensation Commission: Environmental Liability (Oxford University Press, 2011)Google Scholar

Payne, Cymie, ‘Developments in the Law of Environmental Reparations: A Case Study of the UN Compensation Commission’ in Stahn, Carsten, Iverson, Jens and Easterday, Jennifer (eds), Environmental Protection and Transitions from Conflict to Peace: Clarifying Norms, Principles and Practices (Oxford University Press, 2017)Google Scholar

Payne, Cymie, ‘Legal Liability for Environmental Damage: The United Nations Compensation Commission and the 1990–1991 Gulf War’ in Bruch, Carl, Muffett, Carroll and Nichols, Sandra (eds), Governance, Natural Resources and Post-Conflict Peacebuilding (Routledge, 2016)Google Scholar

Pearson, Alan, Isabelle Chevrier, Marie and Wheelis, Mark (eds), Incapacitating Biochemical Weapons (Lexington Books, 2007)Google Scholar

Peel, Jacqueline, Science and Risk Regulation in International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2010)Google Scholar

Permanent Court of International Justice: Advisory Committee of Jurists, Procès-verbaux of the Proceedings of the Committee, June 16th–July 24th, 1920, with Annexes (Van Langenhuysen, 1920)Google Scholar

Perna, Laura, The Formation of the Treaty Law of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Brill, 2006)Google Scholar

Plant, Glen (ed), Environmental Protection and the Law of War: Elements of a ‘Fifth Geneva’ Convention on the Protection of the Environment in Times of Armed Conflict’ (Bellhaven, 1992)Google Scholar

Prasad, Shiv Kant, Advanced Nanotechnology (Discovery Publishing House, 2008)Google Scholar

Rappert, Brian and McLeish, Catriona (eds), A Web of Prevention: Biological Weapons, Life Sciences, and the Governance of Research (Earthscan, 2007)Google Scholar

Rappert, Brian and Selgelid, Michael (eds), On the Dual Uses of Sciences and Ethics Principles, Practices and Prospects (ANU Press, 2013)Google Scholar

Rappert, Brian, ‘Education for the Life Sciences’ in Rappert, Brian and McLeish, C (eds), A Web of Prevention: Biological Weapons, Life Sciences and the Future Governance of Research (Earthscan, 2007)Google Scholar

Remdani, Noureddine, Polymer Nanocomposites for Advanced Engineering and Military Applications (IGI Global, 2019)Google Scholar

Richardson, Ben, Time and Environmental Law: Telling Nature’s Time (Cambridge University Press, 2017)Google Scholar

Riedel, Eibe, Giacca, Gilles and Golay, Christophe (eds), Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in International Law: Contemporary Issues and Challenges (Oxford University Press, 2014)Google Scholar

Roberts, Adam and Guelf, Richard (eds), Documents on the Laws of War (Oxford University Press, 3rd ed, 2000)Google Scholar

Robinson, Julian Perry, ‘The Negotiations on the Chemical Weapons Convention: An Historical Overview’ in Bothe, Michael, Ronzitti, Natalino and Rosas, Allan (eds), The New Chemical Weapons Convention: Implementation and Prospects (Kluwer Law International, 1998) 17Google Scholar

Rogers, A P V, Law on the Battlefield (Manchester University Press, 3rd ed, 2012)Google Scholar

Rogers, Ben, Pennathur, Sumita and Adams, Jesse (eds), Nanotechnology: Understanding Small Systems (Taylor and Francis, 2nd ed, 2011)Google Scholar

Rose, Kenneth, One Nation Underground: The Fallout Shelter in American Culture (New York University Press, 2001)Google Scholar

Sandoz, Yves, Swinarski, Christophe and Zimmermann, Bruno (eds), Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (Martinus Nijhoff, 1987)Google Scholar

Sands, Phillippe and Peel, Jacqueline, Principles of International Environmental Law (Cambridge, 2012)Google Scholar

Sands, Phillippe, Lawless World: America and the Making and Breaking of Global Rules (Penguin, 2005)Google Scholar

Sassòli, Marco, Antoine Bouvier and Anne Quinne, How Does Law Protect in War? (ICRC, 3rd ed, 2011)Google Scholar

Sattler, Klaus (ed), Handbook of Nanophysics: Nanomedicine and Nanorobotics (CRC Press, 2011)Google Scholar

Saxon, Dan (ed), International Humanitarian Law and the Changing Technology of War (Martinus Nijhoff, 2013)Google Scholar

Schabas, William, ‘The Right to Life’ in Clapham, Andrew and Gaeta, Paola (eds), The Oxford Handbook of International Law in Armed Conflict (Oxford University Press, 2014)Google Scholar

Schindler, Dietrich (ed), The Laws of Armed Conflicts: A Collection of Conventions, Resolutions and other Documents (Martinus Nijhoff, 1988)Google Scholar

Schlütter, Birgit, Developments in Customary International Law (Martinus Nijhoff, 2010)Google Scholar

Schmitt, Michael N and Pejic, Jelena (eds), International Law and Armed Conflict: Exploring the Faultlines (Martinus Nijhoff, 2007)Google Scholar

Schmitt, Michael N and Green, Leslie (eds), The Law of Armed Conflict: Into the Next Millennium (US Naval War College, 1998)Google Scholar

