This article explores the role of international climate change adaptation law in promoting the use of genetically engineered crops as an adaptation strategy. The severity of climate change impacts and the realization that, by now, some adverse effects are inevitable, has intensified the urgency to devise effective adaptation strategies. Genetically engineered climate-resilient crops are presented as one possible means to adapt to the predicted adverse impacts of climate change on agriculture and crop yields. Despite increased attention on the research and development of climate-resilient crops, particularly by private sector seed corporations, there are many controversies surrounding this proposed adaptation strategy. The key contentions relate to apprehensions about genetically engineered crops more generally, the effectiveness of climate-resilient crops, and the involvement of the private sector in international climate change adaptation initiatives.

The main argument in this article is that the emerging field of international climate change adaptation law contributes to promoting genetically engineered climate-resilient crops as a possible means of adaptation. Moreover, international adaptation law creates an enabling environment for the active engagement of private sector corporations in devising adaptation strategies. Notwithstanding controversies over genetically engineered crops and the role of the private sector, there has been little consideration so far of the influence of the growing international legal regime on climate change on the types of adaptation strategies that are devised and promoted.

This article examines the law of self-defence as applied to non-state attacks in light of the coalition air strikes against ISIL in Syria. It critiques the two current interpretations of the law of self-defence – one based on attribution and the other on the ‘unable or unwilling’ test – for failing to address adequately the security threat posed by non-state actors or for not addressing convincingly the legal issues arising from the fact that the self-defence action unfolds on the territory of another state. For this reason, it proposes an alternative framework which combines the primary rule of self-defence to justify the use of defensive force against non-state actors, with the secondary rule of self-defence to excuse the incidental breach of the territorial state's sovereignty.

International criminal justice is on one level a project of hubris and promise, but on another level a project arguably riddled by anxieties. These anxieties are linked to the dizziness of choices available to it, and the degree to which every move to compensate for anxieties produces its own form of anxiety. This article surveys ten distinct anxieties that are deemed to be constitutive of the movement. Ultimately, it argues that the neurotic nature of international criminal justice can be the source of its creativity and resilience.

This article examines several questions relating to international humanitarian law (jus in bello) with respect to the conflicts against the Islamic State. The first question explored is the classification of conflicts against the Islamic State and the relevant applicable law. The situation in Iraq is a rather classic non-international armed conflict between a state and a non-state actor with third states intervening alongside governmental forces. The situation in Syria is more controversial, especially with respect to the coalition's airstrikes against the Islamic State on Syrian territory. If the Syrian government is considered as not having consented to the coalition's operations, then, according to this author's view, the coalition is involved in two distinct armed conflicts: an international armed conflict with the Syrian government and a non-international armed conflict with the Islamic State. The second question analyzed in the article bears on the geographical scope of application of international humanitarian law. In this context, the article examines whether humanitarian law applies: in the entire territory of the state in whose territory the hostilities take place, in the territories of the intervening states, and in the territory of a third state.

The 2014 judgment of the International Court of Justice, regarding Whaling in the Antarctic, brought into focus scientific fact-finding in disputes before the Court. This article examines the Court's practice with respect to first, the mode of appointment and method of examining experts assisting the Court in fact-finding; and second, the standard of review employed in analysing a scientific fact to arrive at a judicial decision. In doing so, the article also refers to jurisprudence of the World Trade Organization to draw parallels and best practices therefrom. This analysis is aimed at structuring a coherent and predictable approach for scientific fact-finding before the International Court of Justice.

The defendant in international trials is presumed innocent until proven guilty but is often judged by the ‘court of popular opinion’ even before the trial begins. This article provides reflections on how the image of a malevolent individual emerges with regard to those brought/to be brought before international courts. In such a situation, coming before the Court and subsequently being convicted or acquitted can mean little. It is coming before the Court that is, in itself, the end of the line. The manner in which the International Criminal Court has functioned has contributed, both advertently and inadvertently, to the maintenance of the image of the defendant as a malevolent being. Specifically, the purposes of historiography and the ever present discourse of deterrence, breed the suspicion that this ‘demonizing the defendant’ effect might be endorsed by the manner in which the Prosecutor has popularized the Court and it's functions and aims. This is a conflict that gets to the heart of international criminal law. It is the dilemma of how one must simultaneously fulfil two of the law's essential aims: to presume innocence (and thus abide by a fundamental tenet of international criminal law) and to deter, educate and pacify (and thus for the law to have a reason to exist).

This article examines the problem of colliding international regimes by reference to the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the UN Security Council. Given the different logics or rationalities of these institutions – the Security Council is first and foremost a (power) political organ, while the ICC is in charge of legal assessments – the collision potential is high. A collision rule was therefore introduced into the Rome Statute in the form of Article 16; however, all instances of its application so far have been highly controversial. While norm application is always controversial to some extent, we argue – in reference to Thomas Franck's work on the legitimacy of international norms – that regime responsiveness, secondary rules or a neutral application control of Article 16 could contribute to successful collision management.

