Topic 1

Introduction

Media attention to the ongoing Ukraine-Russia conflict has focused on a significant number of hacking and malware attacks by private actors, described in this Insight as cyber operations.  As an example, the pro-Russian hacker group CyberBerkut has assumed responsibility for cyber operations against NATO, the vote counting system for Ukrainian elections, and a mobile device within the U.S. vice-president’s delegation during a visit to Ukraine.[1]

When conflict broke out in South Sudan in December 2013, the UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) opened its doors to tens of thousands of displaced persons fleeing ethnic and political violence, a situation unprecedented in terms of its scale: in more than a decade of protection mandates, peacekeepers have never provided protection to so many civilians in so direct a manner.[1] Today, the number of internally displaced persons (IDPs) under UN protection has passed the 100,000 mark.

Ebola as an Unprecedented Threat to Peace and Security

Introduction

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (Supreme Court) recently decided two cases that demonstrate the challenges courts face when applying asylum law domestically within the general framework of international refugee law. The Supreme Court’s application of complicated principles to difficult facts will ensure that these cases provide important guidance on respective competences, the use of evidence, and the rule of law to international decision-making bodies in the field of international refugee law, as well as other domestic decision makers.  

On June 16, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued several decisions that will significantly change the landscape for enforcement of foreign sovereign debt obligations in U.S. courts. In Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd. (NML Capital),[1] the Court held that the U.S. Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) does not limit a court’s power to order post-judgment, worldwide discovery.

Introduction

The past two-and-a-half years have witnessed considerable development in the international law of maritime boundary delimitation.[1]  In particular, this brief period has seen the historic emergence of jurisprudence addressing delimitation of a state’s maritime entitlements located beyond 200 nautical miles (M) from the state’s coastal baselines.  In a string of recent disputes involving maritime jurisdiction in the Bay of Bengal, the Caribbean Sea, and the Pacific Ocean, international courts and tribunals—including the Internation

On July 7, 2014, an arbitral tribunal established under Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) delivered its award in the Dispute concerning the Maritime Boundary between Bangladesh and India (Bangladesh v.

The shooting down of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 (MH17) over Ukraine on July 17, 2014 shows how vulnerable we all are when we travel.  It was, said the Director of the International Airline Transport Association, “an attack against the air transport system which is an instrument of peace.”[1]

On 12 May 2014, The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR or Grand Chamber) published its judgment in the just satisfaction phase of Cyprus v. Turkey.[1] Just satisfaction (Article 41) refers to monetary damages awarded as a result of violations of the European Convention on Human Rights.