It has been a packed fortnight, as commentators continue to come to grips with the US attack on Venezuela and begin to grapple with the US’s escalating designs on Greenland. A joint symposium with Just Security on Negotiating a Treaty on Crimes Against Humanity, the latest issue of EJIL, and various developments at the ICC and the ICJ—not to mention space law, gender apartheid, and Russa sanctions—make for a substantial review this week.

US attack on Venezuela

pulls focus on a further aspect of the US military intervention in Venezuela, arguing that it cannot be justified by claims of past expropriation of US oil companies. He shows that international investment law provided effective, rule-based remedies through investor–state arbitration, which US investors successfully used to obtain compensation. Invoking historic expropriations serves only as a political narrative to mask a return to resource-driven coercion in breach of the prohibition on the use of force.

Turning to the man himself, argues that the US capture of Nicolás Maduro violates both the prohibition on the use of force and the absolute personal immunity (and inviolability) enjoyed by an incumbent head of state under customary international law. He shows that none of the recognised exceptions to immunity ratione personae—crime-based, private acts, non-recognition, or waiver—can plausibly apply. Piercing personal immunity in this way undermines the very function of the immunity regime, even if it sits uneasily with broader accountability concerns.

US threats to Greenland

makes the case that Donald Trump’s challenge to Denmark’s sovereignty over Greenland is legally baseless and misunderstands modern international law. He explains that territorial title today rests on effective governance, judicial confirmation, and self-determination—not discovery or opportunistic decolonization claims—and that Greenland’s status is not an open question but has long been settled by international adjudication. Undermining that settlement would destabilize Arctic governance and weaken the rules-based order on which the United States itself relies.

argues that the US’s zero-sum push for sovereignty over Greenland was legally impossible and politically counterproductive, strengthening Greenland’s alignment with Denmark rather than advancing US interests. The apparent compromise—granting the US sovereign base areas by analogy with Cyprus—may create long-term legal vulnerabilities, especially if Greenland later becomes independent. Insisting on sovereignty, rather than permanent basing rights within NATO frameworks, was unnecessary and risks future self-determination challenges. The deal may undermine stability without actually solving the US’s strategic concerns, unless Greenland is fully involved and stronger safeguards are built in.

Gender apartheid

critically examines the campaign to recognise “gender apartheid” as an international crime in response to Taliban rule in Afghanistan. She argues that proposals to model gender apartheid on the crime of racial apartheid dilute apartheid’s anti-colonial meaning, abstract race and gender as interchangeable categories, and risk reproducing racialised, salvationist logics. Feminist responses should move beyond criminalisation to address the structural, geopolitical, and imperial conditions shaping gendered oppression.

Joint Symposium: Negotiating a Treaty on Crimes Against Humanity

and introduce our joint symposium with Just Security on Negotiating a Treaty on Crimes Against Humanity, arguing for the need to fill gaps in international law, complement ICC and domestic prosecutions, and enhance state cooperation. This symposium builds on an event organized at the 69th meeting of the Committee of Legal Advisers on Public International Law at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg. The expert contributions in this series are published in the lead up to the negotiations, taking place at the UN in New York from 19—30 January, to offer useful insights to negotiators on outstanding substantive issues and challenges that may arise from the negotiation process, with the aim of contributing to the further strengthening of the draft.

In the first post, traces the long effort to create a dedicated international treaty on crimes against humanity, from the Nuremberg precedent through the ICC Statute, highlighting gaps in existing law, including the lack of State obligations to prevent such crimes and limited mechanisms for cooperation. She describes the Crimes Against Humanity Initiative, the work of the UN International Law Commission, and the adoption of UN resolutions 77/249 and 79/122, which set a timeline and framework for treaty negotiations from 2026 to 2029. The implict advice to negotiators is to strengthen the treaty’s legal and operational framework, ensure inclusive participation of civil society, and balance ambition with practicality in areas like definitions, immunities, and dispute settlement. She highlights the importance of maintaining momentum over the multi-year negotiation process and being strategic in managing consensus versus voting to achieve a robust, implementable treaty.

Casting backwards, gives us a (very) short history of crimes against humanity. He traces the evolution from an 18th-century moral idea to a fully fledged category of international crimes, crystallised at Nuremberg and refined through modern international tribunals and the ICC. As the concept developed to fill accountability gaps left by war crimes and genocide—especially for large-scale, systematic violence against civilians in peacetime or by states against their own populations—Crimes against humanity have come to serve broad prosecutorial, stigmatic, and narrative functions in international criminal law.

Shifting from past to present, explains why a convention on crimes against humanity matters. The absence of a dedicated convention on crimes against humanity is a serious normative and practical gap in international law, undermining prevention, cooperation, and accountability for some of the gravest crimes. The ILC draft articles and ensuing UN negotiations are a historic opportunity to close that gap by harmonising domestic laws, strengthening interstate cooperation, and embedding prevention alongside punishment. More broadly, the convention would be a moral reaffirmation that crimes against humanity are a collective concern of the international community, not merely a technical exercise in codification.

