Arbitration — Jurisdiction — Dispute concerning coastal State rights in Black Sea, Sea of Azov and Kerch Strait — Ukraine instituting proceedings against Russian Federation under Annex VII of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 — Ukraine alleging unauthorized activities of Russian Federation violating its rights under Convention — Whether Tribunal having jurisdiction — Basis of Tribunal’s jurisdiction — Whether Tribunal having jurisdiction to rule on sovereignty over Crimea — Legal status of Crimea — Objection that Tribunal having no jurisdiction over Ukraine’s claims concerning activities in Sea of Azov and Kerch Strait — Whether objection possessing exclusively preliminary character — Objection that Tribunal having no jurisdiction in light of Parties’ declarations under Article 298(1) of Convention — Objection that Tribunal having no jurisdiction over fisheries claims in light of Article 297(3)(a) of Convention — Objection that Tribunal having no jurisdiction over fisheries, protection and preservation of the marine environment, and navigation in light of Annex VIII to Convention — Objection that Tribunal having no jurisdiction pursuant to Article 281 of Convention — Whether Tribunal having jurisdiction in light of Parties’ declarations under Article 298(1) of Convention — Exceptions — Military activities — Law enforcement — Delimitation — Historic bays or titles

Treaties — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 — Interpretation — Application — Article 288(1) — Tribunal constituted under Annex VII of Convention — Scope of jurisdiction of Tribunal — Dispute between Parties — Whether dispute concerning interpretation or application of Convention falling within jurisdiction of court or tribunal under Article 288(1) — Whether Tribunal having jurisdiction over Ukraine’s sovereignty claim

Territory — Sovereignty — Crimea — Legal status — Russian Federation recognizing Ukraine’s sovereignty over Crimea before March 2014 — Events in 2014 — Russian Federation claiming sovereignty over Crimea after March 2014 — Opposing views of Parties on sovereignty over Crimea — Question as to whether Russian Federation or Ukraine having sovereignty over Crimea — Whether prerequisite for decision of Tribunal on Ukraine’s claims under United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 — Whether Russian Federation or Ukraine coastal State for purposes of Convention — Whether sovereignty dispute over Crimea existing vel non — Whether ancillary to maritime dispute brought by Ukraine — Russian Federation’s claim that legal status of Crimea altered — Whether Russian Federation’s claim of sovereignty admissible — Principle of non-recognition — Article 41 of International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility — United Nations General Assembly resolutions — Principles of good faith and estoppel — Whether Tribunal having jurisdiction over Ukraine’s sovereignty claim

International organizations — United Nations — General Assembly — Resolutions — Legal effect and meaning — Interpretation — Relevance — Customary international law — Factual and legal determinations made in resolutions — Effect and weight — Content, conditions and context of adoption of resolutions — Whether Tribunal having power to interpret texts of international organizations — Whether recognizing objective fact of existence of dispute over Crimea contravening resolutions — Whether Tribunal having jurisdiction over claims of sovereignty over Crimea

Sea — Maritime zones — Entitlements — Exclusive economic zone — Entitlements to maritime zones generated by Crimean coast — Overlapping entitlements — Whether determination possible — Jurisdiction of Tribunal to make determination in respect of dispute or on coastal State — Question of sovereignty over Crimea — Jurisdiction of Tribunal

Treaties — Application — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 — Coastal State rights — Crimean peninsula — Ukraine instituting proceedings under Annex VII to Convention — Scope of Convention — Dispute concerning coastal State rights in Black Sea, Sea of Azov and Kerch Strait — Claims under Convention — Ukraine claiming that Russian Federation violating its rights under Convention — Determination of coastal State necessary for purposes of Convention — Question as to whether Ukraine or Russian Federation having sovereignty over Crimea — Whether determination prerequisite for determining significant part of Ukraine’s claims — Whether Tribunal having jurisdiction over Ukraine’s sovereignty claim — Jurisdiction of Tribunal

Treaties — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 — Scope — Sea of Azov and Kerch Strait — Status — Parties agreeing internal waters of Union of Soviet Socialist Republics prior to dissolution — Disagreement as to status thereafter — Legal regime — Historic title — Whether questions for merits phase — Whether outside scope of Convention if underlying events occurring in internal waters — Whether issue regulated by Convention — Whether pertaining to interpretation and application of Convention — Whether Tribunal having jurisdiction over Ukraine’s claims concerning activities in the Sea of Azov and in the Kerch Strait — Whether objection of Russian Federation possessing exclusively preliminary character