Schmitt, Michael, ‘Military Necessity and Humanity in International Humanitarian law: Preserving the Delicate Balance’ in Schmitt, Michael, Essays on War and Law at the Faultlines (Springer, 2012)Google Scholar

Schmitt, Michael, ‘The Law of Targeting’ in Wilmshurst, Elizabeth and Breau, Susan (eds), Perspectives on the ICRC Study on Customary International Humanitarian Law (Cambridge University Press, 2007)Google Scholar

Schmitt, Michael, ‘War, Technology, and the Law of Armed Conflict’ in Helm, Anthony (ed), The Law of War in the 21st Century: Weaponry and the Use of Force (Naval War College, 2006)Google Scholar

Schmitt, Michael, ‘War and the Environment: Fault Lines in the Prescriptive Landscape’ in Austin, Jay and Bruch, Carl (eds), The Environmental Consequences of War: Legal, Economic and Scientific (Cambridge University Press, 2000)Google Scholar

Schulz, Mark and Shanov, Vesselin (eds), Nanomedicine: Design of Particles, Sensors, Motors, Implants, Robots and Devices (Artech House, 2009)Google Scholar

Schwab, Klaus, The Fourth Industrial Revolution (World Economic Forum, 2016)Google Scholar

Scobbie, Iain, ‘Natural Resources and Belligerent Occupation: Mutation through Permanent Sovereignty’ in Bowen, Stephen (ed), Human Rights, Self-Determination and Political Change in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (Martinus Nijhoff, 1997)Google Scholar

Shelley, Toby, Nanotechnology: New Promises, New Dangers (Fernwood Publisher, 2006)Google Scholar

Shipbaugh, Calvin et al, ‘Nano-Enabled Components and Systems for Biodefense’ in Malsch, Neelina H (ed), Biomedical Nanotechology (Taylor and Francis, 2005)Google Scholar

Singer, Peter and Cole, August, Ghost Fleet: A Novel of the Next World War (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2015)Google Scholar

Singer, Peter, Military Robots and the Law of War (Brookings, 2009)Google Scholar

Slayton, Rebecca, Arguments that Count (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2013)Google Scholar

Sloan, Elinor, The Revolution in Military Affairs: Implications for Canada and NATO (McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2002)Google Scholar

Sorel, Jean-Marc, ‘Article 31 General Rule of Interpretation’ in Corten, Olivier and Klein, Pierre (eds), The Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties: A Commentary (Oxford University Press, 2011) 804Google Scholar

Sparrow, Rob, ‘The Social Impacts of Nanotechnology: An Ethical and Policy Analysis’ in Maynard, Andrew and Stilgoe, Jack (eds), The Ethics of Nanotechnology, Geoengineering and Clean Energy (Routledge, 2017) 179Google Scholar

Ssenyonjo, Manisuli, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in International Law (Hart Publishing, 2009)Google Scholar

Stachan, Hew and Herberg-Rothe, Andreas (eds), Clausewitz in the Twenty-First Century (Oxford University Press, 2007)Google Scholar

Stirling, Dale, The Nanotechnology Revolution: A Global Bibliographic Perspective (Pan Stanford Publishing, 2018)Google Scholar

Stock, Thomas, ‘Chemical and Biological Weapons: Developments and Proliferation’ in Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, 1993 SIPRI Yearbook: World Armaments and Disarmament (Oxford University Press, 1993)Google Scholar

Stoltzenberg, Dietrich, Fritz Haber: Chemist, Nobel Laureate, German, Jew (Chemical Heritage Foundation, 2004)Google Scholar

Susskind, Richard, The Future of Law: Facing the Challenges of Information Technology (Clarendon Press, 1996)Google Scholar

Suy, Eric, ‘Le Préambule’ in Yakpo, Emile and Boumedra, Tahar (eds), Liber Amicorum Judge Mohammed Bedjaoui (Kluwer, 1999)Google Scholar

Szasz, Paul, ‘The International Law Concerning Weapons of Mass Destruction’ in Hashmi, Sohail and Lee, Steven (eds), Ethics and Weapons of Mass Destruction (Cambridge University Press, 2004)Google Scholar

Szasz, Paul, ‘The Existing Legal Framework, Protecting the Environment during International Armed Conflict’ in Grunawalt, Richard, King, John and McClain, Ronald (eds), Protection of the Environment during Armed Conflict (Naval War College, 1996) 278Google Scholar

Terry, R, ‘Addressing Risks of Research Misuse’ (Presentation to Dual Use and Codes of Conduct Meeting, Berlin, 2006)Google Scholar

Thakur, Vijay Kumar and Kumari Thakur, Manju, Handbook of Sustainable Polymers: Structure and Chemistry (Taylor and Francis, 2016)Google Scholar

Turns, David, ‘Military Objectives’ in Liivoja, Rain and McCormack, Tim (eds), Routledge Handbook of the Law of Armed Conflict (Routledge, 2016)Google Scholar

US National Research Council Committee for the Review of ONR’s Air and Surface Weapons Technology Program, 2002 Assessment of the Office of Naval Research’s Air and Surface Weapons Technology Program (National Academies Press, 2002)Google Scholar

US National Research Council of the National Academies, Life Sciences and Related Fields: Trends Relevant to the Biological Weapons Convention (National Academies Press, 2011)Google Scholar

Van der Wolf, René and van der Woolf, Willem-Jan (eds), Laws of War and International Law (Wolf Legal Publishers, 2002)Google Scholar

