Which international obligations are characterised as obligations owed erga omnes or erga omnes partes is today a crucial question for the enforcement of international law, particularly through adjudication before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The ICJ, however, has not given sufficiently clear indication as to how it understands and identifies obligations erga omnes and erga omnes partes. This lack of clarity and consistency permits varied approaches to the articulation of such obligations, ultimately leaving uncertain the enforceability, through adjudication and otherwise, of a wide variety of obligations.

Ableist culture stigmatises psychiatric and psychological conditions, which perpetuates misconceptions about them and can discourage people from seeking appropriate treatment for mental conditions. This editorial examines how pejorative use of diagnostic terms contributes to stigmatisation, identifies its discriminatory impact and explores its connection to fears about becoming disabled.

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.