Treaties — Interpretation — State Border Treaty, Article 5 — Azov/Kerch Cooperation Treaty, Article 1 — Textual interpretation — Context — Negotiating history — Whether Article 4 of Azov/Kerch Cooperation Treaty excluding jurisdiction of Tribunal — Whether Articles 1 and 5 dispute settlement clauses within meaning of Article 281 of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 — Whether Tribunal having jurisdiction over dispute

International Court of Justice — Provisional measures of protection — Criteria — Prima facie basis for jurisdiction — Forum prorogatum — State consent to jurisdiction of International Court of Justice — Rules of the Court, Article 38 — Risk of irreparable prejudice — Link between risk of prejudice and rights claimed in the Application — Relevance of full extent of possible harm — Relevance of wider political consequences — Urgency — Non-extension and non-aggravation of dispute — Whether provisional measures required to prevent aggravation or extension of dispute — Removal of case from List

State immunity — Head of State — Senior officials — Sovereign equality of States — Whether judicial investigation of foreign State officials violating principle of sovereign equality — Whether risk of irreparable prejudice to immunities

Diplomatic relations — Risk of irreparable prejudice to diplomatic relations — Whether judicial investigation of foreign State officials constituting risk of irreparable prejudice to diplomatic relations between States

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Head of State immunity — Compatibility of domestic criminal powers with principle of head of State immunity — Sovereign equality — Compatibility of domestic criminal powers with the principle of sovereign equality

International Court of Justice — Provisional measures — Diplomatic relations — Immunity of State officials and State property — Prima facie jurisdiction — United Nations Convention on Transnational Organized Crime, 2000 (“Palermo Convention”) — Optional Protocol to Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes, 1961 — Plausibility — Article 22 of Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961 — Inviolability of diplomatic premises — Whether building located at 42 Avenue Foch could plausibly be regarded as housing diplomatic mission of Equatorial Guinea — Irreparable prejudice — Urgency — Link between provisional measures requested and rights sought to be protected

International Court of Justice — Jurisdiction — Palermo Convention — Whether references to customary international law incorporate those rules of customary law into the Convention — Sovereign equality of States — Whether dispute regarding alleged breach of customary law principle within jurisdiction of the Court under the Palermo Convention — Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Optional Protocol — Dispute regarding status of buildings claimed as premises of diplomatic mission

International Court of Justice — Admissibility — Abuse of process — Abuse of rights — Whether reasons not to exercise jurisdiction under Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations — Matter for preliminary objections — Whether exceptional circumstances existing — Whether Application inadmissible on that basis — Abuse of rights — Whether ground of inadmissibility when establishment of rights claimed properly a matter for merits

Treaties — Palermo Convention — Subject matter of dispute — Procedural preconditions to Court’s jurisdiction under Article 35(2) of Palermo Convention — Scope of jurisdiction ratione materiae under Palermo Convention — Article 4 of Palermo Convention — Incorporation of customary rules of international law on State immunity by reference to principles of sovereign equality, territorial integrity and non-intervention in internal affairs of other States — Alleged overextension of jurisdiction by France in implementing provisions of Palermo Convention

Diplomatic relations — Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961 — Optional Protocol to Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes, 1961 — Subject matter of dispute — Procedural preconditions to Court’s jurisdiction under Articles II and III of Optional Protocol — Meaning of “premises of the mission” under Article 1(i) of Vienna Convention — Whether definition of “premises of the mission” falling within scope ratione materiae of Vienna Convention — Whether a dispute concerning inviolability of the building at 42 Avenue Foch

State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — Head of State immunity — Vice-President of State accused of misappropriation of funds and money laundering by authorities of another State — Whether entitled to immunity — Basis for any claim to immunity — Customary international law — Whether incorporated into Palermo Convention

Damages — Pecuniary reparations — Material loss — Loss of income — Proof of loss — Legal fees — Non-material loss — Loss suffered by victims — Material prejudice suffered by indirect victims — Quantum of compensation — Compensation on an equitable basis — Reparations — Whether merits judgment providing sufficient reparation — Order of release for applicants serving jail term — Non-repetition of violations — Order for publication of judgment — Report on implementation — Costs

