¹ Tennyson, Alfred Lord, The Works of Alfred Lord Tennyson (Hertforshire, UK: Wordsworth, 1994) at 72.Google Scholar

² See eg Gonthier, Charles D, “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity: The Forgotten Leg of the Trilogy, or Fraternity: The Unspoken Third Pillar of Democracy” (2000) 45 McGill LJ 567 [Gonthier, “Fraternity”]Google Scholar; Gonthier, Charles D, “Law and Morality” (2003) 29 Queen’s LJ 408 [Gonthier, “Law and Morality”];Google Scholar Gonthier, Charles D, “Sustainable Development and the Law / Le développement durable et le droit” (2005) 1 McGill JSDLP 11 [Gonthier, “Sustainable Development”].Google Scholar On Gonthier’s legacy as a judge, see Guth, DeLloyd J, “Method and Matter in the Gonthier Legacy: Legal History and Judgment Writing, 1989–2003” in Morin, Michel et al, eds, Responsibility, Fraternity and Sustainability in Law: In Memory of the Honourable Charles Doherty Gonthier (Markham, ON: LexisNexis Canada, 2012) 39.Google Scholar On his contribution to the law and policy of sustainable development, see Cordonier Segger, Marie-Claire, “Sustainability, Global Justice and the Law: Contributions of the Hon Justice Charles Doherty Gonthier” (2010) 55 McGill LJ 337.Google Scholar

³ See eg Posner, Eric, “Do States Have a Moral Obligation to Obey International Law?” (2002–03) 55 Stanford LR 1901;Google Scholar Bradley, Curtis A & Gulati, Mitu, “Withdrawing from International Custom” (2010) 120 Yale LJ 202;Google Scholar Goldsmith, Jack L & Posner, Eric A, The Limits of International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005);Google Scholar Delahunty, Robert J & Yoo, John, “Executive Power v. International Law” (2006–07) 30 Harvard JLPP 73;Google Scholar Posner, Eric, The Twilight of Human Rights (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014).Google Scholar See most egregiously Bolton, John, “Is There Really ‘Law’ in International Affairs?” (2000) 10 TLCP 1.Google Scholar Ohlin regards this movement as part of a wider neoliberal project to bolster US executive power at the expense of international and congressional authority: Ohlin, Jens David, The Assault on International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015) ch 1.Google Scholar For a partial rebuttal see Crawford, James, “International Law as Discipline and Profession” (2012) 106 ASIL Proc 471.Google Scholar

⁴ See eg Crawford, James et al, “War Would Be Illegal,” The Guardian (7 March 2003), online: <http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/mar/07/highereducation.iraq>;Google Scholar Lowe, Vaughan, “The Iraq Crisis: What Now?” (2003) 52 ICLQ 859.Google Scholar Buckwald, Contra TF & Taft, WH, “Preemption, Iraq and International Law” (2003) 97 AJIL 557.Google Scholar

⁵ See Greenberg, Karen L & Dratel, Joshua L, eds, The Torture Papers: The Road to Abu Ghraib (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005);CrossRefGoogle Scholar Sands, Philippe, Torture Team: Deception, Cruelty and the Compromise of Law (London: Allen Lane, 2008).Google Scholar

⁶ Grant, Thomas D, Aggression against Ukraine: Territory, Responsibility, and International Law (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar This is not to mention Russia’s earlier action against Georgia, the legality of which was contested: Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v Russian Federation), Preliminary Objections, [2011] ICJ Rep 70.

⁷ Brooks, Rosa, “Lessons for International Law from the Arab Spring” (2013) 29 Am UILR 713.Google Scholar

⁸ Cf Charlesworth, Hilary “International Law: A Discipline of Crisis” (2002) 65 Modern LR 377.Google Scholar

⁹ Brownlie, Ian, Principles of Public International Law, 6th ed (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003),Google Scholar preface. This remark was not repeated in the seventh edition of 2008.

¹⁰ Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer, 16 September 1987, 1522 UNTS 28.

¹¹ See World Meteorological Organization, Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2014 (WMO Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project — Report no 56, 2014), online: <http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2014/assessment_for_decision-makers.pdf>.

¹² Charter of the United Nations, 24 October 1945, 1 UNTS 16, art 2(4): “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

¹³ Cullen, Cf Anthony, The Concept of Non-International Armed Conflict in International Humanitarian Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁴ Pinker, Stephen, The Better Angels of Our Nature (London: Penguin, 2012) at 228–86.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Feynman, Richard B, Leighton, Robert B & Sands, Matthew, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, vol 1 (New York: Addison-Wesley, 1964) ch 37.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Koskenniemi, Martti, “International Law in the World of Ideas” in Crawford, James & Koskenniemi, Martti, eds, The Cambridge Companion to International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012) 47 at 48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁷ US Presidential Proclamation no 2667: Policy of the United States with Respect to the Natural Resources of the Subsoil and Seabed of the Continental Shelf, 28 September 1945, 10 FR 12303.

