Editorial
Helin Laufer
Search for other papers by Helin Laufer in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
and
Liyu Feng
Search for other papers by Liyu Feng in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Full access

1 INTRODUCTION

It is our great pleasure to introduce Volume 13(1) of the Cambridge International Law Journal (CILJ).

Volume 13(1) showcases a diverse collection of contributions to academic scholarship in international law, focusing on fundamental aspects of international law, as well as delving into more specialist fields, such as international environmental law, international trade law and international investment law. From exploring matters relating to the conclusion and interpretation of international treaties, and analysing concepts relating to the international legal order as a whole, to evaluating the evolution and development of subfields of international law, this issue promises the usual academic breadth and quality to which our readership is accustomed. As ever, the first issue of our new volume includes an article based on the joint CILJ–Lauterpacht Centre for International Law (LCIL) Annual Lecture which took place on 27 October 2023 at the LCIL. The CILJ is grateful in this context to the LCIL for hosting the Annual Lecture once again, and to Professor Kathleen Claussen of Georgetown University who delivered her remarks on ‘Trade Law Policing on the Factory Floor: Next Generation Agreements and Their Corporate Accountability Tools’.1 Her remarks appear at the beginning of this issue.

2 OVERVIEW OF VOLUME 13(1)

Following her remarks at the CILJ–LCIL Annual Lecture, Professor Kathleen Claussen reignites the debate on the expansion of the scope of trade law through her article titled ‘Trade Law Policing on the Factory Floor: Next Generation Agreements and Their Corporate Accountability Tools’. Professor Claussen highlights the development of trade tools with an increased focus on corporate accountability within international trade agreements. Her piece scrutinises the turn toward ‘supply-chain policing’ within trade law and its wider legal and sociological effects. The author concludes that, whilst international trade law has traditionally been viewed as an institutional framework underpinned by State-to-State engagement, trade law is now being used against companies as well. As such, trade law has changed its disciplinary direction by essentially enabling the pursuit of corporate social responsibility and business and human-rights-related objectives as well.

Another outstanding and ground-breaking contribution is made by Monica Feria-Tinta whose article is titled ‘The Master Key to International Law: Systemic Integration in Climate Change Cases’. Ms Feria-Tinta provides the first scholarly examination of the function of systemic integration in the context of climate change litigation. The article explores how the principle of systemic integration operates in climate change cases, reflecting on the wider significance of the principle in international law. The article zooms in on the use of the principle in the Torres Strait Islanders case, which was the first international case on climate change to be adjudicated on its merits.2 This has resulted in a landmark decision which has set in motion a wave of further international climate-change-related cases. Our readers are especially privileged to be able to explore this case through the eminent analysis of Ms Feria-Tinta, who acted as counsel on the case.

The third long article in this issue is by José Rogelio Gutiérrez Álvarez. The piece sheds light on inconsistent propositions in the interpretation of treaties by States in different cases – a common issue in international disputes, and one of profound relevance. In this article, titled ‘The Weight of a State’s Past Stances on Treaty Interpretation – May Good Faith Play a Role?’, Mr Gutiérrez Álvarez presents a compelling proposition, advocating for the integration of the good faith principle in such scenarios. Based on an analysis of scholarly discussions on the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties,3 and an extensive consideration of relevant State practice and jurisprudence, Mr Gutiérrez Álvarez discusses the feasibility of relying on good faith, and argues that, while a State is entitled to change its views in interpreting a treaty as subsequent reflection or the development of international law may require, it should not be able to claim that one single rule indicates two different things simultaneously. This conclusion offers a fresh outlook on the principle of good faith, involving both theoretical and practical implications.

The next article in this issue considers the institutional framework of international law. Specifically, the multifaceted role of the United Nations Security Council (Security Council) in international affairs is paramount, yet under longstanding debate. In his article titled ‘Six Senses of the UN Security Council’s Interactions with the Concept of International Responsibility: Complicating to Contextualise’, Dr Ben Murphy seeks to systematise and theorise the function of the Security Council in relation to the concept of international responsibility. He delves into the threefold implications of ‘responsibility’: as authority, obligation and prudence. Applying this to the power and practice of the Security Council under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter,4 Dr Murphy argues that it can be conceived as involving six distinct senses of responsibility. The approach and perspective taken by the author not only enriches the understanding of the concept of international responsibility, but also prompts a re-evaluation of the Security Council’s pivotal role in the world order.

