This chapter deals with individual criminal responsibility rather than state responsibility. A range of international criminal courts and tribunals are examined, from the Nuremberg Tribunal following the Second World War to the more recent International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals, which deals with matters remaining after the demise of these tribunals. The International Criminal Court is discussed in some detail and in terms of governing principles and organisation, with references to relevant case law. A number of hybrid courts and other internationalised domestic courts and tribunals are then referred to, including those concerning Sierra Leone, Cambodia, Kosovo, East Timor and Bosnia. The chapter proceeds to examine a series of international crimes, from genocide to war crimes, crimes against humanity and aggression. These crimes are analysed and discussed in the light of practice and case law, both in terms of definition and implementation.

This chapter selects two case studies to examine the presence of global experimentalist governance in ocean acidification governance: the Ocean Acidification Alliance and the International Maritime Organization. The selection distinguishes between ‘suitable’ institutions (addressing one OA activity) and those with ‘significant potential’ (addressing multiple activities within one concern or across concerns). Using a comprehensive table that maps actors and instruments, the chapter analyses how institutions address OA’s three concerns: causes (CO2, NOx/SOx), stressors (e.g., climate change, pollution, and fishing), and adaptation (blue carbon, marine protected areas, and fisheries management). Most institutions show significant potential by addressing concerns in depth and/or breadth. The OA Alliance was selected as the only institution explicitly focused on OA, addressing CO2 emissions and coastal activities. The IMO was chosen for its role in shipping emissions (both CO2 and NOx/SOx) and broader pollution control mandate. These cases differ in legalisation levels and institutional structure, providing diverse perspectives on experimentalist governance challenges. Both have significant potential and focus on CO2, the primary OA driver, making them ideal candidates for testing the implementation of global experimentalist governance.

This chapter analyses the International Maritime Organization (IMO) as a case study for global experimentalist governance in ocean acidification. Shipping significantly contributes to OA through CO2, NOx, and SOx emissions, along with scrubber discharge that releases acidic water directly into the oceans. The IMO regulates shipping but scarcely acknowledges OA, instead promoting scrubbers despite their harmful effects. The chapter assesses the IMO’s climate change response against experimentalist governance elements: (1) A shared problem exists – stakeholders agree climate change needs addressing; (2) Open-ended goals are present – the Revised GHG Strategy sets framework objectives like ‘reducing emissions as soon as possible’ with specific metrics; (3) Delegation occurs through National Action Plans (NAPs), where member states experiment with solutions; (4) Feedback and peer review are limited – only 9 of 175 countries submitted NAPs, with minimal systematic comparison or best practice identification; (5) Goal adjustment is possible through strategy reviews. A key limitation is that weak peer review and feedback mechanisms undermine recursive learning essential to experimentalist governance. While some experimentalist features exist, the IMO’s response only partially resembles this governance model, suggesting limited potential for addressing OA directly through experimentalist approaches.

Bieral’s enlistment in the US Navy during the Panic of 1837 marked his transition from urban rowdy to global adventurer. Serving aboard the U.S.S. Columbia, he participated in a diplomatic and punitive expedition across Asia and the Pacific, including a retaliatory assault on Sumatran villages. The chapter details the brutal discipline aboard naval vessels, highlighting the normalization of corporal punishment and racial integration among sailors. Bieral’s promotion and survival amid disease and violence underscore his resilience. The voyage exemplifies the intersection of nationalism, violence, and racial fluidity.

This chapter analyses the concept of jurisdiction, a central feature of territorial sovereignty. The principle of domestic jurisdiction is explained, followed by an examination of the various bases upon which criminal jurisdiction may be exercised by states under international law. The primary basis is the territorial principle, which clearly reflects the key principle of territorial sovereignty. However, jurisdiction may also be exercised on the grounds of nationality, a concept which is domestically defined but which may require international acceptance. Other grounds include the passive personality principle, the protective principle and the universality principle. In terms of the latter, examples may include war crimes and crimes against humanity. In addition, treaties may provide for jurisdiction beyond the accepted principles with regard to drug trafficking and slavery, the taking of hostages and hijacking. The chapter also discusses the effect of the US Alien Tort Statute in the framework of universal jurisdiction. The question of extraterritorial jurisdiction is also noted.

This chapter deals with the question of the sources of international law, that is, how one distinguishes between what is law and what is not. This is governed essentially by art. 38(1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. Historically, the first source is custom, which is composed of two elements: the actual conduct of states and the belief that such conduct is carried out in the belief that it is ‘law’. What is counted as state practice is examined, as is the critical belief requirement (opinio juris), which is often harder to ascertain. The process of change is discussed, as is the concept of local or regional custom. The second source, of increasing importance today, is international agreements or treaties, which are binding on all states parties to the particular agreement and is the focus of a later chapter. The third source is termed ‘general principles of law’, which seeks to cover gaps in the law by recourse to accepted principles of the system or of domestic law and includes the notion of equity. Finally, the chapter looks at subsidiary means for the determination of law, including judicial decisions and writings. Other possible sources of law are noted, and the work of the UN International Law Commission is referenced.

