This article examines how the European Court of Human Rights has clarified its jurisprudence on how the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention Article 13 exceptions are to be applied in a manner that is consistent with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It also analyses recent case law of the European Court of Human Rights on how the courts in the EU are to handle child abduction cases where the courts of the habitual residence have made use of their power under Article 11 of Brussels IIa.

The benefits of a ‘holistic’ approach to transitional justice are enhanced by considering how synergies between different transitional mechanisms may be optimized. Drawing upon multiple examples, this article explores the potential contribution of truth seeking to reparation efforts at a normative, institutional and operational level. The article emphasizes the importance of an awareness of the reparative potential of truth seeking on the part of those implicated in its design and implementation, as well as an appreciation of the influence of contextual factors on a delicate process. It cannot be conceived of simply as a technocratic exercise, but as an inherent part of empowering victims.

On 29 August 2013, the UK government published a memorandum setting out its ‘position regarding the legality of military action in Syria following the chemical weapons attack in Eastern Damascus on 21 August 2013’. While other States had contemplated some form of military action, most notably the US, none had been as clear and candid as to the legal basis upon which this would be launched. It might seem in this respect perhaps a little surprising that the UK decided in its relatively brief opinion that ‘the legal basis for military action would be humanitarian intervention’. As this article will attempt to highlight, this basic justification is far from uncontroversial. This short article will seek to be clear as to what the UK's legal position exactly was, whether and how this position can be reconciled with the lex lata governing the use of force for humanitarian purposes and its immediate impact upon it, and finally offer some reflections upon the contribution the opinion and its central legal argument has made to future legal argumentation in this area.

When the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) released a letter in early 2012 addressing the financial and economic crises, it was long overdue. Finally, and around four and a half years after the crises began, the body responsible for monitoring those rights that had been most severely impacted had spoken. But what had been said? This article examines the alterations to the doctrine of non-retrogression that the 2012 Letter instigated. It does so by reference to the ‘Business as Usual’ and ‘accommodation’ theories of emergency response. The Letter to States is argued to have taken the Committee away from an approach to non-retrogression that treated times of normality and emergency in a similar way, and towards an approach that allows derogation-style deviations from the Covenant. This, it is argued, could have detrimental effects for the protection of economic and social rights. The difficulties in applying such an approach are considered.

This article offers a fresh examination of the distinction drawn in international humanitarian law (IHL) between international and non-international armed conflicts. In particular, it considers this issue from the under-explored perspective of the influence of international human rights law (IHRL). It is demonstrated how, over time, the effect of IHRL on this distinction in IHL has changed dramatically. Whereas traditionally IHRL encouraged the partial elimination of the distinction between types of armed conflict, more recently it has been invoked in debates in a manner that would preserve what remains of the distinction. By exploring this important issue, it is hoped that the present article will contribute to the ongoing debates regarding the future development of the law of non-international armed conflict.

The idea of investment treaty arbitration as public law is in tension with the concept of international law as a law between representative public agencies. This concept of international law is valuable for its capacity to progress a broad range of public policy aims in an integrated and coordinated manner, including aims extending beyond the economic sphere such as international social, environmental, cultural and related aims. The probable effect on this concept of international law of a radical ‘internationalized public law’ approach to investment treaty arbitration requires further thought, especially with regard to the potential implications of recognizing investor rights under international law.

The issues of State and diplomatic immunity in cases involving persons employed by foreign States in embassies or consulates or engaged directly by diplomats remain controversial. The focus of this article is on recent developments in European law, in particular under the European Convention on Human Rights, the Brussels I Regulation and the Charter of the European Union, the effect of which has been to enhance the rights of employees of foreign States. Analysis is also made of the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their Property and the current domestic practice of States with the aim of identifying the present international law standard on State immunity and embassy and consular employment. Employees of diplomats, however, remain inadequately protected and this article considers possible strategies for improving their position.

In its eagerly awaited judgment in Gazprom, the CJEU declined to follow the Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet that West Tankers is no longer good law. The West Tankers case decided that the courts of one Member State are precluded from granting antisuit injunctions directed at proceedings in the courts of another Member State, even if the proceedings in which the injunction is granted fall outside the scope of the Brussels Regulation by reason of the fact that they are concerned with arbitration. The Gazprom case confirms that West Tankers is still good law.