Verwey, W, ‘Observation on the Legal Protection of the Environment in Times of International Armed Conflict’ in Kiss, A-C and Lammers, Johan (eds), Hague Yearbook of International Law Vol 7 (Brill, 1994) 36Google Scholar

Von Clausewitz, Carl, On War (Princeton, 1976)Google Scholar

Von Deimling, Berthold, Aus der Alten in die Neue Zeit: Lebenserinnerungen von Berthold von Deimling (Verlag Ullstein, 1930)Google Scholar

Waldock, Sir Humphrey, ‘Third Report on the Law of Treaties [1964] II’ Yearbook of the International Law Commission 58, cited in Richard Gardiner, Treaty Interpretation (Oxford University Press, 2008)Google Scholar

Walzer, Michael, Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations (Basic Books, 1977)Google Scholar

Wang, Jun and Dortmans, Peter, A Review of Selected Nanotechnology Topics and the Potential Military Applications (Department of Defence, 2004)Google Scholar

Weber, Marvin, Handbook of Laser Wavelengths (CRC Press, 1999)Google Scholar

Weinberger, Sharon, The Imagineers of War: The Untold Story of DARPA, the Pentagon Agency that Changed the World (Vintage Books, 2017)Google Scholar

Westing, Arthur, Ecological Consequences of the Second Indochina War (Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1976)Google Scholar

Wheelis, Mark, Rozsa, Lajos and Dando, Malcolm (eds), Deadly Cultures: Biological Weapons since 1945 (Harvard University Press, 2006)Google Scholar

White, Gillian, ‘The Principle of Good Faith’ in Lowe, Vaughan and Warbrick, Colin (eds), The United Nations and the Principles of International Law: Essays in Memory of Michael Akehurst (Routledge, 1994) 230Google Scholar

Whitman, Jim, ‘Nanotechnology and Dual Use Dilemmas’ in Rappert, Brian and Selgelid, Michael (eds), On the Dual Uses of Science and Ethics: Principles, Practices and Prospects (ANU Press, 2013)Google Scholar

Wilmshurst, Elizabeth and Breau, Susan, Perspectives on the ICRC Study on Customary International Humanitarian Law (Cambridge University Press, 2007)Google Scholar

Wong, Wilson, Emerging Military Technologies: A Guide to the Issues (Praeger Security International, 2013)Google Scholar

Yearbook of The International Court of Justice 1999–2000 (United Nations, 2000)Google Scholar

Young, Margaret A, ‘Fragmentation and International Environmental Law’ in Rajamani, Lavanya and Peel, Jacqueline (eds), Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law (Oxford University Press, 2nd ed, forthcoming) <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3441535>>Google Scholar

Young, Margaret A, ‘Introduction: The Productive Friction between Regimes’ in Young, Margaret A (ed), Regime Interaction in International Law: Facing Fragmentation (Cambridge University Press, 2012)Google Scholar

Young, Margaret A, ‘Regime Interaction in Creating, Implementing and Enforcing International Law’ in Young, Margaret A (ed), Regime Interaction in International Law: Facing Fragmentation (Cambridge University Press, 2012)Google Scholar

Young, Margaret A, Trading Fish, Saving Fish: The Interaction between Regimes in International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2011)Google Scholar

Zegveld, Liesbeth, Accountability of Armed Opposition Groups in International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2002)Google Scholar

Abbott, Kenneth and Snidal, Duncan, ‘Strengthening International Regulation through Transnational New Governance: Overcoming the Orchestration Deficit’ (2009) 42 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 501Google Scholar

Abbott, Kenneth, Merchant, Gary and Sylvester, Douglas, ‘A Framework Convention for Nanotechnology?’ (2006) 36 Environmental Law Reporter 10931Google Scholar

Abbott, Linda and Maynard, Andrew, ‘Exposure Assessment Approaches for Engineered Nanomaterials’ (2010) 30(11) Risk Analysis 1634Google Scholar

Adelman, David, ‘Scientific Activism and Restraint: The Interplay of Statistics, Judgment, and Procedure in Environmental Law’ (2004) 79(2) Notre Dame Law Review 497Google Scholar

Akande, Dapo, ‘Nuclear Weapons, Unclear Law? Deciphering the Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion of the International Court’ (1998) 68(1) British Yearbook of International Law 165Google Scholar

Akhtarkhavari, Afshin, ‘Environmental Principles and the International Court of Justice’ (2009) 28 Australian Year Book of International Law 101Google Scholar

Aldrich, George, ‘Progressive Development of the Laws of War: A Reply to Criticisms of the 1977 Geneva Protocol I’ (1986) 26 Virginia Journal of International Law 693Google Scholar

Allenby, Braden R, ‘Are new Technologies Undermining the Laws of War?’ (2014) 70(1) Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 21Google Scholar

Altmann, Jürgen, ‘Military Uses of Nanotechnology: Perspectives and Concerns’ (2007) 35 Security Dialogue 61Google Scholar

Altmann, Jürgen, ‘Military Uses of Nanotechnology: Too Much Complexity for International Security?’ (2004) 23 Complexity 62Google Scholar

Altmann, Jürgen and Gubrud, Mark, ‘Anticipating Military Nanotechnology’ (2004) 23 IEEE Technology and Society Magazine 328Google Scholar