This conclusion synthesises the book’s findings on ocean acidification (OA) governance. The study demonstrates that OA is a complex problem spanning ocean, atmosphere, and land systems with varying temporal and spatial dimensions. The current governance landscape constitutes a regime complex involving multiple institutions across different issue areas. Global experimentalist governance emerges as the most suitable approach because it can accommodate OA’s complexity and build upon existing fragmented governance structures. Two case studies – the Ocean Acidification Alliance and International Maritime Organization – reveal partial implementation of experimentalist governance features but significant limitations. Both institutions struggle with setting specific metrics, systematic reporting, peer review, and feedback mechanisms essential for recursive learning. Key obstacles include scientific uncertainty making concrete targets difficult, institutional reluctance towards delegation and provisionality, and weak communication across governance levels. Despite incomplete realisation, experimentalist governance remains promising for OA because it provides necessary flexibility and adaptability. The book concludes that while current institutions show experimentalist features, full implementation requires addressing institutional apprehensions and developing stronger communicative infrastructures for effective multilevel coordination in tackling this emerging environmental challenge.

The chapter concerns the relationship between international law and domestic or municipal law. Theories of the relationship are referenced. The chapter then turns to the role of domestic or municipal law in international law, with the acceptance of the supremacy in the system of the latter. The chapter focuses, however, upon the role of international law within domestic legal systems with particular emphasis upon the UK. The various shifts in approach are noted with regard to customary international law and the current situation discussed, whereby custom constitutes a source of law and not a part of the common law upon which judges may draw. As far as treaties are concerned, these are not part of UK law unless incorporated. This avoids the situation whereby the executive may legislate merely by becoming a party to a treaty. The situation with regard to the US and other states in both the common law and civil law systems is then reviewed. The chapter ends with an examination of the doctrines of non-justiciability and act of state in various states.

This chapter considers the law of treaties in the light primarily of the key Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, much of which is considered as part of customary law. The chapter discusses the role and nature of international treaties in the light of their binding nature upon states parties (pacta sunt servanda). The making of treaties, from the formalities and methods of consent from signature to ratification, is covered before the chapter turns to reservations. The nature of reservations and their effect upon third parties is addressed is addressed as is the process of amendment of treaties. Consideration of treaty interpretation then follows with the various methodologies examined from the textual, intention and object, and purpose of the treaty points of view, with a careful look at case law. The particular position of human rights treaties in this process is noted. The chapter then turns to the invalidity, termination and suspension of treaties, including a discussion of the concepts of peremptory norms (jus cogens), material breach, supervening impossibility of performance and fundamental change of circumstances (rebus sic stantibus).

This chapter sets forth a framework based on a historical analysis of the role of efficiency in ICA. This chapter asserts that more so than party-autonomy, arbitrator discretion, the right to second instance review, or emphasis on privacy (and even confidentiality), the main historical principle upon which the legitimacy of ICA was premised, concerns a very narrow concept of efficiency. This legacy construct of efficiency is one that prioritizes the rendering of a binding and enforceable award over all other considerations. The primacy of “process efficiency” is such that even due process has been sacrificed at the altar of expediency. The text explores the interplay between efficiency and due process. It is suggested that only a voluntary settlement can yield “optimal efficiency,” and thereby redeem ICA’s promise to be efficient

International commercial arbitration has failed to redeem its promise to be efficient. Approximately 27 percent of all international commercial arbitral proceedings are settled before issuance of a merits-based award. This book asserts that legacy international commercial arbitration is based on the economic efficiencies arising from a zero-sum-game approach to dispute resolution pursuant to which the most efficient result is one that yields a prevailing (winning) and non-prevailing (losing) party. This emphasis on process efficiency has caused international commercial arbitration to lose its standing as the premier dispute resolution methodology for cross-border commercial conflicts. Historically, settlement has not been perceived as an element of the culture of international commercial arbitration. Only recently has a consensus arisen acknowledging that arbitrators have an obligation to facilitate settlement. This book explains that, through timely risk assessment, voluntary settlement of arbitral proceedings will become the rule, not the exception, leading to optimal efficiency.

This chapter opens the possibility of a qualitative evidentiary approach, but one that is not based on rigid and categorical exclusionary rules of evidence. It proceeds to do so first by noting as a helpful analogy the qualified applicability of the U.S. Federal Rules of Evidence in the context of nonjury trials. Here the argument is asserted that the absence of a jury no longer requires the trial judge to serve as a “gatekeeper” charged with protecting jurors from evidence that may be relevant and material but that may have prejudicial effects that outweigh the substantive and probative value of such evidence. In this context, it is suggested that exclusionary rules still serve the valuable role of helping the judge (single person trier of facts) evaluate the quality of evidence. Hence a comprise position is reached between a rigid framework and a Free Proof approach.