¹⁸ Waldock, Humphrey, “The Legal Basis of Claims to the Continental Shelf” (1950) 36 GST 115;Google Scholar Lauterpacht, Hersch, “Sovereignty over Submarine Areas” (1950) 27 BYIL 376;Google Scholar Crawford, James & Viles, Thomas, “International Law on a Given Day” in Crawford, James, ed, International Law as an Open System: Selected Essays (London: Cameron & May, 2002) 69.Google Scholar

¹⁹ McNair, Arnold, “International Law in Practice” (1946) 32 GST 154 at 165.Google Scholar

²⁰ Treaty between Great Britain and the United States for the Amicable Settlement of All Causes of Difference between the Two Countries, 8 May 1871, 143 CTS 145.

²¹ Alabama Claims (US/UK) (1872), 29 RIAA 125. See generally Moore, JB, History and Digest of the International Arbitrations to Which the United States Has Been a Party, vol 1 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Service, 1898) at 495–682;Google Scholar Cook, Adrian, The Alabama Claims: American Politics and Anglo-American Relations, 1865–1872 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1975);Google Scholar Bingham, Tom, “The Alabama Claims Arbitration” (2005) 54 ICLQ 1;Google Scholar Neff, Stephen C, Justice in Blue and Gray: A Legal History of the Civil War (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010) ch 10.Google Scholar

²² Another key Canadian involved in the episode was Sir John Rose, the Anglo-American businessman and sometime Canadian minister of finance. Rose developed the proposal for the Joint High Commission and the appropriate method by which the United States should approach Great Britain at a dinner with US Secretary of State Hamilton Fish and his assistant secretary, J Bancroft Davies, on 9 January 1871. Moore, supra note 21 at 507–36. To the regret of both sides, he declined to serve on the commission, principally due to his fear of being seen — through his wife, friends, and other business connections — as being partial to the United States. Cook, supra note 21 at 170–71.

²³ Cook, supra note 21 at 171–72. See also Conrad, Margaret, A Concise History of Canada (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012) at 152–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁴ See Anonymous, “The Late C. J. Doherty, P.C., K.C., D.C.L.” (1931) 9 Can Bar Rev 538.Google Scholar

²⁵ Treaty of Versailles, 28 June 1919, 225 CTS 188.

²⁶ See Read, John E, “The World Court and the Years to Come” (1964) 2 Can YB Int’l L 164.Google Scholar Read’s election came at the expense of Sir Kenneth Bailey, one of the greatest Australian international lawyers of the twentieth century: Crawford, James, “‘Dreamers of the Day’: Australia and the International Court of Justice” (2013) 14 MJIL 520 at 526–27.Google Scholar For a generous tribute, see McWhinney, Edward, “In Memoriam: Sir Kenneth Bailey” (1972) 10 Can YB Int’l L 284.Google Scholar

²⁷ Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 4 November 1950, 213 UNTS 222 (as amended).

²⁸ See online: <http://www.icj-cij.org/jurisdiction/index.php?p1=5&p2=1&p3=3&code=CA>; Statute of the International Court of Justice, 26 June 1945, Can TS 1945 No 7 (in force 24 October 1945) [ICJ Statute].

²⁹ Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/US), [1984] ICJ Rep 246; Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v Canada), Preliminary Objections, [1998] ICJ Rep 432; Legality of the Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v Canada), Preliminary Objections, [2004] ICJ Rep 429.

³⁰ Conditions of Admission of a State to Membership of the United Nations (Article 4 of the Charter), [1948] ICJ Rep 57; Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, [1950] ICJ Rep 65; Effect of Awards of Compensation made by the United Nations Administrative Tribunal, [1954] ICJ Rep 47; Certain Expenses of the United Nations (Article 17, paragraph 2 of the Charter), [1962] ICJ Rep 151; Applicability of Article VI, Section 22, of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, [1969] ICJ Rep 177; Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, [2004] ICJ Rep 136.

³¹ See eg European Communities – Measures Prohibiting the Importation and Marketing of Seal Products, WTO Doc No WT/DS400/AB/R, WT/DS401/AB/R (Appellate Body, 22 May 2014). See further Elizabeth Whitsitt, “A Comment on the Public Morals Exception in International Trade and the EC – Seal Products Case: Moral Imperialism and Other Concerns” (2014) 3 CJICL 1372.

³² See eg SD Myers Inc v Canada, Award (2000) 121 ILR 72 (NAFTA) [SD Myers award]; SD Myers Inc v Canada, Costs (2002) 126 ILR 161 (NAFTA) [SD Myers costs]; Attorney-General of Canada v SD Myers Inc (2004) 126 ILR 553 (Federal Court of Canada).

³³ Delimitation of Maritime Areas Between Canada and the French Republic (St. Pierre and Miquelon) (Canada/France) (1992) 95 ILR 645.

³⁴ North American Free Trade Agreement, 18 December 1992, 32 ILM 289 at 605.