Ananthaswamy, Anil, ‘The March of the Motes’ (2003) 179(2409) New Scientist 26Google Scholar

Andrew, David, ‘Thermobaric Munitions and Their Medical Effects’ (2003) 12(1) Australian Military Medicine 9Google Scholar

Backstrom, Alan and Henderson, Ian, ‘New Capabilities in Warfare: An Overview of Contemporary Technological Developments and the Associated Legal and Engineering Issues in Article 36 Weapons Reviews’ (2012) 94(886) International Review of the Red Cross 483Google Scholar

Bahadar, Haji et al, ‘Toxicity of Nanoparticles and an Overview of Current Experimental Models’ (2016) 20(1) Iranian Biomedical Journal 1Google Scholar

Baker, Roozbeh B, ‘Customary International Law in the 21st Century: Old Challenges and New Debates’ (2010) 21 European Journal of International Law 173Google Scholar

Balbus, John M et al, ‘Meeting Report: Hazard Assessment for Nanoparticles: Report from an Interdisciplinary Workshop’ (2007) 115(11) Environmental Health Perspectives 1654Google Scholar

Baltimore, David et al, ‘A Prudent Path Forward for Genomic Engineering and Germline Gene Modification’ (2015) 348(6230) Science 36Google Scholar

Bauer, Keith, ‘Wired Patients: Implantable Microchips and Biosensors in Patient Care’ (2007) 16(3) Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 281Google Scholar

Bean, James, ‘Enhanced Blast Weapons and Forward Medical Treatment’ (April–June 2004) US Army Medical Department Journal 48Google Scholar

Benkoski, Jason et al, ‘Systems Engineering at the Nanoscale’ (2012) 8373 International Society for Optical Engineering <https://arizona.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/systems-engineering-at-the-nanoscale>>Google Scholar

Bennett Moses, Lyria, ‘How to Think about Law, Regulation and Technology: Problems with “Technology” as a Regulatory Target’ (2013) 5(1) Law, Innovation and Technology 1Google Scholar

Boothby, William, ‘How Will Weapons Reviews Address the Challenges Posed by New Technologies?’ (2013) 52(1) Military Law and the Law of War Review 58Google Scholar

Borm, Paul J A et al, ‘The Potential Risks of Nanomaterials: A Review Carried out for ECETOC’ (2006) 3(1) Particle and Fibre Toxicology 11Google Scholar

Bothe, Michael et al, ‘International Law Protecting the Environment during Armed Conflict: Gaps and Opportunities’ (2010) 92(879) International Review of the Red Cross 569Google Scholar

Boverhof, Darrell R et al, ‘Comparative Assessment of Nanomaterial Definitions and Safety Evaluation Considerations’ (2015) 73(1) Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 137Google Scholar

Bowman, Diana and Hodge, Graeme, ‘A Small Matter of Regulation: An International Review of Nanotechnology Regulation’ (2007) 8 Columbia Science and Technology Law Review 1Google Scholar

Bowman, Diana and Gatof, Jake, ‘Reviewing the Regulatory Barriers for Nanomedicine: Global Questions and Challenges’ (2015) 10(21) Nanomedicine 3275Google Scholar

Bowman, Diana and Bennett, Michael G, ‘The Current State of Australia’s Evolving Approach to Regulating Nanotechnologies’ (2013) 9(4) Nanotechnology Law and Business 330Google Scholar

Bowman, Megan and van Calster, Geert, ‘Does REACH Go too Far?’ (2007) 2(9) Nature Nanotechnology 525Google Scholar

Bradley, Lucas, ‘Regulating Weaponized Nanotechnology: How the International Criminal Court Offers a Way Forward’ (2013) 41 Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law 723Google Scholar

Brar, Satinder Kaur et al, ‘Engineered Nanoparticles in Wastewater and Wastewater Sludge: Evidence and Impacts’ (2009) 30(3) Waste Management 504Google Scholar

British Defence Doctrine (JWP-0-01) in Rogers, Anthony, ‘Zero-casualty Warfare’ (2000) 82(837) International Review of the Red Cross 165Google Scholar

Brownlie, Ian, ‘A Survey of International Customary Rules of Environmental Protection’ (1973) 13 Natural Resources Journal 179 <http://digitalrepository.unm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3333&context=nrj>Google Scholar

Bunker, Robert (ed), ‘Nonlethal Weapons: Emerging Requirements for Security Strategy’ (INSS Occasional Paper 15, Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, 1996) <www.hsdl.org/?view&did=1145>Google Scholar

Buzea, Cristine, Pacheco, Ivan and Robbie, Kevin, ‘Nanomaterials and Nanoparticles: Sources and Toxicity’ (2007) 2(4) Biointerphases 17 <https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1116/1.2815690.pdf>Google Scholar

Cassese, Antonio, ‘The Martens Clause: Half a Loaf or Simply Pie in the Sky?’ (2000) 11(1) European Journal of International Law 187Google Scholar

Cello, Jeronimo, Paul, Aniko V and Wimmer, Eckard, ‘Chemical Synthesis of Poliovirus cDNA: Generation of Infectious Virus in the Absence of Natural Template’ (2002) 297(5583) Science 1016Google Scholar

Charlesworth, Hilary, ‘Customary International Law the Nicaragua Case’ (1984) 11 Australian Yearbook of International Law 1Google Scholar

