This article takes as its empirical reference the phenomenon of ‘migration in transit’, which gained relevance in 2018 with the arrival of thousands of migrants, mainly from Africa, on the southern coast of Spain, bound for other European countries. Based on a series of specific cases of irregular migrants, asylum seekers, unaccompanied minors or those at risk of statelessness involved in this phenomenon, I have attempted to trace their ‘legal routes’ and their determining factors (regulatory assumptions, legal documents, time frames, etc.) as if they were movements across the map of migration and asylum law. I conclude that, similar to geographical (im)mobility, although these legal itineraries are largely constructed on the basis of the legal provisions (requirements, deadlines, bureaucracy, etc.) set out in immigration and asylum regulations, there are also elements of social practice, such as legal advice, solidarity or social perceptions, which facilitate the transition between legal statuses.

This article examines Russian national future thinking during the war in Ukraine. It views future thinking as a form of mediated action that is dependent on narrative tools and explores the structure and function of various types of narratives that play a role, including schematic narrative templates and national narrative projects. The first section of the article goes into conceptual issues on plot, the sense of an ending and other features of narrative logic that assign meaning to events. The second part of the article goes into how these issues play a role in shaping Russian ideas about the war in Ukraine. Using sources such as Russian social media, we examine how the narratives used by Putin and widely accepted by the broader population have changed over the course of the war in Ukraine. After initially focusing on denazification and other issues specific to Ukraine, the Russian narrative has moved on to more established and general themes about existential threats from military threats and alien ideas from the West. To recognize what has changed and what has not, we harness the notion of a national narrative project, which is an underlying code in the form of a national autobiography for Russia. The sense of an ending for this national narrative template has religious overtones and a telos about redemption that follows suffering. It is narrative with a sense of an ending in the future, which means using it has the future and future thinking built into it.

This Article explores future fact-finding as a distinct subject of legal research. Usually, legal decision makers, such as judges, decide cases based on past or present facts. However, sometimes, legal norms oblige them to engage in future assessments. The Article argues that future fact-finding is fundamentally different from past or present fact-finding and should be treated as a separate legal phenomenon. It conceptualizes this practice in a legal context and sketches an initial theoretical framework for thinking about and engaging in future fact-finding. To do this, the Article draws on philosophical (epistemological) insights and applies a classical doctrinal method by examining positive law, case law, and doctrine.

This article explores the intersection of Indigenous cultural heritage and international intellectual property (IP) law. Drawing on personal narrative, community memory, and institutional experience, it traces how, despite colonial legacies embedded within global IP regimes, Indigenous Peoples have carved out space for agency and influence through diplomatic engagement in international forums such as the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). The article narrates and examines the evolution of Indigenous participation within WIPO’s Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge, and Folklore (IGC), culminating in the landmark adoption of the 2024 WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources, and Associated Traditional Knowledge. Through the lens of “Indigenous diplomacy,” it argues that Indigenous advocates have not only contested exclusion but also reshaped aspects of legal norms, contributing to a broader decolonial movement that seeks justice, recognition, and the right to control and benefit from their intellectual and cultural heritage.

Despite the burgeoning international literature on the history of sexual violence, the topic of incest has received limited attention from historians. This article examines hitherto restricted archival files on thirty-seven offenders who were convicted of incest in the independent Irish state under the Punishment of Incest Act 1908 and, in doing so, provides a rare glimpse into exploitative sexual practices within Irish families in the decades after independence. The findings show that incest perpetrators were effectively a male preserve and that incest was almost always an abusive relationship that persisted over an extended period of time. The article also reveals that victims were invariably younger than offenders, some incest offenses involved alcohol, violence, and threats, many cases resulted in pregnancy, motherless children appear to have been vulnerable, and most of these crimes were premeditated and non-consensual. The article concludes by capturing the limitations of the 1908 Act in neglecting to cover sexual acts other than vaginal intercourse and embrace a broader range of family relationships.

On 28 May 2025, the Higher Court of Appeal in Hamm (Germany) delivered a pioneering judgment in the case Lliuya v. RWE. The Court confirmed that German private nuisance law was applicable in the transnational context, and that the greenhouse gas emissions of the energy company RWE contributed to climate change and its adverse impacts. Based on the evidence provided, the Court concluded that the normative threshold of ‘imminence’ of a future, first-time property impairment was not reached. This article assesses the Court’s reasoning and the challenges it faced in determining ‘imminence’, considering conflicting scientific evidence. Against the backdrop of a legal and scientific analysis, the article argues that the physical laws underpinning climate change, and the scientific assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, form a baseline of ‘best available science’ for the legal assessment of climate risks. Case-specific evidence that deviates from this baseline requires careful consideration. Furthermore, the legal interpretation of causally relevant evidence must depend on whether the science provides a qualitative or a quantitative statement.

Established pharmaceutical innovation theory holds that companies and patents are essential for developing new treatments. Yet, it does not adequately explain numerous clinical trials conducted by hospitals and universities. This paper introduces a new, complementary theory that describes a parallel system of innovation, focused on new uses of already authorised drugs, particularly once generics are available. These trials are driven by incentives previously associated with “open science” and “user innovation” rather than by patents and cost 90 per cent less than commercial equivalents. This “hidden” research system could regularly provide society with affordable treatments.

This Article examines the legitimacy crisis in investment arbitration with a particular focus on Africa’s historical and contemporary experiences under the investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS) system. Tracing the colonial origins of international investment law, it argues that the structure and implementation of ISDS mechanisms have disproportionately disadvantaged African states. Through historical analysis, case law, and the reform agenda of UNCITRAL’s Working Group III, the Article highlights how Africa was both shaped by and now actively participates in shaping global investment law. While acknowledging colonial-era power asymmetries, the Article contends that the future lies in Africa’s strategic engagement with reform efforts. It concludes by proposing regionally grounded reforms and a shift in perspective that recognizes African states not as passive respondents, but as vital contributors to the evolution of investment arbitration.