³⁵ United Parcel Service of America v Government of Canada (2007) 46 ILM 922; Merrill & Ring Forestry LP v Government of Canada, UNCITRAL/NAFTA (Award, 31 March 2010); Chemtura Corporation v Government of Canada, UNCITRAL/NAFTA (Award, 2 August 2010); Melvin J Howard, Centurion Heath Corporation & Howard Family Trust, PCA Case no 2009-21 (Order for the Termination of Proceedings and Award on Costs, 2 August 2010); Vito G Gallo v Government of Canada, UNCITRAL/NAFTA (Award, 15 September 2011).

³⁶ AbitibiBowaterInc v Government of Canada, ICSID Case no UNCT/10/1 (Consent Award, 15 December 2010); St Marys VCNA LLC v Government of Canada, UNCITRAL/NAFTA (Consent Award, 12 April 2013).

³⁷ Ethyl Corporation v Government of Canada, UNCITRAL/NAFTA (Award on Jurisdiction, 24 June 1998); Dow Agrosciences LLC v Government of Canada, UNCITRAL/NAFTA (Settlement Agreement, 25 May 2011), online: UNCITRAL <http://www.uncitral.org/res/transparency-registry/registry/data/can/dow_agrosciences_llc_html/dow-03.pdf>.

³⁸ Pope & Talbot v Government of Canada, Award (2001) 122 ILR 294; Pope & Talbot v Government of Canada, Costs (2002) 126 ILR 127.

³⁹ SD Myers award, supra note 32; SD Myers costs, supra note 32.

⁴⁰ See online: DFATD <http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/topics-domaines/disp-diff/gov.aspx?lang=eng>. The two cases pending quantification are Mobil Investments Canada Inc & Murphy Oil Corporation, ICSID Case no ARB(AF)/07/4 (Decision on Liability and Principles of Quantum, 22 May 2012) and William Ralph Clayton, William Richard Clayton, Douglas Clayton, Daniel Clayton and Bilcon of Delaware Inc, PCA Case no 2009-04 (Award on Jurisdiction and Liability, 17 March 2015).

⁴¹ See online: WTO <https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/countries_e/canada_e.htm>.

⁴² Other states against which Canada has been pitted include Brazil (one case as complainant, three as respondent), Japan (one case as complainant, two as respondent), China (three cases as complainant), South Korea (two cases as complainant), Taiwan (one case as respondent), India (one case as complainant), Australia (one case as complainant), Hungary (one case as complainant), and New Zealand (one case as respondent).

⁴³ Australia – Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon, WTO Doc WT/DS18/AB/R (Appellate Body Report, 20 October 1998).

⁴⁴ Brazil – Export Financing Programme for Aircraft, WTO Doc WT/DS46/AB/R (Appellate Body Report, 2 August 1999). Cf Canada – Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft, WTO Doc WT/DS70/AB/R (Appellate Body Report, 2 August 1999); Canada – Aircraft Credits and Guarantees, WTO Doc WT/DS222/R (Panel Report, 28 January 2002).

⁴⁵ United States – Certain Country of Origin Labelling (COOL) Requirements, WTO Doc WT/DS384/AB/R (Appellate Body Report, 29 June 2012).

⁴⁶ United States – Measures Treating Export Restraints as Subsidies, WTO Doc WT/DS194/R (Panel Report, 29 June 2001); United States – Preliminary Determinations with Respect to Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada, WTO Doc WT/DS236/R (Panel Report, 27 September 2002); United States – Final Countervailing Duty Determination with Respect to Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada, WTO Doc WT/DS257/AB/R (Appellate Body Report, 19 January 2004); United States – Investigation of the International Trade Commission in Softwood Lumber from Canada, WTO Doc WT/DS277/R (Panel Report, 22 March 2004); United States – Final Dumping Determination on Softwood Lumber from Canada, WTO Doc WT/DS264/AB/R (Appellate Body Report, 11 August 2004). See further Gagné, Gilbert & Roch, François, “The US–Canada Softwood Lumber Dispute and the WTO Definition of Subsidy” (2008) 7 WTR 547.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Cf Softwood Lumber Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America, 12 September 2006, Can TS 2006 No 23; Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America Extending the Softwood Lumber Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America, 23 January 2012, Can TS 2012 No 9. See further Hasselback, Drew, “The Granddaddy of All Canadian–US Trade Disputes Is About to Rear Its Ugly Head Again,” Financial Post (31 October 2014), online: Financial Post <http://business.financialpost.com/news/economy/the-granddaddy-of-all-canadian-u-s-trade-disputes-is-about-to-rear-its-ugly-head-again>.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ LaForest, Cf GV, “The Expanding Role of the Supreme Court of Canada in International Law Issues” (1996) 34 Can YB Int’l L 89;Google Scholar Brunnée, Jutta & Toope, Stephen J, “A Hesitant Embrace: The Application of International Law by Canadian Courts” (2002) 40 Can YB Int’l L 3.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ In re the Ownership and Jurisdiction Over Offshore Mineral Rights (1967), 65 DLR (2d) 353, 43 ILR 93 (SCC); Reference re the Seabed and Subsoil of the Continental Shelf Offshore Newfoundland (1984), 5 DLR (4th) 385, 86 ILR 593 (SCC). See further Head, IL, “The Canadian Offshore Minerals Reference” (1968) 18 UTLJ 131;Google Scholar Caplan, N, “Issues of the Offshore Mineral Rights Dispute in Canada” (1968) 14 McGill LJ 475;Google Scholar Miles, Cameron A, “The Franconia Sails On: Revisiting the Intellectual History of the Territorial Sea in the United States, Canada and Australia” (2014) 13 OUCLJ 347.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Bouzari v Islamic Republic of Iran, [2002] OJ No 1624 (QL), 124 ILR 427, aff’d (2004) 71 OR (3d) 675 (CA) (leave to appeal dismissed, [2005] 1 SCR vi). See further Larocque, François, “Bouzani v Iran: Testing the Limits of State Immunity in Canadian Courts” (2003) 41 Can YB Int’l L 343;Google Scholar Novogrodsky, Noah Benjamin, “Immunity for Torture: Lessons from Bouzari v Iran” (2008) 18 EJIL 939.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v Italy; Greece intervening), [2012] ICJ Rep 99 at 137.

