This article addresses the doctrine of remoteness in tort in light of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Armstead v Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Armstead further attenuates an already weak control on tortious liability. In outline, it does so in two ways: first, by establishing that contractual liabilities incurred as a result of tortiously caused property damage comprise non-remote damage provided that those liabilities represent a reasonable pre-estimate of the counterparty’s loss; and, secondly, by allocating the burden of proof in respect of remoteness to defendants. This article explores these rules. It contends, in particular, that the first collides with the fundamental principle that the extent of the claimant’s loss in tort is irrelevant to the issue of remoteness while the second means that, oddly, the onus of proof in relation to remoteness in tort differs from that in contract.

Mr. President, we remain resolute in our commitment to combating all forms of racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia and related intolerance whether that be at home or abroad…. Nonetheless, we have a number of concerns with this text….

Cut finite element methods (CutFEM) extend the standard finite element method to unfitted meshes, enabling the accurate resolution of domain boundaries and interfaces without requiring the mesh to conform to them. This approach preserves the key properties and accuracy of the standard method while addressing challenges posed by complex geometries and moving interfaces.

In recent years, CutFEM has gained significant attention for its ability to discretize partial differential equations in domains with intricate geometries. This paper provides a comprehensive review of the core concepts and key developments in CutFEM, beginning with its formulation for common model problems and the presentation of fundamental analytical results, including error estimates and condition number estimates for the resulting algebraic systems. Stabilization techniques for cut elements, which ensure numerical robustness, are also explored. Finally, extensions to methods involving Lagrange multipliers and applications to time-dependent problems are discussed.

The article examines the widespread practice of using extended judicial formations to decide certain types of cases in higher courts, a practice present in many jurisdictions—whether appellate, apex or supranational. While the use of these formations, often considered the ‘most important’, is frequently debated within individual countries, a conceptual and comparative analysis providing a firmer theoretical foundation for these discussions is currently lacking. Departing from existing scholarship, which often assumes a universal purpose for these bodies, this article argues that jurisdictions tend to adopt one of two models of extended formations: the collective control model or the jurisprudential model. These models reflect divergent sources of legitimacy for the enlarged formations—either rooted in the broader participation of judges in the court’s decision-making process (input or procedural legitimacy), or in the doctrinal quality of the decisions that the grand chamber produces and their resulting consequences (output or performance-based legitimacy). These distinctions help to explain differences in how extended formations are composed, the types of cases they hear, the procedures they follow and how their decisions are drafted and subsequently used within the court. The article ultimately demonstrates that the choice between the two models reflects broader assumptions within different judicial systems about the nature of law and judging.

Ensemble Kalman methods, introduced in 1994 in the context of ocean state estimation, are now widely used for state estimation and parameter estimation (inverse problems) in many arenae. Their success stems from the fact that they take an underlying computational model as a black box to provide a systematic, derivative-free methodology for incorporating observations; furthermore the ensemble approach allows for sensitivities and uncertainties to be calculated. Analysis of the accuracy of ensemble Kalman methods, especially in terms of uncertainty quantification, is lagging behind empirical success; this paper provides a unifying mean-field-based framework for their analysis. Both state estimation and parameter estimation problems are considered, and formulations in both discrete and continuous time are employed. For state estimation problems, both the control and filtering approaches are considered; analogously for parameter estimation problems, the optimization and Bayesian perspectives are both studied. As well as providing an elegant framework, the mean-field perspective also allows for the derivation of a variety of methods used in practice. In addition it unifies a wide-ranging literature in the field and suggests open problems.

This article identifies a development in rabbinic discourse about Torah study. Whereas early texts contrast study with activities like earning a living, the Palestinian Talmud presents a new debate in which study stands in binary opposition to activities otherwise considered part of the life of Torah, such as good deeds and prayer. This debate shaped the eventually dominant view of the rabbinic sage as primarily, or even exclusively, a scholarly figure. The article shows how this discourse was formulated through adaptation of earlier sources and considers how it may have responded to broader transformations in the sages’ world.