Further, Nina Hart’s article titled ‘European Sovereignty and Development of the International Legal Order: The EU’s Economic Security and Anti-Coercion Instrument’ examines the topical issue of the European Union’s (EU) stance in the tension between unilateralism and multilateralism. With an emphasis on the agenda of economic security, her article encompasses both historical retrospection and incisive scrutiny of unilateral trade instruments like the anti-coercion instrument.5 Ms Hart argues that ‘the EU’s acts of unilateralism do not denote a binary choice between supporting and undermining the multilateral legal order’.6 Moreover, such an inclination in fact has the potential to ‘positively reinforce the international legal order’.7

The next two articles in this issue consider another specialist field in international law, namely international investment law. The first piece considers the definition of the concept of an investor in international investment agreements (IIAs). This notion is the fundamental starting point for any legal application or analysis of IIAs, yet scholarly attention to this aspect of IIAs has been insufficient. In the article titled ‘Revisiting Different Definitions of “Investor” in International Investment Agreements: The Issue of Permanent Residents, Stateless Persons and Dual Nationals’, Kseniia Soloveva seeks to disentangle the difficulties in defining the concept of ‘investor’ by examining the differences of definitions in a myriad of IIAs. She argues meticulously that the definitions of investors vary in IIAs in several aspects, which comprise the inclusion in IIAs of permanent residents and Stateless persons as an alternative to nationals, permanent residency as an additional requirement to the possession of nationality, and the treatment of dual nationals. These criteria have been modified to manage the scope of protection offered by IIAs. In this vein, the author makes a valuable contribution to the consideration and interpretation of IIAs as dynamic instruments in an ever-changing international landscape.

The following long article, also on international investment law, is that of Dr Valentina Vadi, titled ‘In the Loop: Revaluing Public Health in International Investment Agreements’. Dr Vadi analyses States’ right to protect public health as enshrined in traditional and more recent IIAs at a crucially important time historically, following the COVID-19 pandemic, which has had a profound effect on this area of international law. The author explains comprehensively that, in recent years, States have gradually reaffirmed their right to take measures in the public interest, including in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, and analyses the most recent trends and practices in this space. Dr Vadi encourages arbitral tribunals to interpret reasonably and in good faith the provisions which refer to the protection of public health in international investment treaties. In this context, she argues convincingly that ‘[a] fitting construction of [such] provisions … represents an existential feature of international investment law’.8

The last long article in this issue is by Sir Daniel Bethlehem KC. Titled ‘Project 2100: Looking Back, Looking Forward. A 2020s Perspective on the International Legal Order’, this piece offers a panoramic perspective to the past, present and future of the international legal framework. Sir Daniel Bethlehem traces the making of the Atlantic Charter in 1941, the establishment of the United Nations in 1945, followed by the proliferation of various other institutions, exploring the development of the multilateral and constitutional world order over time. From the perspective of the present, he then outlines future scenarios for the development of the international legal order – through the lens of ‘Project 2100’, he explores how emerging powers like China and other developing States are reshaping the international landscape. Sir Daniel Bethlehem highlights the potential discordance between Chinese and Western conceptualisations of global governance. He then concludes with insightful remarks on the need for reform of certain aspects of the United Nations system. In addition, Sir Daniel Bethlehem highlights persuasively that ‘[t]here is a vacuum of visionary leadership at present’.9 He states that this needs to change, considering the ‘seismic challenges’ faced by the rules-based international system.10

To close the issue, the CILJ introduces two thought-provoking reviews of two recent outstanding books. The first book review, by Dr Panagiotis A Kyriakou, explores a book by Catharine Titi, titled The Parthenon Marbles and International Law.11 The book makes the case for the British Museum to return the Parthenon marbles, a collection of sculptures and structures from the Parthenon, to Greece. Dr Kyriakou provides a chapter-by-chapter overview of the book, and explores Titi’s legal analysis critically. Dr Kyriakou praises the book for its ‘immeasurable contribution’, and concludes that ‘Titi achieves a significant milestone in international legal scholarship, being the first author to consolidate and systematise the law on the return of illegally removed cultural property’.12

This issue concludes with a second book review, by Mr Hannepes Taychayev, of the book edited by Kiran Nasir Gore, Elijah Putilin, Kabir A N Duggal and Crina Baltag, titled International Investment Law and Investor–State Disputes in Central Asia: Emerging Issues.13 The book provides an insight into investor–State dispute settlement cases from the Central Asian region, and maps out emerging issues in the field. Taychayev observes that Central Asia has largely been neglected in academic scholarship relating to international investment law, and praises the book for filling a gap, and making an important academic contribution to the field. Taychayev then selects two out of 17 chapters in the book which he reviews in detail. He first analyses Chapter 11 by Hanno Wehland, titled ‘Procedural Rights: Access to Investor–State Arbitration in Cases Involving Central Asian States’, which explores States’ consent to arbitration and the procedural requirements necessary for investment protection. Second, he closely reviews Chapter 16, titled ‘Corruption and Fraud in Investor–State Arbitration: Central Asian Experience’, by Romesh Weeramantry and Clementine Packer to examine how investment arbitration tribunals have dealt with allegations of corruption and fraud in the past.