Human rights — Treaties — African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1981 — International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 — Judgment on merits — United Republic of Tanzania in violation of rights of ten Kenyan citizens to fair trial — Right to be tried within a reasonable time — Right to counsel — Reparations — Human rights violations for which compensation due

International tribunals — African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights — Judgments — Implementation — Reparations — Requirement of publication

Economics, trade and finance — Food imports — Import of foodstuffs originating from East Jerusalem, West Bank and Golan Heights into the European Union — Labelling of products — Whether products originating from Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories must be labelled as such — Observance of international law — Whether foodstuffs coming from settlements established in breach of rules of international humanitarian law — Ethical considerations — Purchasing decisions of consumers — Misleading of consumers

Relationship of international law and municipal law — European Union law — Treaty on European Union, 1992 — Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, 2007 — EU Customs Code — Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 — Consistent interpretation of EU law — Interpreting Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 in manner consistent with international law — Notions of “State”, “territory” and “place of provenance” — Referral of questions by national court to Court of Justice of European Union

Territory — Status — Occupation — Occupied Territories in which State of Israel Occupying Power — East Jerusalem, West Bank and Golan Heights — Rules of international humanitarian law — Israel having limited jurisdiction — Israeli settlements in Occupied Territories — Palestinian people of West Bank enjoying right to self-determination — Golan Heights part of territory of Syrian Arab Republic — Import of foodstuffs into European Union — Labelling of products — Whether products originating from Israeli settlements in Occupied Territories must be labelled as such — Observance of international law — Whether foodstuffs coming from settlements established in breach of rules of international humanitarian law — Ethical considerations — Purchasing decisions of consumers — Misleading of consumers

War and armed conflict — International humanitarian law — Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 1949 — Article 49 — Obligation of States not to “deport or transfer part of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” — Impact on labelling of products originating in Occupied Territories — Status of East Jerusalem, West Bank and Golan Heights as Occupied Territories — Whether products originating from Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories must be labelled as such — The law of the European Union

Human rights — Freedom of thought, conscience and religion — Article 9 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Compulsory mixed gender swimming lessons in primary schools — Refusal by competent authorities to grant applicants’ daughters exemption from mixed swimming lessons — Whether contested measure interfering with exercise of applicants’ right to freedom of religion — Whether interference justified — Whether having legal basis — Whether pursuing legitimate aim — Whether necessary in a democratic society — Whether proportionate to aims pursued by national authorities — Article 2 of Protocol No 1 lex specialis in relation to Article 9 of Convention — Inapplicability of Article 2 of Protocol No 2 — Reading of Convention as a whole — Whether Switzerland violating Article 9 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

Human rights — Modern international human rights law — Scope — Customary international law prohibitions — Forced labour — Slavery — Cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment — Crimes against humanity — Addressing breaches of customary international law prohibitions — Role of national courts — Respondents claiming indefinite conscription through military service into forced labour in Eritrea at mine — Mine owned by Canadian company — Respondents claiming subjection to violent, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment — Respondents bringing class action against Canadian company in Canada — Respondents seeking damages for breaches of customary international law prohibitions and domestic torts — Justiciability of claim — Whether Canadian courts lacking subject-matter jurisdiction — Act of State doctrine — Whether claims based on customary international law to be struck — Whether pleadings disclosing no reasonable claim — Whether plain and obvious claims having no reasonable prospect of success

Jurisdiction — Subject-matter jurisdiction — Whether Canadian courts having jurisdiction over respondents’ claim — Respondents claiming indefinite conscription through military service into forced labour in Eritrea at mine owned by Canadian company — Respondents claiming subjection to violent, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment — Eritrea’s National Service Program — Whether respondents’ claim concerning sovereign act of foreign government — Act of State doctrine — Whether part of Canadian law — Underlying principles of act of State doctrine — Conflict of laws — Judicial restraint — Whether respondents’ claim barred

