In a slightly extended version of Two Weeks in Review, we take in fundamental questions about what happens when law and lawyers seek or refuse to justify illegal actions, “relocation orders” issued by Israel in Gaza and Lebanon, the closing of the Strait of Hormuz, Australian soldiers and Belgian consular officials in domestic courts for international crimes, the seminal UN Declaration on the Trafficking of Enslaved Africans, conflicts creatd by critical minerals agreements, nuclear sharing agreements, and a good deal more—not to mention the latest installment in Joseph Weiler’s parting advice to young scholars.

Law and legitimacy

 explores the ethical dilemma faced by government lawyers when pressured to justify actions they believe are clearly illegal, especially in high-stakes contexts like war. While such dilemmas are rare—and largely absent in authoritarian systems—they are acute in democracies, where lawyers must choose between enabling power or upholding the rule of law, sometimes at personal cost. Using the example of UK legal advisers who opposed the 2003 Iraq invasion, he highlights the importance of professional courage in saying “no.” It is these examples that we must remember, as democracies face renewed rule-of-law challenges today.

 argues that the expanding and increasingly permissive use of self-defence in international law reflects not doctrinal coherence but a deeper erosion of the authority to define and limit lawful violence. Drawing on Hannah Arendt and Franz Fanon, she suggests this breakdown both reveals the weakening of state authority to legitimise force and opens space for alternative sites of normative meaning-making. In particular, this crisis links to self-determination and grassroots political movements, as excluded communities can generate competing claims about legality and justice. Overall, international law should be rethought as a contested field where authority over violence is no longer monopolised by states but dispersed across plural forms of lived experience and political struggle.

Middle East conflict

and make the case that large-scale “relocation orders” issued by Israel in Gaza and Lebanon, while framed as humanitarian precautions, may violate international humanitarian law (IHL) because they cause massive civilian harm and displacement. Such practices misapply legal principles by presenting a false choice between displacement and civilian casualties, when IHL may permit neither if less harmful alternatives exist. The prohibition on forcible displacement should apply more broadly, not depend on formal occupation status, and must be read alongside rules on proportionality and precautions in attack. Ultimately, displacement-induced harm must be assessed like other civilian harm and avoided if unnecessary or disproportionate.

argues that Iran’s proposed regime for the Strait of Hormuz is not just a temporary closure but an attempt to fundamentally transform a natural international strait into a controlled, revenue-generating gateway. This violates the legal framework of transit passage under UNCLOS, which guarantees free navigation and prohibits discriminatory fees or restrictions. Neither analogies to canal tolls nor bilateral arrangements with Oman can override third states’ passage rights. The proposed regime would set a dangerous precedent that could destabilize the global legal order governing key maritime chokepoints.

Sapodilla Cayes and Monetary Gold

argues that although the ICJ allowed Guatemala to intervene in the Sapodilla Cayes case, the Court may still lack jurisdiction under the Monetary Gold principle because Guatemala could be an indispensable third party whose rights form the core of the dispute. He explains that this problem is especially acute in sovereignty disputes (unlike boundary delimitations), because the Court cannot avoid affecting third-party claims. Neither Guatemala’s intervention nor its separate consent to jurisdiction resolves this issue, as Monetary Gold requires consent within the same proceedings. Perhaps there is scope for a novel solution: using an expanded “givens” doctrine, where the Court issues simultaneous judgments in related cases so each can rely on the other’s determinations without violating Monetary Gold.

International crimes in domestic courts

and examine the arrest and prosecution of Australian soldiers for alleged war crimes committed in Afghanistan, arguing that these cases mark a major test of Australia’s ability to domesticate international criminal law. They highlight how constitutional requirements for jury trials, intense pre-trial publicity, and complex evidentiary rules create significant procedural challenges: in particular immunities from the Brereton Inquiry into killings by Australian Special Forces in Afghanistan between 2009 and 2013, and national security restrictions. They also explore how Australia’s implementation of the Rome Statute differs from international standards, particularly in relation to offences, mental elements, and modes of liability. These trials illustrate both the difficulties and importance of prosecuting international crimes within a common law system committed to accountability.

 analyses recent Belgian judicial proceedings against a former Belgian consular officer concerning the assassination of Patrice Lumumba, arguing that they represent a significant step in the legal reckoning with colonial-era crimes. The case hinges on framing Lumumba’s detention and transfer as war crimes, which requires establishing the existence of an international armed conflict in 1960–61 and overcoming issues of jurisdiction and statutory limitation. Raphael details the legal arguments supporting that classification, including Belgium’s involvement in Congolese events and possible attribution of conduct to the Belgian state under international law doctrines. The case, alongside earlier civil liability rulings like the Métis case, illustrates an increasingly bold willingness of Belgian courts to adjudicate colonial historical violence through contemporary international criminal law.