⁵² Re Reference by the Governor in Council Concerning Certain Questions Relating to the Secession of Quebec from Canada (1998), 161 DLR (4th) 385, 115 ILR 536 (SCC) [Quebec Secession]. See further Turp, Daniel & van Ert, Gibran, “International Recognition of the Supreme Court of Canada’s Québec Reference” (1998) 36 Can YB Int’l L 335;Google Scholar Crawford, James, The Creation of States in International Law, 2nd ed (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006) at 119–21, 411–12;Google Scholar Crawford, James, Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law, 8th ed (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012) at 141–42 [Crawford, Brownlie’s Principles].CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵³ Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, [2010] ICJ Rep 403 at 425–26.

⁵⁴ Samuel Johnson, Johnson’s Dictionary (reissue, Charles J. Hendee 1836) at 143.

⁵⁵ See eg Johnson’s definitions for “fraternal” (“a. brotherly, becoming brothers”), “fraternize” (“v. n. to agree as brothers”), and “fratricide” (“s. the murder of a brother”). Ibid.

⁵⁶ See generally Taussig, Gurion, “Fraternity” in Murray, CJ, ed, Encyclopedia of the Romantic Era, 1760–1850, vol 1 (London: Routledge, 2013) 381.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Baker, Felicity, “Rousseau’s Oath and Revolutionary Fraternity: 1789 and Today” (1991) 38 Romance Quarterly 273 at 276.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Taussig, supra note 56 at 381.

⁵⁹ See generally Gonthier, “Fraternity,” supra note 2 at 576–89.

⁶⁰ Ibid at 575. Cf Donoghue v Stevenson, [1932] AC 562 at 580 (HL), Lord Atkin: “In this way rules of law arise which limit the range of complainants and the extent of their remedy. The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law, you must not injure your neighbour; and the lawyer’s question, Who is my neighbour? receives a restricted reply.”

⁶¹ See further Geiß, Robin & Hilf, Meinhard, “Most Favoured Nation Clause” in Wolfrum, R, ed, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, online ed (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014).Google Scholar

⁶² Gonthier, “Law and Morality,” supra note 2 at 420–22. See eg International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 19 December 1966, 999 UNTS 171, preamble i: “Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.”

⁶³ This is drawn by no obvious reference to geographic circumstances, but rather represents the point north of which the sun may remain above or below the horizon for 24 hours continuously. As it depends on the Earth’s axial tilt, the Arctic Circle has the potential to move over time. This may also vary domestically: the United States, for example, designates the Bering Sea and a portion of Alaska (eg, the Aleutians) below the Arctic Circle as being considered “the Arctic” for internal policy purposes. “‘Arctic’ Defined,” 15 USC § 4111. Canada, for its part, draws the line at 60°N. Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, RSC 1985, c A-12, s 2.

⁶⁴ See further Byers, Michael, International Law and the Arctic (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013) at 22–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶⁵ Cf Treaty Concerning Spitsbergen, 9 February 1920, 2 LNTS 8. See further Byers, supra note 64 at 16–22.

⁶⁶ United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 10 December 1982, 1833 UNTS 3, art 136 [UNCLOS].

⁶⁷ US Geological Survey, “90 Billion Barrels of Oil and 1,670 Trillion Cubic Feet of Natural Gas Assessed in the Arctic,” Press Release (23 July 2008), online: <http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1980#.VUdYxhPF-iY>; Donald L Gautier et al, “Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and Gas in the Arctic” (2009) 324 Science 1175.