‘Chemical Weapons’ (1986) 11 United Nations Disarmament Yearbook 241Google Scholar

Chong et al, Amy, ‘Non-invasive Optical Inhibition with a Red-Shifted Microbial Rhodopsin’ (2014) 17(8) Nature Neuroscience 1123Google Scholar

Chun-xiao, Li and Hai-li, Qian, ‘A Double-Edged Sword: CRISPR-Cas9 Is Emerging as a Revolutionary Technique for Genome Editing’ (2015) 2 Military Medical Research 25Google Scholar

Chuong, Amy S et al, ‘Noninvasive Optical Inhibition with a Red-Shifted Microbial Rhodopsin’ (2014) 17(8) Nature Neuroscience 1123Google Scholar

Claggett, Brice and Johnson, O Thomas Jr, ‘May Israel as a Belligerent Occupant Lawfully Exploit Previously Unexploited Oil Resources of the Gulf of Suez?’ (1978) 72(3) American Journal of International Law 558Google Scholar

‘Commission on the Responsibility of the Authors of the War and Enforcement of Penalties’ (1920) 14(1/2) American Journal of International Law 95Google Scholar

Coupland, Robin and Leins, Kobi-Renée, ‘Science and Prohibited Weapons’ (2005) 308(5730) Science 1841Google Scholar

Coupland, Robin, ‘“Non-Lethal” Weapons: Precipitating a New Arms Race’ (1997) 315(7100) British Medical Journal 72Google Scholar

Coupland, Robin, ‘The Effect of Weapons: Defining Superfluous Injury and Unnecessary Suffering’ (1996) 3 Medicine and Global Survival <www.ippnw.org/pdf/mgs/3-coupland.pdf>Google Scholar

Craik, Alastair Neil, ‘The Duty to Cooperate in International Environmental Law: Constraining Discretion through Due Respect’ (2020) <https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3596981>>Google Scholar

Cusato, Eliana, ‘From Ecocide to Voluntary Remediation Projects: Legal Responses to Environmental Warfare in Vietnam and the Spectre of Colonialism’ (2018) Melbourne Journal of International Law 19(2) 494Google Scholar

Cyranoski, David, ‘CRISPR Gene-editing Tested in a Person for the First Time’ (2016) 539(7630) Nature 479Google Scholar

Dando, Malcolm, ‘Find the Time to Discuss New Bioweapons’ (5 July 2016) 535 Nature 9Google Scholar

Daoust, Isabel, Coupland, Robin and Ishoey, R, ‘New Wars, New Weapons? The Obligation of States to Assess the Legality of Means and Methods of Warfare’ (2002) 84(846) International Review of the Red Cross 354Google Scholar

Doroudchi, Mohammed Mehdi et al, ‘Virally Delivered Channelrhodopsin-2 Safely and Effectively Restores Visual Function in Multiple Mouse Models of Blindness’ (2011) 19(7) Molecular Therapy 1220Google Scholar

Douglas, Shawn, Bachelet, Ido and Church, George, ‘A Logic-Gated Nanorobot for Targeted Transport of Molecular Payloads’ (2012) 335(6070) Science 831Google Scholar

Draper, G I A D, ‘Role of Legal Advisers in Armed Forces’ (1978) 18(202) International Review of the Red Cross 6Google Scholar

Droege, Cordula, ‘“In Truth the Leitmotiv” – The Prohibition of Torture and Other Forms of Ill-Treatment in International Humanitarian Law’ (2007) 89(867) International Review of the Red Cross 515Google Scholar

Drucker, Merrit, ‘The Military Commander’s Responsibility for the Environment’ (1989) 135 Environmental Ethics 135Google Scholar

Dugué, Guillaume, Akemann, Walther and Knöpfel, Thomas, ‘A Comprehensive Concept of Optogenetics’ (2012) 196 Progress in Brain Research 1Google Scholar

Duruigbo, Emeka, ‘Permanent Sovereignty and Peoples’ Ownership of Natural Resources in International Law’ (2006) 38(1) George Washington International Law Review 33Google Scholar

Duxbury, Geoffrey et al, ‘Quantum Cascade Semiconductor Infrared and Far-Infrared Lasers: From Trace Gas Sensing to Non-Linear Optics’ (2005) 34 Chemical Society Reviews 921Google Scholar

Ebbesen, Mette, ‘The Role of the Humanities and Social Sciences in Nanotechnology Research and Development’ (2008) 2(1) NanoEthics 1Google Scholar

Elsaesser, Andreas and Howard, C Vyvyan, ‘Toxicology of Nanoparticles’ (2012) 64(2) Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews 129Google Scholar

Ewing, Russell, ‘The Legality of Chemical Warfare’ (1927) 61 American Law Review 58Google Scholar

Fenno, Lief, Yizhar, Ofer, and Deisseroth, Karl, ‘The Development and Application of Optogenetics’ (2011) 34 Annual Review of Neuroscience 389Google Scholar

Fenrick, William J, ‘The Conventional Weapons Convention: A Modest but Useful Treaty’ (1990) 279 International Review of the Red Cross 498Google Scholar

Fenrick, William J, ‘The Rule of Proportionality and Protocol I in Conventional Warfare’ (1982) 98 Military Law Review 102Google Scholar