UN Declaration on the Trafficking of Enslaved Africans

and  take us into a discussion of UN General Assembly Resolution A/80/L.48  which declares the transatlantic trafficking of enslaved Africans to be the “gravest crime against humanity”. They argue that while the resolution is formally non-binding, it carries significant normative and interpretive weight in international law. The objections of the US, EU, and UK—particularly around intertemporality, retroactivity, and the legal consequences of characterising historical slavery as a jus cogens violation—are only partially persuasive and often historically incomplete. When situated within ICJ jurisprudence on General Assembly resolutions and customary international law, the legal impact of the UN Declaration on the Trafficking of Enslaved Africans depends less on its text than on subsequent state practice and acceptance. The declaration does not settle the law—but it does meaningfully shift the legal and political frame for future debates on slavery and reparatory justice.

NATO nuclear sharing arrangements

and argue that NATO nuclear sharing arrangements are legally compatible with the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), despite increasing criticism from some states in the Global South ahead of the 2026 Review Conference. They ground this claim in treaty interpretation under the Vienna Convention, emphasizing that the text of Articles I–II, together with the negotiating history, show no intention to prohibit nuclear sharing so long as control over weapons remains with the US. Subsequent state practice, including early Review Conferences and ratification debates, show that many states were aware of and did not object to these arrangements. Contemporary legal challenges to nuclear sharing are unpersuasive in light of the NPT’s drafting history and long-standing practice.

Critical mineral agreements

and argue that the surge in critical minerals agreements reflects geopolitical rivalry and a broader shift toward state-led, bilateral governance of supply chains. These deals—often soft-law but sometimes binding—are being layered onto existing trade and investment regimes and increasingly prioritize securing access and alignment over multilateral consistency. This creates growing tensions with international economic law, including non-discrimination and investment protection obligations. As a result, mineral-rich developing countries may face legal conflicts and strategic pressure from overlapping and potentially contradictory commitments.

Who cares about theorizing international organizations?

We all should!  makes the case that states and international organizations should be understood as part of the same family of legal persons rather than as “natural” versus “artificial” entities, which helps resolve long-standing puzzles about their legal status under customary international law. Both derive from the same underlying capacity of political communities to create institutions, which explains how they are bound by, and contribute to, customary international law. Responding to critiques, Orfeas defends this framework against claims that it adds little beyond existing approaches, clarifies its concept of “organized political community”, and maintains that weighing international organizations’ practice according to membership does not undermine their distinct legal personality. Overall, he proposes a unified and genealogical account of legal personality in international law that seeks to reshape how statehood, international organisations, and custom are understood.

Advice to young scholars

On his ‘long and winding way out’,  pauses with his latest reflection in the series Advice to Young Scholars. He suggests that blurbs on law books—much like for new films—are largely meaningless and ineffective, as the genre requires uniformly positive praise regardless of actual quality. The awkward dynamics behind them—authors asking colleagues or friends—make it difficult to refuse, and force reviewers into insincere or overly simplified endorsements. Unlike substantive book reviews, blurbs cannot capture nuance and thus provide little real value to readers or scholars. Nor do they drive sales (when did you last buy a law book based on the back-cover blurb?) The practice should be abandoned: better not to request blurbs at all.

EJIL:The Podcast! Episode 43: Sudan—Does international law have anything to say?

What does international law have to say about the situation in Sudan and how could it be used to halt the violence and promote justice, broadly defined? What role is there for the International Criminal Court, International Court of Justice, African Union, local courts or other institutions? How should we think about tensions between peace and justice, after decades of neither? Sarah Nouwen is joined by Kholood Khair (Confluence Advisory, formerly based in Khartoum), Mohaned Elnour (Sudanese human rights lawyer in exile) and Ambassador Namira Negm (Director of the African Migration Observatory) to think through these questions.

Events and announcements, as ever, can be found here and here.