⁶⁸ See eg Borgerson, Scott G, “Arctic Meltdown: The Economic and Security Implications of Global Warming” (2007) 87 Foreign Affairs 63;Google Scholar but Borgerson, cf Scott G, “The Coming Arctic Boom: As the Ice Melts, the Region Heats Up” (2013) 92 Foreign Affairs 76.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Chivers, CJ, “Russians Plant Flag on Arctic Seabed,” New York Times (3 August 2007), online: New York Times <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/03/world/europe/03arctic.html>.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ See further Howson, Nicolas C, “Breaking the Ice: The Canadian–American Dispute over the Arctic’s Northwest Passage” (1987–88) 26 Columbia JTL 337;Google Scholar Rothwell, Donald R, “The Canadian–US Northwest Passage Dispute: A Reassessment” (1993) 26 Cornell ILJ 331;Google Scholar Pharand, Donat, “The Arctic Waters and the Northwest Passage: A Final Revisit” (2007) 38 ODIL 3; Byers, supra note 64, ch 3.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Struck, Doug, “Dispute over NW Passage Revived,” Washington Post (6 November 2006), online: Washington Post <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/05/AR2006110500286.html>;Google Scholar “U.S. Sub May Have Toured Canadian Arctic Zone,” National Post (19 December 2005), online: National Post <http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=fb21432a-1d28-415e-b323-ceb22d477732&k=69493>.

⁷² Byers, supra note 64 at 10–15.

⁷³ Antarctic Treaty, 1 December 1959, 402 UNTS 71. The most significant documents surrounding this regime can be found in Saul, Ben & Stephens, Tim, eds, Antarctica in International Law (Oxford: Hart, 2015).Google Scholar See further Crawford, James, “The Antarctic Treaty after 50 Years” in French, D et al, eds, International Law and Dispute Settlement: New Problems and Techniques (Oxford: Hart, 2010) 271;Google Scholar Crawford, Brownlie’s Principles, supra note 52 at 345–46.

⁷⁴ See eg “US Directive on Arctic Policy,” 9 January 2009, 48 ILM 374, para III.C.3.

⁷⁵ Ilulissat Declaration, 28 May 2008, 48 ILM 362.

⁷⁶ “US Directive on Arctic Policy,” supra note 74, para III.C.4.

⁷⁷ See eg United States v Alaska, 503 US 568 at 588 (1992); Sarei v Rio Tinto PLC, 456 F.3d 1069 at 1078 (9^th Cir, 2006). The United States is a party to the 1958 Geneva conventions, the predecessor agreements to UNCLOS, supra note 66: Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, 29 April 1958, 516 UNTS 205 (entered into force 10 September 1964); Convention on the Continental Shelf, 29 April 1958, 499 UNTS 311 (entered into force 10 June 1964); Convention on the High Seas, 29 April 1958, 450 UNTS 11 (entered into force 30 September 1962); Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas, 29 April 1958, 559 UNTS 285 (entered into force 20 March 1966).

⁷⁸ Byers, supra note 46, ch 2.

⁷⁹ Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark Relating to the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Greenland and Canada, 17 December 1973, 950 UNTS 151. This arrangement left to one side the question of Hans Island, though certain commentators are of the view that this question will be shortly settled. Byers, supra note 46 at 15–16.

⁸⁰ Agreement between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Maritime Boundary, 1 June 1990, 29 ILM 942. The boundary itself is based on the line described in the 1867 agreement that implemented the purchase of Alaska by the United States. Treaty Concerning the Cession of the Russian Possessions in North America by his Majesty the Emperor of All the Russias to the United States of America, 30 March 1867, 134 CTS 332, art 1.

⁸¹ Agreement between the Government of the Kingdom of Norway on the One Hand, and the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark together with the Home Rule Government of Greenland on the Other Hand, Concerning the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf and the Fisheries Zones in the Area between Greenland and Svalbard, 20 February 2006, 2378 UNTS 21. See further Oude Elferink, Alex G, “Maritime Delimitation between Denmark/Greenland and Norway” (2007) 38 ODIL 375.Google Scholar

⁸² Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen (Denmark v Norway), [1993] ICJ Rep 38.

⁸³ Treaty between the Kingdom of Norway and the Russian Federation concerning Maritime Delimitation and Cooperation in the Barents Sea and the Arctic Ocean, 15 September 2010, 50 ILM 1113 [Barents Sea Treaty]. See further Hendriksen, Tore & Ulfstein, Geir, “Maritime Delimitation in the Arctic: The Barents Sea Treaty” (2011) 42 ODIL 1; Byers, supra note 46 at 39–46.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Agreement between Norway and the Soviet Union on a Temporary Practical Arrangement for Fishing in an Adjacent Area in the Barents Sea, 11 January 1978, Overenskomster med Fremmede Stater 436. Further agreements between Norway and the Soviet Union/Russia concerning the Varangerfjord area were also concluded in 1957 and 2007. Hendriksen & Ulfstein, supra note 83 at 2–4.

⁸⁵ Sergei Lavrov & Jonas Gahr Støre, “Canada, Take Note: Here’s How to Resolve Maritime Disputes,” Globe and Mail (21 September 2010), online: Globe and Mail <http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/canada-take-note-heres-how-to-resolve-maritime-disputes/article4326372/>.

⁸⁶ Cf Rio Declaration on the Environment and Development, 14 June 1992, 31 ILM 974, Principle 15: “Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.” See further Trindade, Antônio Augusto Cançado, “Principle 15: Precaution” in Viñuales, J, ed, The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development: A Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015) 403.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Barents Sea Treaty, supra note 83, art 4.

⁸⁸ Ibid, art 5.

