Does international law govern how States and armed groups treat their own forces? Do serious violations of the laws of war and human rights law that would otherwise constitute war crimes or crimes against humanity fall squarely outside the scope of international criminal law when committed against fellow members of the same armed forces? Orthodoxy considered that such forces were protected only under relevant domestic criminal law and/or human rights law. However, landmark decisions issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) suggest that crimes committed against members of the same armed forces are not automatically excluded from the scope of international criminal law. This article argues that, while there are some anomalies and gaps in the reasoning of both courts, there is a common overarching approach under which crimes by a member of an armed group against a person from the same forces can be prosecuted under international law. Starting from an assessment of the specific situation of the victim, this article conducts an in-depth analysis of the concepts of ‘hors de combat’ and ‘allegiance’ for war crimes and that of the ‘lawful target’ for crimes against humanity, providing an interpretative framework for the future prosecution of such crimes.

This note addresses the possible correlation between “democracy” and “development”, and the implications, if any, of such a correlation for the World Bank. This calls, first, for providing a definition of the two concepts as they are used here. To clarify the matter further, a distinction is made from the beginning between “development” in the broad sense and the concept of “economic growth” in the strict sense.

The People's Republic of China (hereafter “PRC” or “China”) is set to attain a leading position in the world economy. Headlines such as “the giant awakes” have been in common usage for some time.1 European businesses have come to realise that China cannot be ignored. Their legal advisers should follow suit. This explains the motivation for this article.

The General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) has been the leading force of trade liberalization in services. This article attempts to decipher the implications of GATS in financial services. It explains the schedules of commitments made by Member States, and the way countries engage in commitments in financial services. These are critical in understanding how the GATS rules are applied by each Member, and whether GATS has been effective.

The so-called ‘prudential carve out’ is analysed in detail with consideration to the general prudential regime of the financial system since it has implications for the stability and integrity of the financial system. The article concludes with some policy analysis on how prudential carve out might be better implemented.

International courts are increasingly called upon to adjudicate socially divisive disputes. They are therefore exposed to a heightened risk of backlash that questions their authority and impedes the implementation of their judgments. This article puts forward an analytical framework for mapping the resilience techniques used by international courts to counter this growing resistance. Case studies involve the Court of Justice of the European Union, which has been cautious in its stance regarding democratic backsliding in Hungary and Poland, and the Caribbean Court of Justice, which has engaged in legal diplomacy while adjudicating both on the land rights of indigenous groups and on Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Queer and Intersex (LGBTQI) rights. It is argued that, in order to effectively avoid and mitigate backlash, international courts should deploy resilience techniques that go beyond merely exercising their judicial function. The successful deployment of resilience techniques can allow international courts to become significant actors in global governance during a time of crisis for the international liberal order.

This article explores traditional conceptions of non-justiciability in British Courts in honour of Francis Mann. It highlights the move by domestic courts away from traditional ‘no-go’ areas towards a more nuanced and balanced understanding of the respective roles and competences of the executive and the judiciary; and sees this as a not unfavourable development in an era when domestic recourse is often the only practicable means by which an individual, as opposed to a State, may obtain redress for alleged misconduct on the international plane.

Binding taxpayer-initiated international dispute resolution has traditionally played a minor role in the international tax system. Despite being long pursued by corporate interests and increasingly accepted by developed countries, international tax arbitration has remained less developed and less respectful of private interests than investor–State arbitration. The binding multilateral dispute settlement endorsed by over 130 countries as part of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's Two Pillar Solution to issues raised under Action 1 of the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project marks a change and is noteworthy at a time when some States are reconsidering their consent to the international adjudication of trade and investment disputes. The design of international dispute settlement in the Two Pillar Solution, and the focus on the protection of multinationals from juridical double taxation, displays little appreciation of the experience with dispute settlement in international trade and investment over the past two decades.

Human rights violations committed against women have become an increasingly high priority on the international agenda.1 Rape, “honour killings.”, bride-burning, genital mutilation, forced sterilisation, forced abortion, domestic violence are all acts of violence regularly committed against women. What makes women the target of such acts is primarily if not exclusively their sex. Membership of the female sex is what creates the risk. Women have been afforded minimal redress in international fora and this has been particularly true within the context of refugee determination. Women and children make up the majority of the world's refugee population2 yet, because of their comparative lack of mobility, the refugee jurisprudence which has evolved has been based primarily on the experiences of men. However, women often fear persecution for reasons different from men, and when they do fear persecution for the same reason as men they often experience the persecution differently. There is evidence that contemporary refugee law is becoming gender sensitive. In March 1993 the Guidelines on Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution were issued by the Chairperson of the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board.3 The Guidelines were novel in that their promulgation made Canada the first country to recognise formally that cognisance should be given to claims by refugee applicants of alleged genderrelated persecution. This short article will identify the raison d'être of the Guidelines, articulate their principal characteristics and assess their impact both within Canada and beyond.

In both the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish Republic, legal reform efforts have invariably relied on Western models and in administrative law this model has been the French. The first such effort was with the Tanzimat (The Charter of Reformation) in 1839, though these reforms did not have deep effect until the 1860s when the bases of the main administrative institutions such as the Turkish Conseil d'Etat were laid down.1 However, the Conseil d'Etat was not the only institutional model taken from France. The French layer of Turkish administrative law includes other institutions such as the Cour des Comptes, the Tribunal des Conflits, some financial organisations, the system of autonomous provincial and local administration and administrative tutelage.2

One of the asserted advantages and goals of the unification of substantive law lies in the prevention of ‘forum shopping’,1 ie the lawyer's act of seeking the forum that is most beneficial to his client's interest.2 This has been pointed out not only in discussions on unification of law in general,3 but also in discussions on specific international uniform contract law conventions, such as the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods4 (hereinafter CISG),5 the Geneva Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road6 (hereinafter CMR)7 and the UNIDROIT Convention on International Factoring8 (hereinafter IFC).9

The distinction between substance1 and procedure2 is central to conflict of laws methodology. It cannot be determined what law governs a particular issue until, crucially, that issue has been characterized as substantive, on the one hand, or procedural,3 on the other. The distinction is the fulcrum, or axis, of the choice of law process.