Assuming states act in a certain way under the belief that what they are doing is legal or legally required and other states do not object or allow the state to act that way , could this be evidence of subsequent agreement in the context of treaty interpretation or customary international law

Peace talks over Ukraine, Palestine and Iran raise different legal questions. Sovereignty and occupation are central to some; others focus on preventing renewed attacks, limiting military activities or securing navigation. A ceasefire can stop fighting without resolving the disputes behind it.

Suppose states agree to suspend hostilities, accept monitoring and arrange civilian access or commercial shipping, and a third state offers security assurances that help persuade the parties. Some underlying disputes stay unresolved. The legal question is what protection those commitments create if the ceasefire breaks down.

The first distinction is between a political assurance and a binding legal obligation. Calling something a “security guarantee” doesn’t establish what the guarantor must do: a commitment to consult differs from an obligation to assist, and neither necessarily requires military intervention. Wording, intention to create legal obligations and any conditions attached all matter.

Agreements also have to distinguish obligations to stop particular conduct from obligations to respond to another party’s breach. Monitoring can establish what happened without giving monitors the authority or resources to enforce compliance, and a mechanism for reporting violations isn’t necessarily a mechanism for protecting those exposed to them.

Where territory remains occupied, a ceasefire line needn’t become an international border. Occupation doesn’t itself transfer sovereignty, and Article 47 of the Fourth Geneva Convention protects protected persons against losing the Convention’s benefits through annexation or through agreements between the authorities of the occupied territory and the occupying power. A settlement involving Iran raises other issues, such as commitments on attacks, military restrictions and maritime passage.

Consent is another issue. Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that a treaty is void if its conclusion was procured by the threat or use of force in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the UN Charter. Negotiating during a war doesn’t by itself settle whether that rule applies.

These distinctions matter because an agreement can suspend fighting while leaving it unclear who owes protection, what triggers assistance and what response is legally required.

What provisions distinguish a ceasefire backed by binding obligations of protection from one that leaves the parties dependent on political assurances if fighting resumes?

Hi everyone! I'm really interested in studying international law, and I was wondering if anyone who only speaks English has studied it in a European country other than the UK.

I'd love to hear about your experiences and recommendations! Which European countries would you recommend for studying international law if you only speak English? Is it possible to complete a degree in international law in Europe without knowing another language?

Any advice or personal experiences would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! :D

USA routinely threatened and done a lot of things. Such as threatening withholding assessed contributions from UN , sanctioning ICC via visa restrictions , freezing assets ,restricting transactions , restricting services , creating risk for financial intermediaries.

I'm worried that America could get more radical like blockading permanent missions or removing the seat of the UN from the headquarters itself or worse given they already obstruct lawful operations.

Is there any actual practical or legal ways America could be challenged ?

Edit; https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-185762/?

Seems like they already did this to an extent loosely

The purposes are something that are of the organization itself and article 2 states

> The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

Which seems to imply that members are only required to act in accordance with article 2(except the CIL and peremptory norms codified) if they are pursuing those purposes.

The other obligations under article 104 and 105 likewise seem to only apply when member states decide to actually enable physical presence in the first instance. Is the security council decisions and the open ended article 56 the only functional obligations that states have under the charter ? And the requirement of registering their international agreements with the secretariat under article 105 ?

Edit; also just because vague or unclear provisions of the m charter is interpreted and applied a certain way , does that automatically means it's presumed to be legal ?

I have 4 years of experience Children's rights as a Researcher. I am planning to now pursue an LLM in the same domain from Leiden University but I am unsure about career prospects. Is such a niche masters helpful in someway to finds international jobs in the field or should I rather go for a International Human Rights Law focus LLM from Geneva or SOAS to broaden my prospects?

Thanks in advance :)

ECHR and ICCPR both have the right to liberty and security of person in the exact same wording however the European court of human rights came to a much different conclusion that the right to security only applies in detention

While human rights commitee extended the right to security to be much more general applying outside of detention and also a right that states have to protection from violation by non state actors. Why is that ? Is it because of the earlier date of the European convention (this wouldn't make sense given the "living instrument jurisprudence of the court")

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf/?TID=ihgdqbxnfi&filename=001-23879.pdf&id=001-23879&library=ECHR&utm

https://www.refworld.org/jurisprudence/caselaw/coecommhr/1970/en/94643

https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/786613?ln=en&v=pdf

Article 60 of the charter gives the general assembly and the ecosoc (under the GA's authority) to discharge the functions in chapter 9 including article 55 and given the powers of discussion of the assembly , it seems like the assembly has broad latitude to define human rights within the work of the UN but does this mean that the instruments developed so far such as the UDHR and DRTD are the primary meaning of human rights in the charter ? Which leaves these terms largely undefined

Suppose a state conducts a military operation that disrupts an international shipping route, and import-dependent countries face higher food and energy costs. Assume the conduct is attributable to the state and breaches an international obligation owed to a third state. The question here is which economic losses could be recoverable, not whether rising prices alone establish a violation.