⁸⁹ Ibid, preamble, para 4.

⁹⁰ Hendriksen & Ulfstein, supra note 83 at 10.

⁹¹ This leaves to one side the comparatively minor disputes between Canada and Denmark concerning Hans Island and the Lincoln Sea, which in any event appear to be close to resolution. Byers, supra note 46 at 46–54.

⁹² Cf North Sea Continental Shelf (FRG/Netherlands; FRG/Denmark), [1969] ICJ Rep 3 at 22; Continental Shelf (Libya/Malta), [1985] ICJ Rep 13 at 32. See further Churchill, Robin & Lowe, Vaughan, The Law of the Sea, 3rd ed (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1999) at 145–50;Google Scholar Crawford, Brownlie’s Principles, supra note 52 at 291–92.

⁹³ UNCLOS, supra note 66, art 76(8). On the work of the commission and the concept of the outer continental shelf more generally, see Jensen, Øystein, The Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf: Law and Legitimacy (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹⁴ See further McDorman, Ted L, “The Role of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf: A Technical Body in a Political World” (2002) 17 IJMCL 301;Google Scholar Rothwell, Donald R & Stephens, Tim, The International Law of the Sea (Oxford: Hart, 2010) at 111–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Kunoy, Cf Bjørn, “The Terms of Reference of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf: A Creeping Legal Mandate” (2012) 25 LJIL 109.Google Scholar A snapshot of the commission’s work to date (current as at 25 April 2015) can be found online: UN <http://www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/commission_submissions.htm>.

⁹⁵ See online: UN <http://www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/submission_can_70_2013.htm>.

⁹⁶ A diverse group of US lawmakers has urged ratification for this very reason. See eg Letter from Governors Palin & O’Malley to Senators Reid, McConnell, Kerry & Lugar, 15 June 2009, online: <http://www.oceanlaw.org/downloads/NGA_Letter_to_Senate_June2009.pdf>.

⁹⁷ Sian Griffiths, “US–Canada Arctic Border Dispute Key to Maritime Riches,” BBC News (2 August 2010), online: BBC <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10834006>.

⁹⁸ “Russia Plants Flag under N Pole,” BBC News (2 August 2007), online: BBC <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6927395.stm>.

⁹⁹ Bloom, Evan T, “Introductory Note to the United States Directive on Arctic Policy and the Ilulissat Declaration” (2009) 48 ILM 370 at 372.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Declaration on the Establishment of the Arctic Council, 19 September 1996, 35 ILM 1387. See further Bloom, Evan T, “Establishment of the Arctic Council” (1999) 93 AJIL 712.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ See the Iqaluit Declaration, 19 September 1998, online: Arctic Council <http://www.arctic-council.org/index.php/en/document-archive/category/5-declarations?download=19:iqaluit-declaration-1998>.

¹⁰² Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy, 14 January 1991, 30 ILM 1624.

¹⁰³ But cf Bloom, supra note 100 at 715–16. See further Sands & Jacqueline Peel, Philippe, Principles of International Environmental Law, 3rd ed (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012) at 593–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁰⁴ On issues pertaining to indigenous peoples and the Arctic more generally, see Byers, supra note 46, ch 7.

¹⁰⁵ Bloom, supra note 100 at 716–17.

¹⁰⁶ See generally Koivurova, Timo & Vanderzwaag, David L, “The Arctic Council at 10 Years: Retrospect and Prospects” (2007) 40 UBCLR 121.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ The University of the Arctic is a circumpolar cooperative network consisting of universities, colleges, and other organizations with an interest in promoting education and research in the deep north. It currently has 170 member institutions crossing twenty-four time zones. See online: University of the Arctic <http://www.uarctic.org/>.

¹⁰⁸ The council’s achievements during its most recent (Canadian-chaired) biennial are listed in the Iqaluit Declaration of 25 April 2015, signed during the Council’s ninth ministerial meeting. See online: Arctic Council <http://www.arctic-council.org/index.php/en/document-archive/category/604-declaration-sao-report?download=2740:iqaluit-declaration-final-signed-version>.

¹⁰⁹ Agreement on Cooperation on Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue in the Arctic, 12 May 2011, 50 ILM 1119.

¹¹⁰ Convention on International Civil Aviation, 7 December 1944, 15 UNTS 102.

¹¹¹ International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue, 1 November 1979, 1405 UNTS 97.

¹¹² Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Cooperation, 30 November 1990, 1891 UNTS 51.

¹¹³ Byers, supra note 46 at 212.

¹¹⁴ See eg Editorial, “Thawing Ice and Chilly Diplomacy in the Arctic,” New York Times (27 April 2015), online: New York Times <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/28/opinion/thawing-ice-and-chilly-diplomacy-in-the-arctic.html?_r=1>..>Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ Byers, supra note 46 at 5.