Developments at the ICJ

The ICJ has come back under the lens from a variety of perspectives. 

and analyse the ICJ’s amendment to Article 78 of its Rules, which will make parties’ reports on compliance with provisional measures publicly accessible as a general rule. They explain how this departs from prior practice and may enhance transparency and accountability. At the same time, it poses risks for state cooperation, litigation strategy, procedural balance, and the sound administration of justice in highly politicised disputes.

and take stock of the ICJ’s recent advisory opinions and find that the Court has articulated the duty to co-operate inconsistently, leaving its scope, source, and content unclear. While co-operation is treated as a binding obligation in some contexts, particularly serious breaches of jus cogens, the Court often provides no concrete standards or operational guidance. This fragmentation risks undermining the normative authority and practical effectiveness of co-operation as a legal obligation.

Turning from substance to procedure, makes the case that the ICJ was right to admit Russia’s counter-claims in the Ukraine v. Russia genocide case, because they are sufficiently connected in fact and law to Ukraine’s principal claim and promote procedural economy. While accepting some criticism that the Court’s reasoning was cursory—especially on discretion and legal connection—he rejects the dissents’ restrictive approach to counter-claims. Overall, the decision may complicate Ukraine’s litigation strategy but does not undermine its core objective of rebutting Russia’s genocide justification.

Developments at the ICC

and examine the ICC’s admissibility decision in Beina, which held the case inadmissible due to genuine ongoing proceedings before the Central African Republic’s Special Criminal Court. They welcome the ruling as reasserting Rome Statute complementarity over domestic attempts to give the ICC primacy through national law. The decision clarifies that even hybrid tribunals cannot displace complementarity, and that the ICC must step aside where domestic or hybrid courts are willing and able to prosecute.

argues that the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber was correct to dismiss Duterte’s jurisdictional challenge despite the Philippines’ withdrawal from the Rome Statute. He shows that the Court’s jurisdiction was already engaged when the Prosecutor opened a preliminary examination—while the Philippines was still a State Party—and that Article 127 preserves jurisdiction over such matters after withdrawal. More broadly, he defends a reading of the Statute (supported by VCLT principles) that prevents withdrawal from being used as a shield against accountability for crimes against humanity.

Russia sanctions and ISDS

argues that recent EU measures shielding Russia-related sanctions from investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS) fundamentally conflict with the international legal framework underpinning ISDS. By excluding arbitral jurisdiction, blocking enforcement (including of ICSID awards), and clawing back damages paid abroad, the EU is unilaterally carving sanctions out of investment law in ways that cannot be reconciled with the ICSID or New York Conventions. This marks a profound weakening of ISDS and sets a dangerous precedent for future geopolitical exceptions by powerful actors.

Space law

 sets out how the 2025 UNCOPUOS Draft Principles quietly but significantly reframe space resource governance by shifting the debate from abstract legality of extraction to conditional legitimacy based on compliance with multilateral principles. Rather than fully endorsing the Artemis approach, the Working Group on the Legal Aspects of Space Resource Activities pursues a strategy of selective accommodation: recognizing extraction as negotiable within the core principles, while resisting practices that resemble de facto appropriation or pseudo-sovereignty. Overall, the draft principles are an incremental, soft-law effort to manage geopolitical tensions and engineer legitimacy without forcing premature consensus.

New Issue of EJIL, Vol. 36 No. 3

The new issue of EJIL will be published shortly: walks us through the contents, and and give a short overview of the reviews. 

Articles by Marius Pieterse on Urban Collectives as Victims of International Human Rights Violations, Robert Stendel and Alexander Wentker on Monetary Gold in the Age of Public Interest Litigation, Michael Elliot and Felix Lüth on Corporate Liability Reforms in Transnational Anti-Corruption Law: Changing Course at a Time of Crisis or Continuing Historical Trajectories?, and Orfeas Chasapis-Tassinis on Statehood and International Organization: Rethinking Their Conceptual Relationship with Reference to Customary International Law.

Plus reviews by Françoise Tulkens of Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos. La dimension humaine du droit international, Cours général de droit international public, Recueil des cours, Tome 440, Lena Holzer of Giovanna Gilleri. Sex, Gender and International Human Rights Law: Contesting Binaries, Florian Couveinhes Matsumoto of Júlia Miklasová, Secession in International Law with A Special Reference to the Post-Soviet Space, and Carl Landauer of Lauren Benton. They Called It Peace: Worlds of Imperial Violence.

In her editorial, calls into question overreliance on quantitative metrics and superficial CV-based assessments in academic hiring and promotion, arguing that they distort scholarly incentives and undermine fair evaluation. She asks us to consider how citation counts, publication numbers, prestige proxies, and the Matthew/Matilda effects privilege visibility over substance, originality, and collective work, often to the detriment of minorities and early-career scholars. What is needed is a cultural shift toward qualitative engagement with ideas—through narrative CVs, research proposals, and asking the ‘why’ behind career paths—rather than outsourcing judgment to numbers or reputational shortcuts.

As ever, announcements and upcoming events can be found here.