For the third time in a century, the concept of critical minerals has become a central theme in international trade and security debates. Materials criticality discourse first arose in the late 1930s and 1940s. It was taken up again from the mid-1970s through to mid-1980s and has become ubiquitous in post-pandemic debates concerning the global energy transition in a context of escalating geopolitical volatility. This article examines the evolution of critical minerals discourse over a century, with a focus on these three periods. It seeks to identify the contexts in which criticality claims have emerged and to examine the politics of critical minerals discourse in this third wave. It argues that critical minerals discourse has evolved in response to geopolitical instability understood by the US to threaten its hegemony; and that critical minerals discourse in its third wave has thus far served four major political functions. First, critical minerals discourse has served as a rhetorical device for asserting that the security of the US and its allies lies in the defence of US hegemony, and not in the defence of international institutions and trade norms. Second, critical minerals discourse has served as an effective means of leveraging geopolitical instability in favour of extractive interests. Third, critical minerals discourse has worked to re-mystify the economics of market speculation and the predictability of state intervention in markets. Finally, critical minerals discourse has been used to leverage the existential urgency of the climate crisis in favour of elite and extractive interests and against local communities and ecosystems.

In an era of intensifying global interconnection and mounting pressure for historical reckoning, repatriation1 has emerged as a critical arena where museums navigate the fraught intersections of cultural diplomacy and sovereignty.2 Once framed primarily as a legal or ethical imperative, the restitution of cultural property now functions as a strategic site of negotiation3 that compels museums to redefine their roles within transnational networks of cultural governance. As institutions historically tasked with the stewardship of contested objects, museums today operate as diplomatic actors engaged in processes that transcend national boundaries4 and implicate broader structures of international cooperation and historical accountability, an evolution that mirrors ongoing efforts to redefine the very role of museums within global institutions such as the International Council of Museums (ICOM).5 This paper situates repatriation as a distinctly political practice, one shaped by transnational pressures, contested sovereignties, and shifting institutional roles.6 As Neil MacGregor has noted in A History of the World in 100 Objects, museums use objects to tell stories about human civilization, power, and identity; the possession and narration of those objects, then, becomes central to how institutions assert authority and interpret the nation.7

The goal of this Article is to contribute to the broader discussion on strengthening the resilience of the rule of law in Germany by focusing on how to protect trust in the judiciary and judicial independence against (possibly) radicalized judges. The Article provides an introduction to the current legal situation in Germany regarding judges’ active involvement in politics, as well as an overview of the historical background. It addresses the regulation governing the right to return to a post as a judge after having been a member of parliament, and disciplinary rules regarding appropriate behavior of judges. It illustrates the current legal status quo and considers possible consequences for judicial independence and public trust in the judiciary. The Article concludes with proposals to improve the resilience of the judiciary.

Douglas Laycock’s career in Religion Clause scholarship and advocacy spans two periods marked by two distinct concerns at the heart of the debates. This article connects them. In the first period, from the 1980s into the 2000s, the central issue was what general value or principle should drive Religion Clause decision-making. Laycock’s approach, substantive neutrality toward religion, focused on minimizing government effects on religious choices and thus led the way in reconciling two key values: neutrality on the one hand, and religious liberty or voluntarism on the other. In the second period, from the mid-2000s forward, religious liberty became caught up in the United States’ cycle of polarization. Laycock again led the way; his work on Religion Clause neutrality supports the effective defense of religious liberty in a polarized age. In particular, he called for aggregating neutrality: recognizing that any policy can have differing effects on the religious choices of different relevant actors and comparing those effects with the goal of minimizing burdensome effects on religious choices overall. This approach, done with care, can take account of the effect on competing sides and thus productively address polarized conflicts.

Only two cases of migrant trafficking have been successfully prosecuted in Canada (R v. Gonzalez-Valbuena and R v. Domotor). This article considers why by offering a comparison of human trafficking offences defined at section 118 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) and sections 279.01-279.011 of the Criminal Code of Canada (CrC). We also assess the application of these provisions to seven publicly reported cases of migrant trafficking. We demonstrate that the anti-trafficking frameworks fail to capture the offence of migrant trafficking. We also confirm that the prosecution of migrant trafficking is undermined by the promotion of racist and gendered ideas of victimization in judicial decision making. Our analysis offers support for the work of Nandita Sharma (2005) on the existence of “global apartheid” in the Canadian context, which operates to sustain the illegalization, criminalization and removal of specifically racialized female migrants from Canada.

This article adopts an integrated practice-led and practice-based methodology, framed through an essayistic approach to comics-based research, using our own artistic practices, one from Serbia and one from India, as case studies. Through works addressing the fall of democratic values, memories of conflicts, rise of nationalism, and ecological devastation, we examine how urgency shapes creation, reflection, and the mediation of memory in comics-making. Rather than a reactionary impulse, we conceptualize urgency as a relational and iterative condition that unfolds through political-ethical, epistemic, and aesthetic dimensions, and one that structures how artists act, think, and draw in response to crises. In our practices, drawing functions as both an act of remembering and a form of thinking: essayistic comics-making materializes a dialogue between immediacy and reflection, as well as between lived experience and its critical rearticulation. We argue that through this interplay, comics-making becomes a mode of situated knowledge production, where memory, testimony, and critique are interwoven. The essayistic form enables urgency to be inhabited rather than merely depicted, turning the creative process itself into a reflective space of resistance and inquiry. By tracing how these dynamics operate within specific socio-political contexts, this paper expands the understanding of comics-making as a medium of embodied memory and a method of research that translates lived urgency into thought and form.