¹¹⁶ Lauterpacht, Hersch, “Règles générales du droit de la paix” in Lauterpacht, E, ed, International Law, Being the Collected Papers of Hersch Lauterpacht, vol 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970) 308.Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ See generally Capps, Patrick, “Lauterpacht’s Method” (2012) 82 BYIL 248.Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ See most notably Lauterpacht, Hersch, Recognition in International Law, reissued ed (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013).Google Scholar On the success of that project, see Crawford, James, “Recognition in International Law: An Introduction to the Paperback Edition 2013” in ibid, xxi.Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ Oppenheim, Lassa, International Law, A Treatise, vol 1: Peace, 2d ed (London: Longmans, Green & Co, 1912) at 16–19.Google Scholar

¹²⁰ Lowe, Vaughan, International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007) at 241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹²¹ SS Lotus (Turkey v France) (1927), PCIJ Ser A No 9, 18.

¹²² Lowe, supra note 120, ch 7.

¹²³ Behring Sea Fur Seals (US/UK) (1893), 28 RIAA 263.

¹²⁴ Ibid at 270–72.

¹²⁵ Convention between the United States, Great Britain, Russia and Japan for the Preservation and Protection of Fur Seals, 7 July 1911, 214 CTS 80 (as amended). See further Scott Barrett, Environment and Statecraft: The Strategy of Environmental Treaty-Making (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), ch 2.

¹²⁶ Trail Smelter (US v Canada) (1938, 1941), 3 RIAA 1905.

¹²⁷ Ibid at 1965.

¹²⁸ See now “Articles on the Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous Activities” [2001] 2(2) ILC Ybk 148. See further Hanqin, Xue, Transboundary Damage in International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003).Google Scholar

¹²⁹ Lowe, supra note 120 at 243–50. On the protection of marine living resources in particular, see Sands & Peel, supra note 103 at 396ff.

¹³⁰ Guilfoyle, Douglas, Shipping Interdiction and the Law of the Sea (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009) at 100–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹³¹ See eg US Presidential Proclamation No 5030, Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States of America, 10 March 1983, 48 FR 10605: “Within the Exclusive Economic Zone, the United States has, to the extent permitted by international law … sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring, exploiting, conserving and managing natural resources, both living and non-living, of the seabed and subsoil and the superjacent waters and with regard to other activities for the economic exploitation and exploration of the zone, such as the production of energy from the water, currents and winds” (emphasis added).

¹³² Lowe, supra note 120 at 256.

¹³³ Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, supra note 86. On the historical background of the Declaration, see Viñuales, Jorge, “The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development: A Preliminary Study” in Viñuales, supra note 86, 2 at 3–13.Google Scholar

¹³⁴ Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, supra note 86.

¹³⁵ See further Barral, Virginie & Dupuy, Pierre-Marie, “Principle 14: Sustainable Development through Integration” in Viñuales, supra note 86, 157;Google Scholar Cordonier-Segger, Marie-Claire & Khalfan, Ashfaq, eds, Sustainable Development Law: Principles, Practices and Prospects (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹³⁶ Gonthier, “Sustainable Development,” supra note 2 at 11–12.

¹³⁷ Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia), [1997] ICJ Rep 7 at 78: “Owing to new scientific insights and to a growing awareness of the risks for mankind—for present and future generations—of pursuit of such interventions at an unconsidered and unabated pace, new norms and standards have been developed, set forth in a great number of instruments during the last two decades. Such new norms have to be taken into consideration, and such new standards given proper weight, not only when States contemplate new activities but also when continuing with activities begun in the past. This need to reconcile economic development with protection of the environment is aptly expressed in the concept of sustainable development.”

¹³⁸ Lowe, Vaughan, “Sustainable Development and Unsustainable Arguments” in Boyle, A & Freestone, D, eds, International Law and Sustainable Development: Past Achievements and Future Challenges (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999) 19 at 20–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹³⁹ See eg Sands & Peel, supra note 103 at 206ff.

¹⁴⁰ Silver, Nate, The Signal and the Noise: The Art and Science of Prediction (London: Penguin, 2013).Google Scholar

¹⁴¹ Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay), [2010] ICJ Rep 14 at 74–75.

¹⁴² Lowe, supra note 137 at 36. See also Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros, supra note 137 at 88ff (Vice-President Weeramantry, separate opinion).

¹⁴³ Canada–EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, online: <http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2014/september/tradoc_152806.pdf>.

¹⁴⁴ Ibid, c 23.

¹⁴⁵ Ibid, preamble, para 4: “REAFFIRMING their commitment to promote sustainable development and the development of international trade in such a way as to contribute to sustainable development in its economic, social and environmental dimensions.”

¹⁴⁶ Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 23 May 1969, 1155 UNTS 331.

¹⁴⁷ References to sustainable development also appear in the preambles to NAFTA and the Canadian Model Foreign Investment Protection Agreement. See further Gehring, Markus W & Kent, Avidan, “International Investment Agreements and the Emerging Green Economy: Rising to the Challenge” in Baetens, F, ed, Investment Law within International Law: Integrationist Perspectives (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013) 187 at 202–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁴⁸ Cf Sands & Peel, supra note 103 at 274ff. See further Giddens, Anthony, The Politics of Climate Change, 2nd ed (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2011).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁹ United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 9 May 1992, 1771 UNTS 902.

