bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
Denunciation
Authors: Schloenhardt Andreas 
Published: June 2024

Abstract
This article is based on Article 40 of the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC). It sets out the process of how States Parties may withdraw from the Smuggling of Migrants Protocol and the conditions under which the denunciation may take place. States Parties may withdraw unilaterally from the Protocol by notifying the UN Secretary-General. The article states that the regional economic integration organizations cease to be a Party to UNTOC once all of its Member States have withdrawn. Under Article 40(3) of UNTOC, withdrawal from the Convention automatically results in the denunciation of the Protocols to UNTOC.
Preamble
Authors: Schloenhardt Andreas 
Published: June 2024

Abstract
This chapter provides some insight into the background, development, and context of the Firearms Protocol, including the dangers and challenges posed by the global illicit trade in firearms and its impact on individuals, communities, social and economic development, and the security of States. It emphasizes the need to adopt appropriate countermeasures at national, regional, and global levels. It also acknowledges the work of the Ad Hoc Committee in developing the final text of the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC) and its Protocols. The chapter outlines general principles concerning equal rights and self-determination of peoples as well as friendly relations and cooperation under the Charter of the United Nations. It highlights the special relationship between the Firearms Protocol and UNTOC.
Use of Terms
Authors: Block Johannes 
Published: June 2024

Abstract
This article sets out definitions that are essential to the functioning of the Firearms Protocol, determining which firearms fall under the Protocol and the acts of illicit manufacturing and trafficking. It discusses the overlap of the Protocol with other international instruments relating to the regulation of firearms. It also emphasizes how States Parties must ensure that existing national law or newly introduced legislation has at least the same scope as the definition of terms. The article defines firearms as man-made lethal weapons that expel or launch a projectile by the action of an explosive. The Protocol’s definition of firearms excludes larger weapons, such as artillery that is not portable.
Record-keeping
Authors: Block Johannes 
Published: June 2024

Abstract
This article enables a comprehensive traceability of firearms, which is essential to allow effective combating of the illicit firearms trade and manufacturing. It highlights the obligation to keep records for long time periods that becomes apparent when considering the durability of firearms themselves. It also emphasizes that States Parties must be diligent to the Firearms Protocol about traceability and accountability in order to comply with their obligations, despite the weakness of some other provisions. States Parties must ensure that information that is necessary to enable the tracking of firearms, its parts, and its components is kept. The article contains specifications necessary for tracing, which are non-exhaustive and include mandatory information in the national record system that could encompass data on manufacturers, vendors, and buyers.
Deactivation of Firearms
Authors: Block Johannes 
Published: June 2024

Abstract
This article requires States Parties to render deactivated firearms permanently inoperable and to establish verification for the necessary deactivations. It aims to tackle the issue on a study published by the Flemish Peace Institute in 2018, which found that the reactivation of deactivated firearms is one of the most important illicit sources for illegal firearms in the European Union. It also talks about how irreversible deactivation is necessary to ensure that deactivated firearms cannot be employed by criminal elements, including organized crime. The article recognizes that States Parties have different legal regimes concerning deactivated firearms, noting that it can be considered as firearms in some jurisdictions and subject to the same rules as functional arms. It obliges States Parties to take the respective legal measures to prevent the illicit reactivation of firearms if deactivated firearms are not subject to arms controls for functional arms in national law.
General Requirements for Export, Import and Transit Licensing or Authorization Systems
Authors: Block Johannes 
Published: June 2024

Abstract
This article covers the established lines of communication and authorization between exporting and importing States that may counterbalance weaknesses which may exist in the import State’s administration and prevent some diversion of firearms to the illegal market. It is based on the principle, which is central to the Firearms Protocol, that no firearms should be shipped without the awareness and approval of all States involved. It also points out how the transfer of firearms, ammunition, and parts and components by postal or courier services poses a challenge for measures attempting to prevent such items from being transferred for illegal purposes. The article sets out a control regime based on a broad understanding of transfer, covering import, export, and transit of firearms, their parts and components, and ammunition. It groups the obligations of States Parties into three main acts of transfer: import, export, and international transit.
Entry into Force
Authors: Schloenhardt Andreas 
Published: June 2024