Fry, James, ‘Contextualized Legal Reviews for the Methods and Means of Warfare: Cave Combat and International Humanitarian Law’ (2006) 44(2) Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 453Google Scholar

Giannardi, Cristina and Dominici, Daniele, ‘Military Use of Depleted Uranium: Assessment of Prolonged Population Exposure’ (2003) 64(2/3) Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 227Google Scholar

Gilman, Ryan, ‘Expanding Environmental Justice after War: The Need for Universal Jurisdiction over Environmental War Crimes’ (2011) 22(3) Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy 447Google Scholar

Gleick, Peter, ‘Water and Conflict: Fresh Water Resources and International Security’ (1993) 18 International Security 79Google Scholar

Glenn, Jerome, ‘Nanotechnology: Future Military Environmental Health Considerations’ (2006) 73(2) Technological Forecasting and Social Change 128Google Scholar

Goldblat, Jozef, ‘The Biological Weapons Convention: An Overview’ (1997) 37(318) International Review of the Red Cross 251Google Scholar

Gómez, Javier, ‘The Law of Air Warfare’ (1998) 38(323) International Review of the Red Cross 347Google Scholar

Grant, Simon and Quiggin, John, ‘Bounded Awareness, Heuristics and the Precautionary Principle’ (2013) 93 Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 17Google Scholar

Grau, Lester and Smith, Timothy, ‘A “Crushing” Victory: Fuel-Air Explosives and Grozny 2000’ (2000) 84(8) Marine Corps Gazette 30Google Scholar

Grau, Lester and Smith, Timothy, ‘Guidelines for Military Manuals and Instructions on the Environment in Times of Armed Conflict’ (1996) 36(311) International Review of the Red Cross 231Google Scholar

Haagen, Paul, ‘A Hamburg Childhood: The Early Life of Herbert Bernstein’ (2003) 13 Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law 7Google Scholar

Hansen, Steffen Foss et al, ‘Late Lessons from Early Warnings for Nanotechnology’ (2008) 3(8) Nature Nanotechnology 444Google Scholar

Hathaway, O et al, ‘Which Law Governs during Armed Conflict? The Relationship between International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law in Armed Conflicts’ (2012) 96(6) Minnesota Law Review 1883Google Scholar

Hodge, Graeme, Maynard, Andrew and Bowman, Diana, ‘Nanotechnology: Rhetoric, Risk and Regulation’ (2014) 41(1) Science and Public Policy 1Google Scholar

Hoet, P H, Brüske-Hohlfeld, I and Salata, O V, ‘Nanoparticles: Known and Unknown Health Risks’ (2004) 2(1) Journal of Nanobiotechnology 12Google Scholar

Horowitz, Michael, ‘Coming Next in Military Tech’ (2014) 70 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 54Google Scholar

Hourcle, Laurent, ‘Environmental Law of War’ (2001) 25(1) Vermont Law Review 653Google Scholar

Howard, Sean, ‘Nanotechnology and Mass Destruction: The Need for an Inner Space Treaty’ (2002) 65 Disarmament Diplomacy <www.acronym.org.uk/old/archive/dd/dd65/65op1.htm>Google Scholar

Hulme, Max, ‘Preambles in Treaty Interpretation’ (2016) 164(5) University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1281Google Scholar

Huskisson, Darren, ‘The Air Bridge Denial Program and the Shootdown of Civil Aircraft under International Law’ (2005) 56 The Air Force Law Review 98Google Scholar

Hutchinson, Terry and Duncan, Nigel, ‘Defining and Describing What We Do: Doctrinal Legal Research’ (2012) 17(1) Deakin Law Review 83Google Scholar

International Committee of the Red Cross, ‘A Guide to the Legal Review of New Weapons, Means and Methods of Warfare: Measures to Implement Article 36 of Additional Protocol I of 1977’ (2006) 88(864) International Review of the Red Cross 931Google Scholar

Iyer, Shrivats Mohan et al, ‘Virally Mediated Optogenetic Excitation and Inhibition of Pain in Freely Moving Nontransgenic Mice’ (2014) 32(3) Nature Biotechnology 274Google Scholar

Jenks, Christopher, ‘The Conflict of Law-Making Treaties’ (1953) 30 British Yearbook of International Law 401Google Scholar

Jevglevskaja, Natalia, ‘Weapons Review Obligation under Customary International Law’ (2018) 94 International Law Studies 186Google Scholar

Kahn, Jennifer, ‘Nano’s Big Future’ (2006) 209(6) National Geographic 98Google Scholar

Kalinich, John et al, ‘Embedded Weapons-grade Tungsten Alloy Shrapnel Rapidly Induces Metastatic High-grade Rhabdomyo-sarcomas in F344 Rats’ (2005) 113(6) Environmental Health Perspective 729Google Scholar

Kalshoven, Frits, ‘The Conventional Weapons Convention: Underlying Legal Principles’ (1990) 279 International Review of the Red Cross 510Google Scholar

Kalshoven, Frits, ‘Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts: The Diplomatic Conference, Geneva, 1974–1977, Part II’ (1978) 9 Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 117Google Scholar

Kelly, Joseph, ‘Gas Warfare in International Law’ (1960) 9 Military Law Review 1Google Scholar

Kim, Kyung Man et al, ‘Optogenetic Mimicry of the Transient Activation of Dopamine Neurons by Natural Reward Is Sufficient for Operant Reinforcement’ (2012) 7(4) PLoS One <https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0033612>Google Scholar