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Customary international law — Whether part of Canadian law — Whether conflicting Canadian legislation — Separation of powers — Customary international law prohibitions — Forced labour — Slavery — Cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment — Crimes against humanity — Respondents relying on norms of customary international law in claim for damages against Canadian company — Role of national courts in developing international law — Evolution of customary international law — State practice — Opinio juris — Peremptory norms — Jus cogens — Whether customary international law norms applying to corporations — Right to an effective remedy — Canada’s international obligation under International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 — Whether plain and obvious Canadian courts could not develop a civil remedy in domestic law for corporate violations of customary international law norms — Whether plain and obvious respondents’ claims against Canadian company could not succeed — Act of State doctrine — Whether part of Canadian law — Extent and scope

Damages — Customary international law prohibitions — Forced labour — Slavery — Cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment — Crimes against humanity — Breaches — Civil law remedies — Respondents seeking damages for breaches of customary international law prohibitions and domestic torts — Whether claim for damages for breaches of customary international law prohibitions under Canadian law possible — Whether norms different from existing domestic torts — Right to an effective remedy — Canada’s international obligation under International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 — Whether plain and obvious Canadian courts could not develop a civil remedy in domestic law for corporate violations of customary international law norms — Whether respondents’ claims allowed to proceed — The law of Canada

Aliens — Refugees — Applicants seeking refugee status in Hong Kong — Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, 1951, and 1967 Protocol (“Refugee Convention”) — Article 33(1) of Refugee Convention — Non-refoulement principle — Whether part of customary international law — Whether acquiring status of jus cogens — Determination of refugee status by Hong Kong Sub-Office of United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (“the UNHCR”) — Exercise of discretion by Director of Immigration — Whether Director of Immigration under legal obligation to determine refugee status — Whether Director of Immigration having legal obligation to inquire into non-refoulement claims

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Refugee Convention — Refugee Convention not extended to Hong Kong — Immigration Ordinance Cap. 115 1972 — Customary international law — Whether rule of customary international law prohibiting refoulement of refugees — Whether rule acquiring peremptory norm status — Whether rule incorporated into Hong Kong domestic law — Judicial review — Whether decision to refoule subject to judicial review — Whether high standard of fairness applicable

Sources of international law — Customary international law — Jus cogens — Whether rule of customary international law prohibiting refoulement of refugees — Whether rule acquiring peremptory norm status — The law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China

International criminal law — Aggression — Aggression existing as a crime under international law — Whether aggression a crime under laws of England and Wales — Whether good reasons for excluding crime of aggression from review of English courts

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Customary international law — Whether part of English law — Crimes under customary international law — Whether crimes under customary international law constituting crimes under municipal law — Whether compelling reason for court to depart from decision in R v. Jones (Margaret) — Constitutional principles — Whether any prospect of United Kingdom Supreme Court overturning decision in R v. Jones (Margaret) — The law of England

Recognition — States — Acts of an unrecognized State — Somaliland — Whether capable of recognition — Everyday acts of administration — Marriage — Namibia doctrine — Whether court in England entitled to grant declaration of marital status to couple married in Somaliland

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Matters reserved to executive — Recognition — Principle that executive and courts should speak with one voice — Whether English courts entitled to recognize acts of a State not recognized by the Government of the United Kingdom — Marriage in unrecognized State

States — Somaliland — Whether recognized — Consequences of non-recognition — The law of England and Wales

Governments — Status of government — Recognition — Whether particular entity to be treated as the government of a State — Role of national courts — Recognition a matter for the executive — Whether national court entitled to entertain challenge to the constitutional validity of foreign government’s acts — Nature of challenge — Whether upholding challenge would require court to inquire into status of foreign government — Libya — Revolution in 2011 — Existence of competing regimes — Whether United Kingdom Government had recognized one entity as the Government of Libya

Recognition — Governments — United Kingdom policy — April 1980 Statement that United Kingdom Government would no longer make formal statements regarding recognition of foreign governments — Whether precluding statement of recognition in all circumstances — Evidence of recognition — Letters from Foreign and Commonwealth Office — Whether indicating unequivocal recognition — Libya — Competing regimes

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Whether entity the government of a foreign State — Whether determination of that issue a matter for courts or government — Effect of unequivocal recognition by government of forum State — Whether courts entitled to call such recognition into question — Separation of powers — Difference from doctrines of act of State, sovereign immunity and non-justiciability — The law of England