Abstract
This article sets out the conditions that need to be fulfilled for the Firearms Protocol to enter into force. The main requirement of the enforcement is the minimum number of 40 instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval, or accession, which is followed by a 90-day waiting period. It defines the point in time when the Convention initially comes into force and concerns the entry into force for States and regional economic integration organizations that become bound after a determined date. The article points out that the instrument deposited by a regional economic integration organization will not be counted as additional to those deposited by member States of such organization. The Protocol will enter into force on the thirtieth day after the date of deposit by a State or organization for each State or regional economic integration organization ratifying, accepting, approving or acceding to the Firearms Protocol.
Amendment
Authors: Schloenhardt Andreas 
Published: June 2024

Abstract
This article sets out the process to make amendments to the Firearms Protocol. The amendment process is based on the general rules for formal changes to international treaties that are set out in Articles 39 and 40 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. It also stipulates how proposals to amend the Protocol can be submitted, circulated, and adopted. The article spells out the specific role of regional economic integration organizations if amendments are voted on and details the entry into force of any amendment. When an amendment enters into force, it shall be binding on those States Parties which have expressed their consent to be bound by it.
Denunciation
Authors: Schloenhardt Andreas 
Published: June 2024

Abstract
The chapter sets out the process of how States Parties may withdraw from the Firearms Protocol and the conditions under which the denunciation may take place. It points out that States Parties may withdraw unilaterally from the Protocol by notifying the UN Secretary-General. It also mentions that regional economic integration organizations cease to be a Party to the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC) once all of its Member States have withdrawn. The article implies that a State Party may denounce the Protocol by written notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Such denunciation shall become effective one year after the date of receipt of the notification by the Secretary-General.
General international law in international investment law
Authors: Kulick Andreas , Waibel Michael 
Published: June 2024

Abstract
This entry by the two editors introduces the Commentary. It explains the main goals of the Commentary, the concept of a semi-systematic Commentary and what this Commentary means by ‘general international law’. Moreover, it sets out the guiding questions that each entry addresses and the structure and contents of this Commentary. (1) How do the ICJ and other judicial bodies interpret and apply the rule beyond IIL? (2) How do arbitral tribunals and domestic courts interpret and apply the rule in investment disputes? Have tribunals diverged? How important is the rule in investment arbitration? (3) To what extent does investment arbitration practice align with the practice of the ICJ and other tribunals? (4) What explains (non-)alignment? How has GIL affected (non-)alignment? (5) Should the specific rule or area align with GIL, and why?
Article 25 of the VCLTProvisional application
Authors: Voon Tania 
Published: June 2024

Abstract
This entry considers the provisional application of treaties pursuant to Article 25 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, in the specific context of disputes arising in international investment law. An agreement to apply a treaty on a provisional basis usually exists in the relevant treaty itself but may also take other forms. The most controversial area with respect to provisional application in investment disputes relates to the extent to which domestic law may limit such application. This issue has been particularly problematic with respect to the Energy Charter Treaty because of the ambiguity of its relevant terms. Because the Energy Charter Treaty provides for some obligations to continue for 20 years after a state (eg Russia) terminates its provisional application, the impact of domestic law on provisional application becomes even more important in those circumstances.
Article 28 of the VCLT: Non-retroactivity of treaties
Authors: Juratowitch Ben , McArthur Jackie 
Published: June 2024

Abstract
This entry examines Article 28 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT). It documents the widespread acceptance of the rule reflected in Article 28, though its status as customary international law or a general principle of law is less clear. International courts and tribunals readily apply Article 28 to treaty provisions that establish primary obligations. Unlike the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ), other courts and tribunals have been less permissive in considering their temporal jurisdiction.
Article 31 of the VCLT: General rule of interpretation
Authors: Kulick Andreas , Merkouris Panos 
Published: June 2024

Abstract
This entry provides a systematic treatment of the doctrinal requirements of the general rule of interpretation under Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) and provides evidence of the customary status of Article 31. In discussing the requirements of Article 31, the entry engages with both literature and decisions of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), other international adjudicatory bodies and in particular investment arbitration tribunals. Generally, investment tribunals align in their approaches with those adopted by other international courts and tribunals, especially the ICJ and remain mostly faithful to the requirements set out in Article 31. However, some deviations are expected due to the flexible nature of Articles 31–33 of the VCLT, the hybrid nature of investment arbitration, and the plethora of awards rendered. Notable deviations pertain to the use of dictionaries and the use of third-party investment agreements as ‘context’.
Article 32 of the VCLT: Supplementary means of interpretation
Authors: Shirlow Esmé , Waibel Michael 
Published: June 2024