3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We extend our gratitude for the generous support of the team at Edward Elgar Publishing, notably Ben Booth and Nick Wilson. Moreover, this issue would not exist without the hard work of our 24 General Editors14 and six exceptional Managing Editors: Sebastian Aguirre, Marina Iskander, Anna John, Leonardo F Souza-McMurtrie, Marno Swart and Jonas Wieschollek. We are deeply grateful to them for putting this issue together so skilfully. Our junior treasurer, Tim Cochrane, handed over to Matt Jordan, and we extend our sincere gratitude to both for their support and professionalism. We are also grateful to our predecessors, the former Editors-in-Chief Rebecca Brown and Alina Papanastasiou who have guided and supported us in the transition into our new roles.

We also wish to extend our thanks to Professor Eyal Benvenisti, our Honorary Editor-in-Chief, and Dr Andrew Sanger, our Senior Treasurer, for their guidance and direction. We are also grateful to our Faculty Advisory Board, comprising Professor Catherine Barnard, Professor Jorge Viñuales and Dr Kate Miles, for their constant support of the CILJ.

Finally, we thank our Academic Review Board (ARB), who perform the crucial and fundamental process underpinning the CILJ, namely the double-blind peer review of articles. The much-valued members of the ARB have constantly responded to our requests for reviews with enthusiasm and unrivalled expertise, ensuring the high quality of the articles ultimately published by the CILJ. Many thanks for your dedication and support.

14 March 2024

  • 1

    Kathleen Claussen, ‘Trade Law Policing on the Factory Floor: Next Generation Agreements and Their Corporate Accountability Tools’ (LCIL, 28 October 2023) <https://www.lcil.cam.ac.uk/press/events/2023/10/friday-lecture-trade-law-policing-factory-floor-next-generation-agreements-and-their-corporate> accessed 10 March 2024.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Human Rights Committee, ‘Views Adopted by the Committee Under Article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, Concerning Communication No 3624/2019’ (27 June27 July 2022) UN Doc CCPR/C/135/D/3624/2019.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (adopted 23 May 1969, entered into force 27 January 1980) 1155 UNTS 331.

  • 4

    Charter of the United Nations (adopted 26 June 1945, entered into force 24 October 1945) 1 UNTS XVI.

  • 5

    Council Regulation (EU) 2023/2675 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 November 2023 on the Protection of the Union and its Member States from Economic Coercion by Third Countries [2023] OJ L1/23.

  • 6

    Hart Nina , '‘European Sovereignty and Development of the International Legal Order: The EU’s Economic Security and Anti-Coercion Instrument’ ' (2024 ) 13 (1 ) Cambridge International Law Journal : 83, 101.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Ibid 101.

  • 8

    Vadi Valentina , '‘In the Loop: Revaluing Public Health in International Investment Agreements’ ' (2024 ) 13 (1 ) Cambridge International Law Journal : 129, 153.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Bethlehem Daniel , '‘Project 2100: Looking Back, Looking Forward. A 2020s Perspective on the International Legal Order’ ' (2024 ) 13 (1 ) Cambridge International Law Journal : 154, 172.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Ibid 172.

  • 11

    Titi Catharine , The Parthenon Marbles and International Law , (Springer, Cham 2023 ).

  • 12

    Kyriakou Panagiotis A , '‘Book Review: Catharine Titi, The Parthenon Marbles and International Law (Springer, Cham 2023) 329 pp’ ' (2024 ) 13 (1 ) Cambridge International Law Journal : 173, 178.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Kiran Nasir Gore, Elijah Putilin, Kabir A N Duggal & Crina Baltag (eds), International Investment Law and Investor–State Disputes in Central Asia: Emerging Issues , (Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn 2022 ).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    A full list of our Editorial Board is available online:

    Cambridge International Law Journal, ‘Editorial Board’ (CILJ, October 2023) <https://cilj.co.uk/editors/> accessed 10 March 2024.