This article compares China’s stance during the UNCLOS negotiations – the starting point of contemporary law of the sea, with its engagement in the latest development of negotiations on the United Nations agreement on biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ). It answers the question, how does China participate in these two important rules-making processes of the international law of the sea? By identifying salient positions China took in each set of lengthy negotiations and explaining the reasons behind, the article also aims to reflect what a rising China may bring to the international legal maritime order in the foreseeable future. The first part of this article, on the nature of China’s engagement in the UNCLOS negotiations, draws on archival study of official records of the UNCLOS III (1973–1982), as has been digitalized by the UN Office of Legal Affairs. The second part examines the period between the adoption of the UNCLOS (1982) and the start of the BBNJ process (2004), paying attention to China’s shifting practice towards the exploration and exploitation of the deep seabed mineral resources, and its concerns over the ratification of the UNCLOS and the 1995 FSA. Then the article focuses on China in the BBNJ negotiations – Working Groups, Preparatory Committee Meetings and Intergovernmental Conferences. Drawing upon the evolution of China’s positions over the past five decades, the article concludes with some insights on the likely future directions and implications of China’s engagement with the international law of the sea.

It is often noted that few States recognize the seven national claims to Antarctic territory. Australia, one of the claimants, asserts title over 42 per cent of the continent and yet only four States have recognized its claim. Some States have expressly rejected Australia's claim. This article examines the legal significance of such widespread non-recognition. It does so through interrogating the evolution of the legal regime of territorial acquisition, its historical function and application to Antarctica, and relevant decisions of international courts and tribunals. The article identifies, and distinguishes amongst, several categories of non-recognition and considers the relevance of each. The analysis finds that the seemingly meagre level of recognition of Australia's title to the Australian Antarctic Territory does not detract from the validity of that title. This article points to possible reasons as to why a number of polar scholars may have suggested otherwise.

In presenting the international law community with a call to action in defense of the liberal international order against a trend towards “authoritarian international law,” Tom Ginsburg prompts us to assess the systemic dynamics at play in the contemporary international legal order. In doing so, we should be cautious about assuming that the consequences for international law of any particular actor will be positive or otherwise. A couple of decades ago even American international lawyers were concerned about what they perceived to be the threat posed to international law by the United States as global hegemon. And yet from today's vantage point, it seems that the imperial actor during the post-Cold War period may not have been the United States so much as transnational civil society. The very openness of the system of international law that enables both democratic and authoritarian regimes to promote norms reflective of their policy preferences has also enabled civil society to advance norms, processes, and institutional structures that go beyond the policy preferences of dominant states. In doing so, civil society—a hallmark of what we might refer to as the “pseudo-democratic” international legal system—has challenged the delicate balance between power politics and the realization of a pure international rule of law. The consequences appear serious.

Burnt mounds, or fulachtaí fiadh as they are known in Ireland, are probably the most common prehistoric site type in Ireland and Britain. Typically Middle–Late Bronze Age in age (although both earlier and later examples are known), they are artefact-poor and rarely associated with settlements. The function of these sites has been much debated with the most commonly cited uses being for cooking, as steam baths or saunas, for brewing, tanning, or textile processing. A number of major infrastructural development schemes in Ireland in the years 2002–2007 revealed remarkable numbers of these mounds often associated with wood-lined troughs, many of which were extremely well-preserved. This afforded an opportunity to investigate them as landscape features using environmental techniques – specifically plant macrofossils and charcoal, pollen, beetles, and multi-element analyses. This paper summarises the results from eight sites from Ireland and compares them with burnt mound sites in Great Britain. The fulachtaí fiadh which are generally in clusters, are all groundwater-fed by springs, along floodplains and at the bases of slopes. The sites are associated with the clearance of wet woodland for fuel; most had evidence of nearby agriculture and all revealed low levels of grazing. Multi-element analysis at two sites revealed elevated heavy metal concentrations suggesting that off-site soil, ash or urine had been used in the trough. Overall the evidence suggests that the most likely function for these sites is textile production involving both cleaning and/or dyeing of wool and/or natural plant fibres and as a functionally related activity to hide cleaning and tanning. Whilst further research is clearly needed to confirm if fulachtaí fiadh are part of the ‘textile revolution’ we should also recognise their important role in the rapid deforestation of the wetter parts of primary woodland and the expansion of agriculture into marginal areas during the Irish and British Bronze Ages.

The history of international law is often told in terms of the rise and fall of great powers or as a mechanism of colonial subjugation. To the extent that these accounts consider justice, it is usually to demonstrate its absence. This paper points out that justice has been integral to the evolution of international law in the era of the United States. Individuals and members of civil society in the US and Europe have influenced systemic developments in international law through their efforts to realize a vision of justice in interstate relations, their vision being of a body of international law and a world court which together obviate the need for war. To suggest the possibility of an historical narrative constructed around justice is not to deny the validity of other histories focused on inequitable relations of power, but to point to the scope for nuance in the frameworks within which we portray international law and its history.