Article 2 of the ILC Articles on State Responsibility covers attribution and breach, and Article 31 requires full reparation for the “injury caused by” the wrongful act. Establishing the breach doesn’t answer how closely the conduct must be connected to the losses claimed.

Market effects make that hard to assess. Shipping disruption can raise freight and insurance costs, but the final price of imported goods also reflects exchange rates, suppliers’ decisions, domestic policies and other disruptions happening at the same time.

The commentary to Article 31, paragraph 10, says the causal link required “is not necessarily the same in relation to every breach of an international obligation,” so the approach to causation and remoteness can depend on the obligation breached and the interests it protects. On that reading, not every later loss is recoverable, but transmission through markets would not by itself exclude a loss from reparation.

There’s also a difference between extra expenditure by a government and losses suffered by private importers or households. Who suffered the injury, and on what legal basis a state could seek reparation for it, matter as much as causation. Jurisdiction is a separate hurdle.

How should causation and remoteness be assessed when economic losses in a third state are transmitted through markets and have several contributing causes?

Quoting article 2(1)

> Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take steps, individually and through international assistance and co-operation, especially economic and technical, to the maximum of its available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the rights recognized in the present Covenant by all appropriate means, including particularly the adoption of legislative measures.

Does this imply that states which can afford to do so must have a universal healthcare system ?

Edit; is progressive realisation a measurable obligation ? And can things such as improving the economy to be able to afford those rights count as part of the obligation ?

• Sergey Vasiliev is Professor of International Law at Open University of the Netherlands.

• Triestino Mariniello is Professor of Law at Liverpool John Moores University in the UK. He is also Member of the Legal Team representing Gaza victims before the ICC.

From the general comments that I've read , the term seems to denote the classic meaning of "other" which means grounds identical to the explicitly mentioned ones , a lot of these have immutable nature while some of them like religion and opinion are not but is this likely to apply to every ground if human rights principles of universality are applied ?

Former UN Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, Michael Lynk, breaks down the 4 major international legal proceedings on Israel and Palestine at the ICJ and ICC. He describes how they are being used both to advance Palestinian rights and to prevent the erosion of international law, which he says is being shredded by Israel and the United States. This provides insight into why the US is sanctioning the courts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJa3GcsFRYg

Contestation is when member states frustrate the functioning of an IO such as through non participation in a quorum or refusal to provide necessary immunities and physical presence to perform their purposes and functions. Is other than peace and security problems , this legal ?

In particular in UN where it has a broad list of purposes in article 1(2) and 1(3)

I'm a member of a vulnerable community in my country and for a long period of time I depended on UN to continue and strengthen dialogue with my country on this issue because the civil society organizations In this place do not have the necessary support and are often targets by government. But recently I've felt extremely hopeless after finding out various things a state possibly can do such as the things I mentioned.

Assuming that the above mentioned things are considered legal , is this issue set in a stone in the sense that the strongest possible interpetation in their favor prevails without counter arguments ? I would be truly lying if I said i don't have a vested interest in this topic.

I emailed Robert Kolb on if good faith can prevent contestation within organs and he said

That could be, but I would not say that it is. In practice, States have always used the policy of the empty chair for diplomatic reasons. Thus, good faith obligations could hardly have hardened around such a policy. In other words, a contrary practice can expel certain potential candidates from the circle of good faith. In short, I would not give a positive answer to this limb.

This is possibly the final time I'm asking this , I know I've been persistent.

The Expert Panel unanimously found that the Accused has the capacity to understand the charges, understand the purpose and consequences of the proceedings, follow the course of the proceedings, including the nature and implications of entering a plea, understand the evidence, and instruct counsel in the preparation and conduct of his defence. 

I got an assignment. I was supposed to figure our an incident and i selected the incident of US torpedoed Iran IRIS dena. But now i have question because US is not on any treaties, does not accept compulsory jurisdiction or any other possible jurisdictional basis under ARTICLE 36 of the ICJ STATUTE. Can you guys explain it to me briefly what and how i should argue for the question of " Can Iran constitute proceedings against USA before the ICJ?"

Any help is much appreciated.