¹⁵⁰ Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 11 December 1997, 2303 UNTS 162.

¹⁵¹ See eg Bodansky, 2010 Bodansky, Daniel, “The Copenhagen Climate Change Conference: A Postmortem” (2010) 104 AJIL 230;Google Scholar Cantley-Smith, Rowena, “Climate Change and the Copenhagen Legacy: Where to from Here?” (2010) 36 Monash LR 278;Google Scholar Rajamani, Lavanya, “The Making and Unmaking of the Copenhagen Accord” (2010) 59 ICLQ 824.Google Scholar

¹⁵² Eg the enhanced reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) initiative, which was the subject of relative consensus at Copenhagen. Sands & Peel, supra note 103 at 295–96.

¹⁵³ See generally Burns, William CG & Osofsky, Hari M, eds, Adjudicating Climate Change: State, National and International Approaches (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009);CrossRefGoogle Scholar Peel, Jacqueline & Osofsky, Hari M, Climate Change Litigation: Regulatory Pathways to Cleaner Energy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁵⁴ Ibid at 37–52.

¹⁵⁵ Somerset v Stewart (1772), 98 ER 499 (KB); see also Gregson v Gilbert (1783), 99 ER 629 (KB). For the legal background to Somerset, see Bingham, Tom, Lives of the Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011) at 221–38.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁶ Brown v Board of Education of Topeka, 347 US 483 (1954).

¹⁵⁷ Plessy v Ferguson, 163 US 537 (1896).

¹⁵⁸ Quebec Secession, supra note 52 at 575.

¹⁵⁹ Cf Agreement between the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government on a Referendum for Independence in Scotland, 15 October 2012, para 5, online: <http://www.gov.scot/resource/0040/00404789.pdf>. “The Scottish Independence Movement Learned from Quebec’s Failed Votes for Separation,” Public Radio International (16 September 2014), online: PRI <http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-09-16/scottish-independence-movement-learned-quebecs-failed-votes-separation>. See more generally Mark D Walters, “Nationalism and the Pathology of Legal Systems: Considering the Quebec Secession Reference and Its Lessons for the United Kingdom” (1999) 62 Modern LR 371.

¹⁶⁰ Massachusetts v Environmental Protection Agency, 549 US 497 (2007). See further Markell, David & Ruhl, JB, “An Empirical Assessment of Climate Change in the Courts: A New Jurisprudence or Business as Usual?” (2012) 64 Fla LJ 15.Google Scholar

¹⁶¹ Dred Scott v Sandford, 60 US 393 (1857).

¹⁶² See further Osofsky, Hari M, “Inuit Petition as a Bridge? Beyond Dialectics of Climate Change and Indigenous People” (2006–07) 31 Am Ind LR 675.Google Scholar On climate change and human rights more generally, see Bodansky, Daniel, “Climate Change and Human Rights: Unpacking the Issues” (2010) Ga JICL 511.Google Scholar

¹⁶³ See further Andrew Strauss, “Climate Change Litigation: Opening the Door to the International Court of Justice” in Burns & Osofsky, supra note 153 at 334.

¹⁶⁴ ICJ Statute, supra note 28, art 36(1).

¹⁶⁵ Ibid, art 64. Eg, the UN General Assembly. See eg Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, [1996] ICJ Rep 226; cf Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict, [1996] ICJ Rep 66. See further Kolb, Robert, The International Court of Justice (Oxford: Hart, 2013), ch VIII.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁶ Harrison, James, Making the Law of the Sea: A Study in the Development of International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011) at 44–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁶⁷ UNCLOS, supra note 66, art 297(1)(c). Klein, Cf Natalie, Dispute Settlement in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005) at 148–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁶⁸ Concerns of a similar nature were raised in the MOX Plant case, although this was ultimately not the subject of adjudication under UNCLOS. MOX Plant (Ireland v UK), Provisional Measures (2001), 126 ILR 260 (ITLOS); MOX Plant (Ireland v UK) (2003), 126 ILR 310 (Annex VII).

¹⁶⁹ See further Sands & Peel, supra note 3 at 808ff.

¹⁷⁰ Canada – Certain Measures Affecting the Renewable Energy General Sector; Canada – Measures Relating to the Feed-in Tariff Program, WT/DS412/AB/R, WT/DS426/AB/R (Appellate Body Report, 6 May 2013). See further Shadikhovjaev, Sherzod, “First WTO Judicial Review of Climate Change Subsidy Issues” (2013) 107 AJIL 864.Google Scholar

¹⁷¹ General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 30 October 1947, 55 UNTS 194.

¹⁷² United States – Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, WT/DS2/AB/R (Appellate Body Report, 26 April 1996) at 634.

¹⁷³ United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, WT/DS58/AB/R (Appellate Body Report, 12 October 1998) at paras 164ff.

¹⁷⁴ But Keynes, cf JM, A Tract on Monetary Reform (London: Macmillan, 1923) at 79–80.Google Scholar See further Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC (2015), online: IPCC <http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/>.

¹⁷⁵ Gonthier, “Sustainable Development,” supra note 2 at 13.