The Investment Protection Rules of the EU-Canada Trade Agreement

This article provides an in-depth analysis of the substantive protection provided to investors against indirect expropriations under the EU-Canada Free Trade Agreement (ceta) and under the Constitution of Finland. More specifically, we analyse these respective spheres of protection in a regulatory context in Finland where Canadian investors operate actively: industrial mining. The purpose of the comparative analysis is to provide tentative answers to three broad research questions: Can investors challenge legitimate public interest measures under ceta’s investment protection rules? Is the protection provided under ceta co-extensive with the protection provided under the constitutions of countries placing high on global rule of law rankings? And are countries upholding the rule of law safe from investor claims under ceta’s reformed investment protection rules? A more general purpose is to bring more depth and nuance into the debates concerning the reform of the investment treaty regime, which often travel at a high level of abstraction.

The Bear and the Dragon

Within the ideological confines of Western liberal democracies, two ‘truths’ are held to be self-evident: that Russia and China are opportunistic in their behaviour, and that this behaviour is strategic rather than sincere. This article is a short, empirical analysis of the justifications of Russia and China when determining a ‘threat to the peace’ in accordance with Article 39 of the Charter of the United Nations. Examining how Russia and China have justified their decisions where this concept was significantly under debate, I find that their behaviour is not as opportunistic as believed. Rather, it is consistent with ideals of pragmatism and state-centric interpretations of international law. I further suggest that the consistency of their approaches means it is of little consequence if their arguments are strategic in nature.

Jurisdictional Immunity of States in the Evolving Practice of the Finnish Courts

International codification efforts have not yet yielded functioning treaty regimes relating to jurisdictional immunities of states and their property. In practice, however, many states have embraced a restrictive approach to state immunity, either in special legislation enacted to that effect, or in their judicial practice. There is no special legislation on state immunity in Finland, but the courts have been faced with state immunity questions on a few occasions. The courts have made an effort to apply the 2004 UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property as a matter of customary international law binding on Finland. By so doing they have steered the Finnish practice towards restrictive understanding of state immunity.

State Immunity in Danish Law

With a primary focus on civil law, the article provides a general overview of the most important legislation, court decisions and other state practice in explaining how international law on state immunity applies in Denmark today. Although Danish court practice has been quite sparse, there have been a number of important decisions effectively implementing international state immunity law into Danish law. The article also reflects on the application and development of customary international law in Danish law outside Danish courts with a particular focus on the 2004 UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunity of States and Their Property, which Denmark has signed, but not ratified. Other examples of Danish practice are briefly highligthed, underscoring the conclusion that Denmark has broadly embraced the restrictive approach to international law on state immunity.

The Geographical Reach of International Humanitarian Law in Transnational Armed Conflict

Non-international armed conflict between States and organised armed groups is a reality of warfare. Since the emergence of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, this form of conflict has been regulated by international humanitarian law. However, a subset of this category known as ‘transnational armed conflict’ has seen aggressive proliferation over recent decades as groups such as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria have taken advantage of the internet and other technologies to expand their reach beyond national frontiers and strike States around the world. This phenomenon has left the geographical extent of international humanitarian law – which has historically relied on State boundaries to determine its ambit – unclear. This article examines the main options for delimiting the geographical reach of the regime in transnational armed conflict. It considers approaches based on international boundaries; ‘hot battlefields’; ‘global application’ and ‘territorial control’ before ultimately concluding that a method based on ‘military presence’ would be the most suitable standard.