This article explores the nexus between the law of the sea and the potential future treaty on plastic pollution, which is currently being negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations (UN) Environment Programme. The potential treaty aims to regulate the full lifecycle of plastics, including in the marine environment. The relevance of the law of the sea regime is fundamental given the highly transboundary nature of already existing legacy plastic pollution in the ocean as well as ocean and land-based sources of plastic pollution. A particular contentious element is the engagement of stakeholders such as industry, academia, Indigenous Peoples and local communities in the development of this treaty. The article will explore possible options for the formulation of the treaty and draws on lessons learnt from the negotiations of the Agreement under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction.

Attributes of familial relationships, ascribed in biblical metaphors to YHWH and Israel, can be traced back to ancient Near Eastern mythological and diplomatic concepts. In Hosea 11, the dynamic between YHWH and Israel mirrors political and authoritarian conventions prevalent in that era. Israel is depicted as an adopted son of God, analogous to an Egyptian or Assyrian monarch whose authority derives from a divine heritage. Simultaneously, Israel assumes the role of a subjugated and devoted son, akin to a vassal subdued according to the norms of the ancient Near East. As a result, the characteristics of the chosen son in Hosea 11 blend attributes of both a king and a vassal, two entities who have no influence over their own chosen status. Consequently, Israel’s position is best described as that of a “divine vassal,” one whose privileges are affirmed, while his very existence and territorial rights remain in perpetual jeopardy.

This article explores the intersection of, and relationship between, the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) Agreement and the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS). It examines the status of the Southern Ocean as an ‘area beyond national jurisdiction’ before analysing the application of the ‘not undermine’ principle to the ATS as developed in Article 5 BBNJ Agreement. The article examines the implications of the BBNJ Agreement in relation to environmental impact assessments, area-based protection, marine genetic resources and dispute resolution within the ATS. It argues that the thus far defensive approach of the Antarctic Treaty parties to the BBNJ Agreement is neither sustainable nor in the long-term interests of either agreement. It argues for positive engagement between the two regimes for the ultimate benefit of Southern Ocean governance.

In this forum, four scholars re-examine the noble or commoner status of Indigenous Andean chronicler Felipe Guaman Poma de Ayala. They debate the validity of his assertions and how the conditions of his life should frame our reasoning. They re-consider how written documents were used in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. A handful of archival documents generated by petitions and lawsuits fuels this scholarly reconsideration of his lineage, local status, and economic circumstances. These court cases enliven the study of this fascinating historical figure who wrote a long letter to the King accompanied by hundreds of line drawings. In the first article in the forum, historians Adrian Masters and Jorge Cañizares-Esguerra shape the discussions over Guaman Poma’s rank and status into a debate. They unequivocally declare Guaman Poma a commoner who unsuccessfully attempted to use an increasingly document-oriented colonial system to gain power and official recognition. They assert that this commoner Lázaro was an imposter whipped for falsely asserting an Indigenous elite heritage (cacique). They argue that Lázaro’s commoner status further elevates his historical importance for the study of the early modern era. In two responses to these assertions, historians Francisco Quiroz Chueca and José de la Puente Luna point out the many ways scholars have already been raising questions about Guaman Poma’s identity, and they voice caution about how much the existing documents can definitively resolve these questions. In a rebuttal, Masters and Cañizares-Esguerra return to underscore why they think Guaman Poma was an “uncommon commoner.”

A remarkable tale in the Babylonian Talmud (b. Qidd. 81a–b) recounts how Pelimo, who regularly exclaimed “an arrow in Satan’s eye!,” ironically attracts Satan’s personal attention. Disguised as a pauper, Satan wreaks havoc until he ultimately offers an alternative apotropaic formula—a biblical verse (Zech 3:2)—for Pelimo to use against him. While often read as a moral allegory, this article argues that the story is rooted in late antique Babylonian notions about demons and apotropaic practices, as evidenced in incantation bowls, amulets, and related objects. The narrative not only presumes this cultural context but actively engages it—contrasting two protective formulae and casting Satan as an advocate for one. In doing so, it reveals how rabbis participated in broader debates over the legitimacy and efficacy of different magical practices, using narrative as a tool of persuasion. Comparison with other Talmudic passages further highlights evolving rabbinic views on ritual power and the shifting role of biblical verses in Jewish magic.