Abstract
This entry covers the approaches of international courts and tribunals to using supplementary means of interpretation under Article 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT). International courts and tribunals have repeatedly recognized Article 32 to be reflective of customary international law. The entry considers how the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and other international courts and tribunals, including investment tribunals, have applied supplementary means of interpretation in their decisions. It highlights the different approaches that have developed vis-à-vis both the types of materials to which Article 32 applies and the triggers for recourse to supplementary means of interpretation under Article 32. The entry highlights the discretion inherent in the application of Article 32 for international courts and tribunals to determine the role to be played by supplementary means of interpretation under the VCLT’s interpretive framework.
Article 6 of the ARSIWA and Article 7 of the ARIO
Authors: Bonnitcha Jonathan , Mathew Alisha 
Published: June 2024

Abstract
This entry discusses Article 6 of the Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA) and Article 7 of the Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations (ARIO). Both provisions concern the attribution of conduct where an organ of a State is placed at the disposal of another State or an international organization. Due to the lack of sufficiently consistent state practice and opinio juris, doubts about whether either represents custom were raised. The entry presents the requirements of Article 6 ARSIWA and Article 7 ARIO, highlighting that an important issue pertains to whether a ‘factual’ or ‘legal’ approach should be used to determine whether an organ of a State has been placed under the direction and control of another State or international organization. It further discusses the sparse practice and notes that the existing few cases do not allow any definitive conclusions regarding alignment or deviation between investment arbitration and general international law jurisprudence.
Article 8 of the ARSIWA
Authors: Viñuales Jorge E , Papanastasiou Alina 
Published: June 2024

Abstract
This entry discusses Article 8 of the Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA). The provision codifies the customary rule on attribution of conduct of persons instructed, directed or controlled by a state. The entry details the requirements enshrined in Article 8 and discusses the decisions of investment tribunals and other international courts and tribunals on the matter. The entry concludes that investment arbitration tribunals are among the most frequent users of the customary rules on attribution and that their jurisprudence has gradually become an important vector in the consolidation of the general international law of attribution and is thus likely to play a growing role in clarifying the operation of the rule codified in Article 8 of the ARSIWA.
Article 20 of the ARSIWA
Authors: Paddeu Federica 
Published: June 2024

Abstract
This entry focuses on the defence of consent in accordance with Article 20 of the Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA). It discusses the requirements of this defence under general international law, addressing questions as to the timing, form, authority, scope, and withdrawal or termination of consent. It then considers the application of this defence in international investment law, in particular whether the consent of the home State to non-performance of investment obligations is valid as against the investor, and whether investors can consent to non-performance vis-à-vis the host State.
Article 21 of the ARSIWA
Authors: Paddeu Federica 
Published: June 2024

Abstract
This entry considers self-defence as a circumstance precluding wrongfulness under Article 21 of the Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA). It explains the scope of application of self-defence as a defence under Article 21 ARSIWA: the defence applies to collateral violations of the rights of the aggressor State, which are caused by ‘lawful measures’ of self-defence. It then considers the application of Article 21 in international investment law, addressing in particular questions of jurisdiction of investment tribunals and the impact of an inter-State defence on rights of private entities.
Article 24 of the ARSIWA
Authors: Paddeu Federica 
Published: June 2024

Abstract
This entry discusses Article 24 of the Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA), on the defence of distress. This defence was an instance of progressive development by the International Law Commission (ILC), which was inspired by similar rules in the law of the see and the law of aviation (refuge in distress). The entry reviews the requirements for the application of this defence in general international law, and then in international investment law. It notes the stricter standard applied in one investment decision, and explains how this is inconsistent with the drafting of the defence and its overall aim.
Article 26 of the ARSIWA
Authors: Paddeu Federica 
Published: June 2024

Abstract
This entry addresses Article 26 of the Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA). Pursuant to this provision, defences under the law of state responsibility may not be invoked in respect of conduct in breach of peremptory rules of international law. The entry notes that States cannot, by agreement, set aside the application of peremptory rules, it must follow that they cannot do so unilaterally. It then explains the application of the provision in general international law and international investment law.
Part Two, Chapters I and II of the ARSIWA
Authors: Vidigal Geraldo , Forrest Stephanie 
Published: June 2024