Klabbers, Jan, ‘International Legal Histories: The Declining Importance of Travaux Préparatoires in Treaty Interpretation’ (2003) 50(3) Netherlands International Law Review 267Google Scholar

Kosal, Margaret, ‘The Security Implications of Nanotechnology’ (2013) 66(4) Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 58Google Scholar

Kosta, Eleni and Bowman, Diana, ‘Treating or Tracking? Regulatory Challenges of Nano-Enabled ICT Implants’ (2011) 33(2) Law and Policy 256Google Scholar

Kuran, Timur and Sunstein, Cass R, ‘Availability Cascades and Risk Regulation’ (1999) 51(4) Stanford Law Review 683Google Scholar

Laurila-Pant, Mirka et al, ‘How to Value Biodiversity in Environmental Management?’ (2015) 55 Ecological Indicators 1Google Scholar

Lawrence, Jessica and Heller, Kevin, ‘The First Ecocentral Environmental War Crime: The Limits of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) of the Rome Statute’ (2007) 20 Georgetown International Environmental Law Review 61Google Scholar

Lefebure, Victor, ‘Chemical Warfare: The Possibility of Its Control’ (1921) 7 Transactions of the Grotius Society 153Google Scholar

Leins, Kobi, ‘Shining a Regulatory Spotlight on New Lasers: Regulation of the Use of Nanolaser Technologies in Armed Conflict’ (2016) 56 Jurimetrics 261Google Scholar

Levie, Howard, ‘Humanitarian Restrictions on Chemical and Biological Weapons’ (1982) 13 University of Toledo Law Review 1192Google Scholar

Liivoja, Rain, ‘Technological Change and the Evolution of War’ (2015) 97(900) International Review of the Red Cross 1157Google Scholar

Lijnzaad, Liesbeth and Tanja, Gerard, ‘Protection of the Environment in Times of Armed Conflict: The Iraq–Kuwait War’ (1993) 40(2) Netherlands International Law Review 169Google Scholar

Lin, Dayu et al, ‘Functional Identification of an Aggression Locus the Mouse Hypothalamus’ (2011) 470(7333) Nature 221Google Scholar

Ludlow, Karinne, ‘Hitting the Mark or Falling Short with Nanotechnology Regulation?’ (2009) 27(11) Trends in Biotechnology 615Google Scholar

Maher, Barbara et al, ‘Magnetite Pollution Nanoparticles in the Human Brain’ (2016) 113(39) Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 10797Google Scholar

Maiman, Theodore H, ‘Stimulated Optical Radiation in Ruby’ (1960) 187(4736) Nature 493Google Scholar

Mandel, Gregory N, ‘History Lessons for a General Theory of Law and Technology’ (2007) 8(2) Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology 551Google Scholar

Marchant, Gary, Sylvester, Douglas and Abbott, Kenneth, ‘What Does the History of Technology Regulation Teach Us about Nano Oversight?’ (2009) 37(4) Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 724Google Scholar

Marchant, Gary and Abbott, Kenneth W, ‘International Harmonization of Nanotechnology Governance through “Soft Law” Approaches’ (2013) 9(4) Nanotechnology Law & Business 393Google Scholar

Marcus, David, ‘Famine Crimes in International Law’ (2003) 97(2) American Journal of International Law 245Google Scholar

Mathews, Robert, ‘WMD Arms Control Agreements in the Post-September 11 Security Environment: Part of the Counter-Terrorism Toolbox’ (2007) 8(2) Melbourne Journal of International Law 292Google Scholar

Maynard, Andrew et al, ‘Is Novelty Overrated?’ (2014) 9(6) Nature Nanotechnology 409Google Scholar

Maynard, Andrew, ‘Old Materials, New Challenges?’ (2014) 9(9) Nature Nanotechnology 658Google Scholar

Maynard, Andrew, ‘Don’t Define Nanomaterials’ (2011) 475(7354) Nature 31Google Scholar

Maynard, Andrew et al, ‘Safe Handling of Nanotechnology’ (2006) 444(7117) Nature 267Google Scholar

McClelland, , Justin, , ‘The Review of Weapons in Accordance with Article 36 of Additional Protocol I’ (2003) 85(850) International Review of the Red Cross 397Google Scholar

McCormack, Tim and Hagger, Meredith, ‘Regulating the Use of Unmanned Combat Vehicles: Are General Principles of International Humanitarian Law Sufficient?’ (2012) 21(2) Journal of Law, Information and Science 74Google Scholar

McCormack, Tim, ‘A Non-Liquet on Nuclear Weapons: The ICJ Avoids the Application of General Principles of International Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflict’ (1997) 316 International Review of the Red Cross 76Google Scholar

McCormack, Timothy, ‘International Law and the Use of Chemical Weapons in the Gulf War’ (1990–1991) 21(1) California Western International Law Journal 1Google Scholar

Melzer, Nils, ‘Keeping the Balance between Military Necessity and Humanity: A Response to Four Critiques of the ICRC’s interpretative Guidance on the Notion of Direction Participation in Hostilities’ (2010) 42 New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 831Google Scholar

Mendelson, Maruice, ‘The Formation of Customary International Law’ (1998) 272 Receuil des CoursGoogle Scholar

