Over the last fortnight, some issues have remained in the spotlight: the implications of the Trump administration’s posture and practice for international institutions, Russia’s use of law to pressure its perceived antagonists, concerns around commercial deep-sea mining, and the open politicization of migration at the ECtHR. These have been joined by some newer players: issues around ad hoc economic arrangements enabling cross-border labour mobility, transfemicide at the Inter-American Court, and state maneouvres in UNCITRAL Working Group III. This week also saw the blog launch a new joint symposium on the Updated ICRC Commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention, co-hosted with the International Committee of the Red Cross and Just Security.

Migration and movement of people

The move by certain states to openly politicize the question of migration at the ECtHR continues to occupy commentators. argues that recent political calls to “reform” the European Court of Human Rights over migration are not actually grounded in genuine flaws in its case-law. He shows that the Council of Europe’s own draft assessment finds the Court cautious and deferential, with no clear judgments identified as excessive. The real concern, the author suggests, is governments’ frustration with domestic courts applying Strasbourg standards robustly—raising deeper questions about judicial independence and attempts to steer human rights interpretation through executive control.

draws our attention to the ad hoc economic arrangements used to manage labour mobility. He argues that international economic law treats cross-border labour mobility as peripheral, creating a structural blind spot despite labour’s central role as a factor of production. Using the 2025 India–Russia labour initiative under sanctions as a case study, he shows how labour mobility is managed through ad hoc economic arrangements while remaining legally fragmented across trade, sanctions, and migration regimes. The result: labour disruption—especially in sanctions-affected markets—is mischaracterised as a social issue rather than recognised as a form of capital and investment risk.

UN peacekeeping under Trump

and make the case that under the Donald Trump administration, US “reform” efforts are in fact weakening and reshaping UN peace operations to align with narrow national interests. They show how defunding, mandate narrowing, and benchmark conditionality in missions such as UN Mission in South Sudan and UN Interim Force in Lebanon set operations up to fail. More fundamentally, new models like the Haiti mission and the Gaza “Board of Peace” sideline UN control, signalling a structural shift away from multilateral, multidimensional peacekeeping toward state-led alternatives.

Transfemicide at the Inter-American Court

analyses the Inter-American Court’s judgment in Leonela Zelaya and Other v Honduras, assessing its implications for State responsibility and protection of trans women under the Convention of Belém do Pará. He argues that the Court consolidates and even strengthens its precedent from Vicky Hernández v Honduras—reaffirming treaty protection for trans women, broadening reparations to chosen family, recognising post-mortem gender identity, and deepening intersectional analysis—while clarifying strict evidentiary limits for attributing direct State responsibility for transfemicide. The judgment thus advances doctrinal protections yet signals that structural context alone will not suffice without concrete proof of State involvement or knowledge of risk.

Deep-sea mining

Last month, the Secretary-General of the International Seabed Authority notified member states of an application submitted by Nauru Ocean Resources, Inc. (NORI) for an extension of its approved plan of work for the exploration of polymetallic nodules in the eastern Pacific Ocean.  argues that the ISA must assess the application not only formally but in light of the broader corporate strategy of NORI’s parent, The Metals Company, which is simultaneously pursuing unilateral mining avenues outside the UNCLOS framework. Drawing on the CJEU’s “economic unity” reasoning and the objectives of Part XI of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, she contends that the ISA may lawfully look beyond corporate form to economic reality where multilateral integrity is at stake. At the same time, any refusal to extend must balance regime coherence with the Convention’s commitment to equitable participation by developing and sponsoring States.

UNCITRAL Working Group III

and take us into the dealings of the UNCITRAL Working Group III. They suggest that the 53rd session of UNCITRAL Working Group III reflects modest procedural progress but shrinking ambition in reforming ISDS. They explain how time pressure, debates over legal form (including supplements to the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules), and shifting State coalitions have privileged incremental technical fixes over deeper structural change, particularly on damages and counterclaims. Against the backdrop of geopolitical turmoil, not to mention actions by Donald Trump, they ask whether technocratic reform of ISDS can meaningfully advance its stated goals of depoliticisation, development, and the rule of law.

Joint Symposium: Updated ICRC Commentary on Geneva IV

This week, we were delighted to announce a joint symposium with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the editors of Just Security. Running over the coming weeks, it will share expert contributions on selected topics addressed in the updated ICRC Commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention. We hope this analysis will help shed light on important aspects of the Fourth Convention that are explored in depth in the updated Commentary, outline developments in law, technology and language since 1949, and give readers an idea of what has changed since the initial ICRC Commentary was published in 1958.

In the first in the series, invites us to read the ICRC’s Updated Commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention in times of imperial conflict. He welcomes the 2025 update as a major doctrinal achievement, but critiques its limited and largely implicit engagement with the Convention’s colonial and racial legacies. While the Commentary adopts more pluralist and postcolonial methodologies than its predecessor and often narrows historically imperial readings (e.g., on derogations and humanitarian relief), it stops short of directly confronting how empire and racial hierarchy shaped the Fourth Geneva Convention’s drafting and early interpretation. A more explicit reckoning with these foundations would strengthen contemporary humanitarian interpretation, especially amid renewed forms of occupation, starvation tactics, and imperial logics in today’s conflicts.

From Russia in absentia

assesses the legality of the Moscow City Court’s in absentia convictions of nine officials of the International Criminal Court, imposed in retaliation for arrest warrants including one against Vladimir Putin. He argues that, contrary to UN experts’ claims, immunity under the Rome Statute and the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations is doubtful in this context, particularly given Russia’s non-party status and the territorial scope of diplomatic immunity. Instead, the stronger grounds for invalidity lie in the absence of a convincing jurisdictional basis and in serious fair trial violations—especially the lack of effective notice and the improper use of trial in absentia under international human rights law.

As ever, you can find information about announcements and events here and here.

And I leave with you a thought from Anthony Trollope, who wrote some 150 years ago that

a certain class of dishonesty, dishonesty magnificent in its proportions, and climbing into high places, has become at the same time so rampant and so splendid that there seems to be reason for fearing that men and women will be taught to feel that dishonesty, if it can become splendid, will cease to be abominable.