Pan-Asianism as a concept is conventionally associated with Japan's imperialism during the Second World War. This paper, in contrast, argues that far from being merely a language of hegemony, Pan-Asianism had a far more complex role to play in the early twentieth century. As an anti-imperial ideology, Pan-Asianism advanced a normative argument for the emancipation of Asia from Western imperialism and provided an alternative vision of civilization. As an anti-imperial strategy, Pan-Asianism offered Indian nationalist leaders in exile a necessary language to gain international support in favour of their nationalist movement. The paper explains how the ideological and strategic aspects of Pan-Asianism then affected and informed the development of contemporary international law with specific reference to the law of neutrality, the right to self-determination, racial equality, and the Monroe Doctrine. By doing so, it sheds light on an important yet ignored episode of the historical development of international law.

After protracted conflicts, Afghanistan and Iran agreed on a treaty in 1973 to share the waters of the Helmand River. However, this legal arrangement became a source of controversy over its equitable and reasonable utilization principle. The 1973 Helmand River Water Treaty reflects a history of legal and political controversy and strongly contrasting views, with some labelling it the “worst” treaty and others the “best”. This paper scrutinizes the history of legal arrangements of the Helmand River within its underlying political context to search for evidence of the aforementioned equitable and reasonable utilization principle. The findings indicate that the 1973 Treaty provides a grey space for legality and illegality, being a greatly restricted instrument to uphold the principle of equity. Examination of the principle of equity in the 1973 Treaty contributes to developing constructive controversy over the Helmand River and offers valuable lessons for other international watercourses facing similar challenges.

This article investigates the case of Libya; the way the International Criminal Court responded to it; what went wrong; and what the Court could learn from the case for its future. It attempts to show that the regime change strategy followed in Libya jeopardized the international criminal justice mandate of the Court, created a failed state conundrum, and rendered the Court's intervention counterproductive. Also, in cases like Libya, where judicial intervention sits alongside military intervention, it is difficult for the Court to claim jurisdiction independent of untamed realpolitik while finding the right constituency, which is an urgent issue that remains unsolved. This research concludes that only a dispute settlement approach oriented towards a peacemaking mandate, and its incorporation into the jurisdiction of the Rome Statute, can protect the Court's independence and international criminal justice promises regarding the different limitations the Court faces.

In a 2020 anti-subsidy investigation concerning glass fibre fabric (GFF) products from Egypt, the European Commission (EC) attributed the Chinese government's conduct to the government of Egypt in a way that raised a systemic question about the boundary between trade and investment. This article argues that despite some overlap between the boundaries of these legal disciplines, the notions of trade and investment remain conceptually distinct. Customary rules of interpretation dictate that World Trade Organization (WTO) covered agreements are construed as facilitating trade relations and no further. Hence, an extension of WTO subsidy rules to cover outward investment promotion measures using the principles of state responsibility is untenable. Such a unilateral approach disproportionately affects the interests of developing countries, harming their efforts to draw green investments. This article recommends that new, balanced rules be designed to promote outward investments while limiting adverse trade impacts.

This article argues that the dovetailing economic, geopolitical, and security interests that underpin the Belt and Road Initiative demands a dispute resolution mechanism that focuses on broader interests and legal rights. Using the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) as a case study, it identifies the conditions in which Chinese investors could have initiated an investment arbitration but did not. This can be explained by the rights-based orientation of investment treaties failing to reflect the interests of multi-project initiatives. Instead, alternative methods of home state intervention, such as state-funded political risk insurance, are used to protect investors. In other words, the political economy of CPEC investments refuses to utilize hard law mechanisms. Given this context, mediation may be a viable alternative. These circumstances accelerate the trend towards “de-legalization”, which is often cited as an inevitable consequence of the emerging “geoeconomic order” but suggests that reasons other than national security are the cause.

The developed and developing members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) are deeply divided on the concept, scope, and beneficiaries of the special and differential treatment (SDT) provisions. The division was revealed in the Committee on Trade and Development meetings, where developed members rejected the Group of 90's proposals to strengthen and operationalize SDT provisions in WTO agreements. This article focuses on the SDT provisions in the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU), positing that the provisions are ineffective in upholding the WTO's development objectives. It analyses the extent to which the needs and circumstances of low-income developing countries and least-developed countries have been considered by the WTO adjudicating bodies through the application and interpretation of SDT provisions in the DSU. The article seeks to reimagine SDT provisions’ role in the DSU through secondary lawmaking and progressive treaty interpretation to ensure development is integrated into the WTO's Dispute Settlement Mechanism.

Cross-border data flow is essential to contemporary international trade. However, transitioning from paper to digital in international trade has benefits and concerns. Concerns have led to an upsurge in data regulation as nations and regions impose restrictions on data flows and storage. This paper argues that, with increasing concerns about data sovereignty, the reconciliation of differing positions will be necessary to ensure that the benefits of digitization can be realized equally. At present, the objective of “data free flow with trust” is aspirational at best, with emerging trade barriers that unfairly threaten opportunities for small to medium enterprises and development within the Global South. This paper supports new knowledge and demonstrates that discriminatory regulation of data flow and disproportionately prioritizing national interests will be a trade barrier that impacts private entities and consumers in all nations. To avoid unintended externalities, cooperation is needed at a global level.

Infrastructure has been the focus of geopolitically significant regional strategies, including the Belt and Road Initiative and the Asian Highway. Mega-infrastructure projects are thought to offer crucial stimulus to support economic recovery and “infrastructure diplomacy” efforts. Transportation projects, like roads, are material objects that offer complex questions for international law, most obviously when projects or their impacts cross borders. They are long-term and long-distance, with varying impacts upon closer and further populations and environments across the construction and life of the asset. This article draws on insights from new materialism to analyse what infrastructure's entanglements might suggest about international law. The relationship between international law and transportation infrastructure is contingent. However, there is a pattern to this contingency that foregrounds funding “gaps”, investment protections, and risk assessments, which minimizes intersecting impacts and human/non-human relationships.