This article proposes that there is a general principle of international lawconcerning the humane treatment of animals. Preoccupation with “animalrights” has been associated with Western cultural imperialism masqueradingas a universal ethic. Animal welfare is thus an instructive case study ofwhat Jutta Brunnée and Stephen Toope have identified as the key challengefor international law, that of “construct[ing] normative institutions whileadmitting and upholding the diversity of peoples in international society.”This article applies the framework of interactional international law setout in Brunnée and Toope’s recent book Legitimacy and Legality in International Law, while raising questions about the weight thattheir analysis accords to practice and their willingness to conclude thatwidely recognized principles to which states fail to adhere in practice lacklegal force. The article also examines how laws prohibiting cruelty toanimals have emerged precisely from an interactive cultural exchange betweenEast and West, in particular, between England and India. It concludes thatBrunnée and Toope’s framework, although it does not deal at any length withgeneral principles of law (a source of international law in which practiceplays a relatively minor role), is nevertheless a useful tool forunderstanding how a culturally contested principle fits into internationallaw and ultimately supports the view that there is a general principle ofinternational law concerning animal welfare.

Between 2005 and 2011, there was much debate, both within Canada and at theUnited Nations (UN), over what role home states should play in theregulation and adjudication of human rights harms associated withtransnational corporate conduct. In Canada, this debate focused uponconcerns related to global mining that led to a series of government,opposition and multi-stakeholder reports and proposals. These culminated in2010 with the appointment of an Extractive Sector Corporate SocialResponsibility Counsellor and the defeat of Bill C-300, An Act RespectingCorporate Accountability for the Activities of Mining, Oil or Gas inDeveloping Countries. Meanwhile, at the UN Human Rights Commission/Council,John G. Ruggie was appointed Special Representative to the UNSecretary-General on Business and Human Rights (SRSG). Ruggie’s work led tothe 2008 Protect, Respect and Remedy: A Framework for Business and Human Rights and the 2011 Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights (the latter designed to“operationalize” the former). While both documents highlight state duties toprotect against human rights violations by businesses and the need foraccess to remedies by victims, the role of home states in this regard wascontested. This article compares the developments in Canada between 2005 and2011 with the work of the SRSG in relation to the home state duty to protecthuman rights in the transnational corporate context. It also offersreflections on the implications of the inevitability of industry andindustry lawyer participation for the development of home state legalobligations.

From its very inception, the International Labour Organization (ILO) hasbeen a pioneer in addressing indigenous peoples’ issues, albeit initiallyfrom a culturally biased, integrationist perspective. Its contributions haveprogressed from the preparation of studies on the working conditions ofindigenous peoples in the 1920s, to the elaboration of recommendations andconventions on indigenous labour rights in the early 1940s and 1950s, andmost recently to the adoption of legally binding instruments recognizing abroader range of indigenous rights, such as those pertaining to land andresources, which are at the top of indigenous peoples’ agendas. This articlereviews and assesses these developments with a particular focus on ILOConvention nos. 107 (1957) and 169 (1989). The author concludes that,setting aside its initially assimilationist orientation, the ILO has madeinvaluable contributions in partial satisfaction of indigenous demands andhas succeeded in establishing a solid floor of basic, minimum prerequisitesfor the safeguarding of the dignity and rights of these most disadvantaged,both historically and presently, peoples.

Boundary disputes constitute one of the most delicate issues for states,such that it is not surprising that frontier issues are among the mostrecurrent before the International Court of Justice (IC J) and have givenrise to a rich jurisprudence. This jurisprudence comprises traditionalareas: consent in boundary treaties, the principle of uti possidetis juris, the notion of effectivités, and maritimedelimitation. However, it also includes other topics that usually receiveless attention, but which are nonetheless important to states and sometimesunderlie their significant interest in boundary disputes. This article dealswith such topics in order to show how the IC J has handled them in itsboundary jurisprudence of the first decade of the new millennium. The authordiscusses IC J decisions addressing types of territory that cannot beappropriated, terra nullius, private rights, statesuccession, unilateral donations as sources of title to territory,irrelevant criteria in establishing title to territory (particularlyhistorical consolidation), the use of maps, and state responsibility inconnection with boundary disputes.

While the law of the sea is rightly viewed as the most suitableinternational legal regime for the settlement of disputes in the Arctic, themilitarization of this region in an era of climate change is alsoobservable. Yet curiously, scant attention has been paid to the constraintsthe international humanitarian law (IHL) would impose on armed conflict inthe Arctic, as unlikely as such conflict may be. These constraints includethe specific prohibition on causing widespread, long-term, and severeenvironmental damage under Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventionsas well as the related obligation to have “due regard” for the naturalenvironment, as referred to in, for example, the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflict at Sea.Similarly, environmental factors must play into military assessments oftargets based on the general principles of IHL related to targeting. Theauthors explore how these various legal obligations could be applied in theArctic context. Referring to the scientific literature, they suggest that,due to the particularly vulnerable nature of this regional environment, manytraditional war-fighting techniques would lead to damage that is not legallypermissible. This conclusion should provide an additional incentive topolicy makers to demilitarize the Arctic and to solve peacefully anydisputes that may arise over sovereignty, navigation, or resources.

According to the International Court of Justice, any person through whom aninternational organization acts is an agent of that organization. However,this definition is too broad. Any participation in the fulfilment of themission of an international organization does not necessarily make theperson an agent of the international organization. After detailing theparticularities of the status of international agents, this articleconsiders the issue of accountability for wrongs attributable to them. Itrecommends in this respect the development of a system of accountabilitythat combines national and international justice responses with priority tothe former based on the location of the offence.

The history of European integration unmistakably shows that it hasprogressed step by step and is indeed an ongoing and irreversible process.One such step is the conclusion of the Lisbon Treaty, which came into forceon 1 December 2009, following negotiations spanning nearly a decade. Thetreaty aims, inter alia, at improving the functioning ofthe European Union (EU) and significantly amends the treaty basis of the EUas a supranational organization. It formally establishes the EU as a legalentity under public international law, strengthens the role of the EuropeanParliament, and significantly reforms the role of the high representative ofthe union for foreign affairs and security policy. Moreover, the treaty hasmade the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights a legally binding and enforceableinstrument and has expanded the competences of the EU in the fields of tradeand other external commercial relations by providing it with exclusivecompetence to conduct the EU’s Common Commercial Policy. The author reviewsthese and other innovations of the Lisbon Treaty and briefly evaluates thetreaty and its implications for the EU.