To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This article argues that, in provisional measures cases, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) now examines jurisdiction by assessing not only an applicant’s arguments for jurisdiction, but also a respondent’s arguments against it. This more granular examination is different from the ICJ’s traditional prima facie test. The change in approach was demonstrated in the 2008 provisional measures order in Georgia v Russian Federation. This article suggests two likely explanations for the development of a more detailed test. The first is the ICJ’s reluctance to limit State sovereignty by imposing provisional measures since it held, in the 2001 LaGrand judgment, that they are binding. The second is the political sensitivity of the particular dispute. However, the more detailed approach to the question of jurisdiction in provisional measures has generated inconsistency in the ICJ’s jurisprudence: first, the malleability of this approach risks like cases being treated differently; second, this approach overlaps with the plausibility test, which concerns a separate requirement for provisional measures; and, third, this approach overlaps with the Oil Platforms test, which the Court uses to determine definitively whether it has jurisdiction ratione materiae. The new approach also promotes a dispute-settlement conception of the Court’s judicial function, rather than acknowledging its role in developing international law or maintaining public order.
Exodus 2:1–10 has been thoroughly analyzed from a feminist perspective. This is appropriate because women play a significant role in the story. However, it is important to note that these female characters are not only defined by gender but also by ethnicity and social status. Combining analyses of ethnicity, gender, and class, this article demonstrates how the female figures in Exod 2:1–10 ignore, challenge, and subvert the polarizations established in Exod 1:8–22 by the Egyptian king. Exodus 2:1–10 can even be read as an example of cross-ethnic, cross-class, and cross-generational solidarity against a despotic regime that marginalizes and oppresses by using marks of differences. However, upon closer analysis it becomes evident that the female figures’ interactions are also determined by an unequal power dynamic. The article demonstrates how examining differences in gender, ethnicity, and class provides a nuanced understanding of power relations within biblical texts.
On February 28, 2024, the International Criminal Court's Trial Chamber IX issued the largest reparations order in the Court's history against Dominic Ongwen, a former commander in the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), for crimes Ongwen committed in Uganda between 2002 and 2005. Ongwen had been convicted of 62 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity, including murders, crimes of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV), and abducting children and forcing them to fight in Uganda's civil war. After the Appeals Chamber affirmed Ongwen's convictions, Trial Chamber IX awarded €52,429,000 in reparations to 49,772 victims of his crimes. Ongwen has appealed. His appeal remains pending as of this writing.
Life and death: they’re opposites. But each one can be defined by the other. That means death shapes life. But how? When things go well, death shapes life from the background of our awareness. This fact has profound consequences for every facet of life: politics and governance, interpersonal relationships, and all forms of human consciousness.
Archaeologists have relied on the presence of European material on Indigenous New England sites as the main indicator that a site was occupied during the sixteenth or early seventeenth centuries—a span often characterized as the Contact period. The AD 1480–1630 span is particularly difficult to sequence because it lies on a radiocarbon calibration plateau. Here we report on a program of AMS dating from an Indigenous site on Great Island on Cape Cod in Massachusetts that highlights evidence of widespread activity during the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries—absent European material culture. Furthermore, the archaeological evidence indicates that a previously excavated colonial tavern in the same area on Great Island was the last in a long-term occupation in which “European contact” was not a defining event. Instead, the evidence points to a continuous Indigenous presence extending from the Middle Woodland period. Later colonial period activities, including those associated with European material, were mapped onto a long-standing Indigenous task-scape.