Abstract
This entry discusses the provisions in Part Two, Chapters I and II of the Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA), Art. 28-39. It sets out their requirements, presents the relevant literature and decisions dealing with the remedies available when international responsibility of a state is established. For the most part, these rules constitute customary international law. International courts operating in the interstate context and investment tribunals usually take either the ARSIWA directly or the decisions and state practice regarding remedies the ILC sought to codify as a starting point. However, despite this shared starting point, divergence of the practices in general international law and in investment law has emerged, especially regarding compensation, the most commonly ordered remedy. Investment tribunals have traditionally preferred awards of compensation over all other remedies. In contrast, other international courts and tribunals are more likely to consider a wider range of available remedies, including cessation of unlawful conduct, determinations of material or juridical restitution, and declarations awarding satisfaction.
Articles 49–54 of the ARSIWA
Authors: Paparinskis Martins 
Published: June 2024

AbstractThis entry explores the framework set by Articles 49–54 of the 2001 International Law Commission’s (ILC) Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA). Countermeasures are distinct from retorsion and the termination or suspension of treaties under the law of treaties. Countermeasures simultaneously play the roles of a shield and a sword in the law of State responsibility, respectively precluding wrongfulness and implementing responsibility. The entry addresses the application of the provisions in general international law and international investment law. It explains that countermeasures must meet certain substantive and procedural conditions.
The protection of foreign investment in the law of State succession
Authors: Sarvarian Arman 
Published: June 2024

Abstract
This entry addresses the protection of foreign investment in the law of State succession. The substantive rules of general international law derive from customary international law, national laws of States, and general principles of law. In the absence of investor–State arbitration, general international law governs the treatment of the property of aliens in the territorial jurisdiction of the successor. The entry considers the key debates concerning decolonization, such as the duty to compensate aliens for the expropriation of their property. It also examines the notions of international minimum standard of treatment, concessionary contracts, and foreign bondholders in line with the protection of foreign investment.
Article 38 of the ICJ Statute
Authors: Dumberry Patrick 
Published: June 2024

Abstract
This entry discusses Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ Statute). It explains that sources in Article 38 are generally regarded as applicable in ICJ cases and other international courts and tribunals. Investor–State arbitration tribunals frequently refer to the provision as an authoritative statement of the sources of international law. Moreover, no arbitral tribunal has ever rejected the relevance of Article 38(1) of the ICJ Statute in the field of international investment law. The entry explains how judicial bodies considered that two basic requirements of State practice and opinio juris are necessary to conclude that a customary rule exists.
Regional Developments: Americas
Authors: Piovesan Flávia , Jubilut Liliana Lyra , Casagrande Melissa Martins 
Published: June 2024

Abstract
This chapter covers how the Americas have developed regional instruments to enhance refugee law and protection. It details the region's response in the drafting of the 1951 Convention and the Convention’s implementations and of regional developments and trends in North America and Latin America. After the approval of the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol, refugee law and protection had been improved through regional developments. The chapter examines the developments concerning the debates and practices of the refugee concept under the new forced migration development and the adoption of new universal norms and governance guidelines on the refugee regime. It acknowledges the adoption of the Cartagena Declaration and its review documents as a sign of progress.
Article 1 A, para. 2 1951 Convention
Authors: Zimmermann Andreas , Herrmann Franziska 
Published: June 2024

Abstract
This chapter focuses on the features of Article 1 of the 1951 Convention. The article primarily determines the scope of application of the Convention's ratione personae while outlining the basis of the protection of refugees. Additionally, Article 1 addresses the concerns surrounding the inclusion, cessation, and exclusion of refugees. The chapter then tackles the historical development of the article by considering the instruments used prior to the 1951 COnvention. It also cites that the Constitution of the International Refugee Organization appears to contain an ambiguity as to how the refugee notion was perceived, so refugees only became the IRO Constitution's concern when they have valid objections to returning to their home country.
Article 1 B
Authors: Schmahl Stefanie 
Published: June 2024

Abstract
This chapter elaborates on the functions of Article B of the 1951 Convention. It explains how the European States sought to create a rights regime conducive to the redistribution of the post-war refugee burden from their shoulders, especially when States complained about coping with the bulk of human displacement after the Second World War. Since Article 1 A's definition of refugees does not apply universally, Article 1 B provides States the option to restrict the definition on geographical grounds. However, after geographical and temporal limitations of the refugee definition were lifted through the 1967 Protocol, the Convention became a treaty of universal and temporally-unlimited application. It enumerates Congo, Madagascar, Monaco, and Turkey as the only countries with geographical limitations. Human rights