The decisions of international courts and tribunals affect how we read history. Alternative tribunals, such as peoples’ tribunals, attempt to write alternative histories to counter the official versions. This article locates controversies over the Armenian genocide in debates about the relationship between history and international law. It considers ways of reading archives and the role of archives in informing those debates. It compares the Istanbul war crimes trials held in 1919–1920 before the Ottoman Military Tribunals with the Paris session of the Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal held in 1984 that dealt with questions of history and memory through the juridical format of a hearing. A century after the events of 1915, the contested historiography of the Armenian genocide influences how international lawyers and historians seek to pass judgment on the past.

The ICJ has confirmed that, on the one hand, the customary status of the general rule of treaty interpretation in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties makes it applicable to the constituent instruments of all international organizations, but, on the other hand, constituent instruments are ‘treaties of a particular type’ with special considerations. This article examines the resultant implication that the Court adopts an approach to constituent instrument interpretation that supplements or modulates the approach provided for in the Convention. In doing so, it examines both the Advisory Opinions that respond to direct questions of constituent instrument interpretation, as well as Opinions and Judgments in which a question of constituent instrument interpretation is incidental to a dispute with respect to another treaty or general international law. The article identifies nine interpretative propositions used by the Court: (1) sufficiently clear text is conclusive; (2) the text cannot be nullified; (3) working documents (travaux préparatoires) afford auxiliary interpretation; (4) consistent practice precludes contrived interpretation; (5) to be consistent, practice need not be unanimous; (6) consistent institutional practice is determinative; (7) purpose can supplement text, but cannot contradict practice; (8) practice is interpretation, unless institutionally overruled; and (9) interpretation cannot be gratuitous. It is argued that to the extent the Court diverges from the Convention, it in fact allows for a more efficient and effective approach to constituent instrument interpretation and accords institutional practice particular prominence.

In 2012, James Stewart published an article in this journal. The piece – ‘The End of “Modes of Liability” for International Crimes’ – argued for the abolition of accomplice liability in international criminal law and the adoption of a unitary model of participation in crime. This article argues that Stewart's proposal is flawed. As a matter of moral responsibility, the distinction between principals and accomplices follows from the recognition of individuals as moral agents. Turning to ordinary criminal responsibility, neither practical benefits nor expressive benefits nor the mitigating effects of the distinctive institution of criminal sentencing justifies the abolition of the distinction between principals and accomplices. Moreover, despite the collective nature of many international crimes, international criminal law ought to strive to accurately differentiate, in the attribution of responsibility, among participants. Only a differentiated model of participation can accurately and defensibly capture the different ways that individuals contribute to wrongdoing.

The ICC's Regulation 55, which allows the Trial Chamber to modify the legal characterization of facts in the final judgment, has been used too often and too carelessly. Recharacterization must not exceed the facts and circumstances described in the charges, but material facts and their legal qualification are like communicating vessels; changing the latter affects the former (and vice versa). In their application of Regulation 55 to date, chambers have underappreciated this, treating cases as if they have blurry factual boundaries where material facts can be swapped, neglected, or created at will. This article is not a plea for abolition of Regulation 55, though, but explores which modifications are permissible, and finds that when comparing a change regarding the contextual elements or (sub)categories of crimes to a change regarding the mode of participation the latter is most problematic and often detrimental to the rights of the accused.

On 7 March 2014, Trial Chamber II of the International Criminal Court (ICC) convicted Germain Katanga for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Katanga's conviction is based on the concept of common purpose liability as regulated in Article 25(3)(d) of the Rome Statute. This liability theory establishes criminal responsibility for wilfully or knowingly contributing to the crimes of a group of persons who act together pursuant to a common purpose. The ICC regards common purpose liability as a residual liability theory, which provides for a lower level of blameworthiness than principal forms of criminal responsibility, such as joint perpetration. This article appraises the residual and inferior status of common purpose liability by comparing the ICC's application of common purpose liability and joint perpetration. The comparison makes clear that common purpose liability in theory stipulates lower actus reus and mens rea standards than joint perpetration. However, in practice the ICC applies the requirements of both these liability theories in a context-dependent way in interplay with the particular facts of individual cases. It can therefore not be concluded in general terms that common purpose liability by definition constitutes a less serious type of criminal responsibility than joint perpetration. Instead, it is preferable to adopt a flexible approach, which recognizes that common purpose liability covers a variety of conduct entailing different levels of blameworthiness.

The present article revisits international criminal law as a tool for sanctioning the most patent abuses against migrants. Although deportation is traditionally considered as an attribute of the state inherent to its territorial sovereignty, this prerogative may degenerate into an international crime. The prohibition of deportation has been a well-established feature of international criminal law since the Nuremberg trials following the Second World War. This prohibition has been further refined over the past 15 years by an extensive jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Criminal Court.

Against such a background, this article demonstrates that, in some circumstances, deportation may amount to a war crime, a crime against humanity or even a crime of genocide, depending on the factual elements of the case and the specific requirements of the relevant crime. This article accordingly reviews the constitutive elements of each crime and transposes them into the context of migration control. It highlights in turn that, although its potential has been neglected by scholars and practitioners, international criminal law has an important role to play for domesticating the state's prerogative of deportation and infusing the rule of law into the field of migration. The article concludes that there are reasonable grounds for asserting that a crime against humanity would have been committed in the Dominican Republic and Australia with regard to their deportation policy.