This article offers a rereading of Theatre Workshop HaTikva Neighborhood’s activity as a unique troupe in the field of community-based theatre in Israel. There are three interrelated factors that account for this group’s distinctiveness: (1) it functioned as an independent theatre without public subsidies; (2) its repertoire shifted from a politics of distribution to a politics of recognition; (3) it underwent a transition from amateurism to professionalism. This is a rare status in relation to the common model of community-based theatre in Israel. The study explores these three factors within the theatrical and historical-political contexts of the period.

This article analyses the use of adversarial questions in oral hearings conducted by the Parole Board of England and Wales. This is important because the Board is supposed to use an inquisitorial approach to oral hearings, so adversarial questions are examples of where Parole Board members deviate from this norm. The article outlines the work of the Parole Board, the process for carrying out oral hearings and the recent move to increased remote hearings following the Covid-19 pandemic. Using conversation analysis, the research casts light on the relationship between mode of hearing (remote vs. in-person) and adversarial questions and how discourses of blame and responsibility operate in the production of these challenging question types. A chi-square test reveals that adversarial questions are statistically significantly more common in remote hearings, although they remain low in frequency. The article concludes with thoughts on why remote hearings are more conducive to adversarial questions. (Accounts, adversarial questioning, conversation analysis, parole, responsibility)*

International fisheries law has so far proven inadequate to prevent over-fishing on the high seas, a key cause of biodiversity loss in areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ). The negotiation of the Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ Agreement) provided an opportunity to respond decisively to the worsening problem. After some 20 years of preparation and negotiations, the BBNJ Agreement was concluded in 2023 and will enter into force in early 2026. From about mid-way through the process, the major distant-water fishing States advocated for a treaty text that minimised any significant impact upon their distant-water fishing operations. The terms of the BBNJ Agreement do not preclude its operationalisation contributing to a step change in protecting ABNJ from biodiversity loss by distant-water fishing operations but, at this point, such an outcome appears unlikely given the attitude of the distant-water fishing States during the negotiations, in combination with the institutional and decision-making provisions of the BBNJ Agreement.

This article explores the law governing the nationality of ships in the context of the recent surge of the so-called ‘dark fleet’. Traditionally, international law governed the nationality of ships, inter alia, to ensure effective control by the flag State over its ships, a concern heightened by the rise of open registry States, which were supposedly unable to exercise effective control. Despite initial scepticism, the general acceptance of open registries as well as the fact that small States like the Marshall Islands can be responsible flag States have mitigated this concern. However, the emergence of ‘flags of deceit’ (FODs)—flag States consciously enabling the operation of dark ships—poses a different problem. In welcoming ‘fleets’ of ships that are poorly maintained, in breach of international maritime regulations or engaged in illicit activities, FODs are not simply unable but, rather, unwilling to exercise effective control over their vessels, threatening the public order at sea. This article argues that other States have the right to refuse to recognise FODs with a view to protecting their own rights from dark ships left adrift by their respective flag States through their unwillingness to exercise effective control.

We establish a derived geometric Satake equivalence for the quaternionic general linear group ${\textrm{GL}}_{n}({\mathbb H})$. By applying the real–symmetric correspondence for affine Grassmannians, we obtain a derived geometric Satake equivalence for the symmetric variety ${\textrm{GL}}_{2n}/\textrm{Sp}_{2n}$. We explain how these equivalences fit into the general framework of a geometric Langlands correspondence for real groups and the relative Langlands duality conjecture. As an application, we compute the stalks of the IC-complexes for spherical orbit closures in the quaternionic affine Grassmannian and the loop space of ${\textrm{GL}}_{2n}/\textrm{Sp}_{2n}$. We show that the stalks are given by the Kostka–Foulkes polynomials for ${\textrm{GL}}_n$ but with all degrees doubled.