Meron, Theodor, ‘The Martens Clause, Principles of Humanity and Dictates of Public Conscience’ (2000) 94(1) The American Journal of International Law 78Google Scholar

Merrills, John, ‘Two Approaches to Treaty Interpretation’ (1969) 4 Australian International Law 55Google Scholar

Meselson, Matthew, ‘Averting the Hostile Exploitation of Biotechnology’ (2000) 48 CBW Conventions BulletinGoogle Scholar

Miller, Alexandra et al, ‘Neoplastic Transformation of Human Osteoblast Cells to the Tumorigenic Phenotype by Heavy Metal Tungsten Alloy Particles: Induction of Genotoxic Effects’ (2001) 22(1) Carcinogenesis 115Google Scholar

Miller, Mark et al, ‘Inhaled Nanoparticles Accumulate at Sites of Vascular Disease’ (2017) 11 ACS Nano 4542Google Scholar

Mitchell, Andrew, ‘Good Faith in WTO Dispute Settlement’ (2006) 7(2) Melbourne Journal of International Law 339Google Scholar

Mohamed, Ahmed, Mostafa, Hasem and Elbasuney, Sherif, ‘Nanoscopic Fuel-rich Thermobaric Formulations: Chemical Composition Optimization and Sustained Secondary Combustion Shock Wave Modulation’ (2015) 301 Journal of Hazardous Materials 491Google Scholar

Moore, Daniel, ‘Nanotech in Warfare: Some Ethical Concerns’ (2012) 23 Nano: The Magazine for Small Science 14Google Scholar

Morrison, Philip and Tsipis, Kosta, ‘Rightful Names’ (2003) 59(3) Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 77Google Scholar

Moses, Lyria Bennett, ‘How to Think about Law, Regulation and Technology: Problems with “Technology” as a Regulatory Target’ (2013) 5(1) Law, Innovation and Technology 1Google Scholar

Nasu, Hitoshi and Faunce, Thomas, ‘Nanotechnology and the International Law of Weaponry: Towards International Regulation of Nano-Weapons’ 20 (2009) Journal of Law, Information and Science 21Google Scholar

Nasu, Hitoshi, ‘Nanotechnology and Challenges to International Humanitarian Law: A Preliminary Legal Assessment’ (2012) 94(886) International Review of the Red Cross 653Google Scholar

Nelson, Ray, ‘Nano-technology and Biotechnology for Future Defense’ (2015) 3(22) Space & Missile Defense Report cited in Jefferson Reynolds, ‘Collateral Damage on the 21st Century Battlefield: Enemy Exploitation and the Law of Armed Conflict, and the Struggle for a Moral High Ground’ (2005) 56 The Air Force Law Review 1Google Scholar

Nixdorff, Katherine et al, ‘Dual-Use Nano-neurotechnology: An Assessment of the Implications of Trends in Science and Technology’ (2018) 37(2) Politics and the Life Sciences 180Google Scholar

Oberdörster, Günter, Oberdörster, Eva and Oberdörster, Jan, ‘Nanotoxicology: An Emerging Discipline Evolving from Studies of Ultrafine Particles’ (2005) 113(7) Environmental Health Perspectives 823Google Scholar

Oberdörster, Günter et al, ‘Principles for Characterizing the Potential Human Health Effects from Exposure to Nanomaterials: Elements of a Screening Strategy’ (2005) Particle and Fibre Toxicology <https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-8977-2-8>Google Scholar

Oberdörster, G et al, ‘Increased Pulmonary Toxicity of Ultrafine Particles’ (1990) 21(3) Journal of Aerosol Science and Technology 381Google Scholar

Öberg, Marko Divac, ‘The Legal Effects of Resolutions of the UN Security Council and the General Assembly in the Jurisprudence of the ICJ’ (2006) 16(5) The European Journal of International Law 879Google Scholar

Okorodudu-Fubara, Margaret, ‘Oil in the Persian Gulf War: Legal Appraisal of an Environmental Warfare’ (1992) 23 St Mary’s Law Journal 123Google Scholar

Ostrov, Nili et al, ‘Design, Synthesis and Testing toward a 57-codon Genome’ (2016) 353(6301) Science 819Google Scholar

Pardo-Guerra, Juan Pablo and Aguayo Ayala, Francisco, ‘Nanotechnology and the International Regime on Chemical and Biological Weapons’ (2005) 2(1) Law and Business 55Google Scholar

Parks, W Hays, ‘Means and Methods of Warfare’ (2006) 38 George Washington International Law Review 511Google Scholar

Parks, W Hays, ‘Classification of Chemical-Biological Warfare’ (1981–1982) 13 University of Toledo Law Review 1165Google Scholar

Parsons, Rymn James, ‘The Fight to Save the Planet: U.S. Armed Forces, “Greenkeeping,” and Enforcement of the Law Pertaining to Environmental Protection during Armed Conflict’ (1998) 10(2) Georgetown Environmental Law Review 441Google Scholar

Payne, Cymie, ‘UN Commission Awards Compensation for Environmental and Public Health Damage from 1990–91 Gulf War’ (2005) 9(25) American Society for International Law <www.asil.org/insights/volume/9/issue/25/un-commission-awards-compensation-environmental-and-public-health-damage>Google Scholar

Peel, Jacqueline, ‘Science and Risk Assessment in International Law: Learning from the WTO SPS Experience’ (2004) 98 Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law) 283Google Scholar