The latest issue of International Legal Materials (Vol. 65, no. 3, June 2026) is out. Contents include: 
This book examines the crucial role of Antarctic legal studies in managing present and future geopolitical tensions in Antarctica. Specifically focusing on Argentina and Australia's historical contributions, it examines key moments of crisis in Antarctic history to assess their impact on Antarctic law development. By analysing these nations' responses to critical situations, the book extracts valuable lessons on how they can effectively use Antarctic law to navigate current and future geopolitical challenges. Furthermore, the book offers seven practical recommendations for Argentina and Australia to enhance Antarctic law, ensuring its efficacy in addressing these challenges.
Readers will not only gain a comprehensive understanding of Argentina and Australia's historical roles in shaping Antarctic law but also appreciate the pivotal role of this legal framework in maintaining order, stability, and cooperation in the Antarctic region. The book's insights are invaluable for policymakers, scholars, and anyone interested in the sustainable governance of Antarctica, emphasizing the significance of international collaboration in preserving this unique and vital environment.
The latest issue of the Virginia Journal of International Law (Vol. 66, no. 2, 2026) is out. Contents include: 
The latest issue of the Netherlands International Law Review (Vol. 72, no. 3, December 2025) is out. Contents include: 
The latest issue of the Journal on the Use of Force and International Law (Vol. 13, no. 1, 2026) is out. Contents include:
This book provides a comprehensive assessment of general international law and its normative relevance to the international legal order. The relevance of general international law to the international legal order is founded on a concept of the relational normativity of international law. The book demonstrates how relational normativity is an intrinsic feature of international law that characterises it as a legal order. It argues that this is of crucial importance for the sources of international law as well as for normative conflicts between its rules and principles. Making a strong case for positing general international law as the core of international law, the book argues this is a basis of normative unity, an effective remedy for fragmentation, and a useful guide to areas of normative conflicts of special legal regimes. Thus, it offers an analytical lens for understanding how unity and coherence can be maintained within an increasingly complex and specialised international legal landscape.
The latest issue of International Organization (Vol. 80, no. 2, Spring 2026) is out. Contents include: 
The inaugural issue of the African Review of International Law (Inaugural Issue, June 2026) is out. Contents include:
There is nowadays no dispute in human rights doctrine over whether rights entail positive duties on the part of the state at the level of principle. But there has been surprisingly little academic commentary devoted to the question of whether there are, or should be, limits placed on how far those obligations extend. Similarly, there has been little scholarly attention paid to the question of how causation can be reasonably attributed in the context of violations of positive obligations. And there are very few sociological explanations provided as to why positive human rights obligations appear to be expanding without principled limits in the first place.
This volume assembles the work of a range of leading scholars in international human rights law to fill these gaps in the literature. Each of its 11 substantive chapters addresses an aspect of positive obligations with a particular focus on issues concerning limits. Taken together, they provide the first serious attempt to grapple critically with the subject of the limits, causality and scope of positive obligations theoretically and doctrinally. This makes the book essential reading for scholars of human rights law.
The ebook editions of this book are available open access.
As states and private actors expand their activities in outer space, the international legal framework governing this domain risks extending longstanding structures of global inequality beyond Earth. This article examines how international space law, shaped by a broader disciplinary pattern of reactive legal development, is poised to reproduce terrestrial disparities in the extraterrestrial realm. Drawing on parallels across international legal regimes, it demonstrates how reactive governance often disadvantages less powerful actors through various interlocking mechanisms: transforming early movers' advantages into legal prescriptions; enabling unilateral norm-setting amid international legal voids; shifting environmental burdens onto latecomers; sidelining equity concerns during crisis-driven lawmaking; and discounting foreseeable-yet-distant risks disproportionately borne by vulnerable populations. By tracing these distributive dynamics, the article underscores the need and possibility for more proactive alternatives in space governance. Though the window for action is narrowing, space law still retains enough plasticity to be reoriented before current inequalities become legally entrenched.
The ICC’s arrest warrants against Netanyahu/Gallant reignited debates over the nature of the Court’s jurisdiction with the focal point called the ‘Oslo Argument’, which contended that the Hague lacked jurisdiction over Israelis because Palestine lacked it under the Oslo Accords. The resulting submissions by amici curiae and parties before the Court, unprecedented in number, constitute a microcosm of contemporary international legal discourse over the ICC’s jurisdiction and therefore warrant close discourse analysis. The analysis offers an internal understanding of the argumentative structure therein and illuminates two systematized discursive regularities. One is the ‘delegation-based approach’, marked by assemblage of reifying and state-centric jurisdictional thinking with atomistic conceptions of the Court and the international order. Another is the ‘non-delegation-based approach’, grounded in a relational and autonomous conception of international jurisdiction with cosmopolitanism. Building on these findings, the concluding section explores possible strategies for lawyers, ranging from either/or choice to interstitial modes of argumentation.
The International Organizations Interest Group (IOIG) of the American Society of International Law (ASIL) and the European Society of International Law (ESIL) are delighted to announce a call for proposals for their biannual virtual workshop of academic works in progress addressing the law or practice of international organizations.
The workshop will provide an opportunity for scholars to receive feedback from their peers and experts in international organizations law. The tentative date to hold the workshop is 15 February 2027, at a time convenient for the largest number of selected authors.
To be considered, please send an abstract of around 400 to 800 words to fionamangan@gmail.com and igioesil@gmail.com by 30 June 2026. Selected authors will be expected to submit article- or chapter-length papers by 1 December 2026. Co-authorship is permitted. We also welcome expressions of interest from potential reviewers.
Don't hesitate to get in touch with fionamangan@gmail.com or igioesil@gmail.com with any questions.
The latest issue of Europa Ethnica (Vol. 83, nos. 1/2, 2026). Contents include: What do international courts have to offer when faced with raw power? In a state of international disorder, respect for international law erodes and so does the respect for international courts and tribunals (ICs) and their decisions. An IC decision constitutes an international legal obligation. It binds the disputing party states as any other rule of international law does. Regardless, whether international affairs are in a relative state of order or disorder, international actors, above all States, must observe international law. Yet, what if a State does not play along – and is powerful enough to also withstand any international legal or political measures seeking to enforce the IC decision in question? Russia, for example, flatly ignored that the International Court of Justice (ICJ), on 16 March 2022, ordered it to halt its invasion of Ukraine and, as of May 2026, continues its aggression on Ukrainian territory. This piece investigates the effects of IC decisions when pushed to the margins by powerful States that can do so – and can, at least in first instance, get away with it. Such disregard for international judicial decisions occurring in higher frequencies indicates, at least from the prespective of international law, a state of international disorder. However, even in these situations, when pushed to the side, IC decisions are not pointless. They may have at least four effects that are interconnected and potentially reinforce each other, thereby providing a minimal contribution to the integrity of the international legal system.
