The last two weeks have covered a lot of ground, from the collapse of the Central American Court of Justice to Russian policies of population transfer in Ukraine and the place of diplomatic assurances concerning safe third country return. It has also been a fortnight rich in proposals: from how to harmonize free education under international law, to the management of the Strait of Hormuz, the apportionment of State responsibility for historical climate emissions, and liability for nuclear reactors on the Moon. Not mention new furrows on an old field: the relationship bewteen IHL and IHRL. 

The collapse of the Central American Court of Justice

Anny Matamoros Pineda examines the collapse of the Central American Court of Justice (CACJ) following Honduras’s withdrawal in May 2026, situating it within the Court’s troubled history as one of the world’s earliest permanent international courts. Despite its ambitious jurisdiction and attempts to emulate CJEU doctrines such as primacy, direct effect, and the role of national courts as Community law courts, the CACJ never secured sufficient political support or authority within the Central American Integration System. Its demise reflects not merely institutional design failures but deeper regional problems of political fragmentation, democratic erosion, corruption, and weakening commitment to regional integration and the rule of law.

State responsibility for historical climate emissions 

Tonmoy Halder argues that the ICJ’s 2025 Climate Change Advisory Opinion does not exclude historical emissions from State responsibility, but leaves unresolved how responsibility for cumulative climate harm should be apportioned among multiple emitting States. Drawing on Article 47 ARSIWA, the ICJ’s judgemtn in Armed Activities, and Judge Simma’s separate opinion in Oil Platforms, he proposes a two-stage model: collective attribution of climate harm to emitting States, followed by proportional or “market-share” allocation of particular losses according to individual contributions. This approach could operationalise the Court’s causation framework in future claims by climate-vulnerable States such as Bangladesh, although substantial evidentiary challenges remain in translating attribution science into quantified reparation.

Managing the Strait of Hormuz

Soheil Golchin and Seyed Hossein Sadat Meidani put the case that debates over Iranian charges for navigation through the Strait of Hormuz should move beyond the legality of transit tolls under Article 26 UNCLOS towards the neglected burden-sharing framework of Article 43 UNCLOS. Read alongside Articles 41–42, Article 43 provides for cooperation between strait and user States in financing navigational and safety infrastructure without making payment a condition of passage. Drawing on the cooperative mechanism developed for the Malacca and Singapore Straits, Soheil and Seyed propose a comparable Iran-Oman framework through which user States could contribute to maritime services while preserving applicable passage rights—as it were, a “Malacca-isation” of Hormuz.

Illegal population transfer in Ukraine

Veronika Vozniuk argues that Russia’s incentives for civilians to settle in occupied Ukrainian territory may constitute a prohibited population transfer under Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention, notwithstanding the formally voluntary character of individual relocation. Drawing on the ICJ’s 2004 Wall and 2024 OPT Advisory Opinions, she contends that Article 49(6) encompasses State measures that encourage or sustain settlement, not merely forcible transfers. Russia’s redistribution of confiscated Ukrainian homes, preferential mortgages, tax and investment incentives, and long-term population planning therefore provide strong grounds for finding an organised policy of demographic settlement contrary to Article 49(6), alongside potential violations of Article 46 of the Hague Regulations.

Safe third country return and diplomatic assurances

Tamar Vardiashvili examines the ECtHR’s judgment in J.B. v. Greece. The case concerned the potential removal of a Syrian national from Greece to Türkiye under the EU-Türkiye Statement after the rejection of his asylum claim on safe third country grounds. The Court struck out the applicant’s substantive Article 3 complaint concerning his removal to Türkiye, found no violation of Article 13 taken with Article 3 as regards the examination of his asylum claim, and found a violation of Article 3 concerning the conditions of his detention at Mytilene police station. The judgment’s significant doctrinal question concerns its treatment of assurances supporting return to Türkiye: Tamar argues that it adapts rather than abandons the reliability test for diplomatic assurances established in Othman (Abu Qatada) v. United Kingdom. J.B. suggests that, within structured interstate cooperation frameworks such as the EU-Türkiye Statement, Article 3 ECHR may be satisfied by general rather than individualised assurances where evidence demonstrates that safeguards operate effectively in practice and are not undermined by systemic deficiencies. However, the Court fails to specify what evidence establishes such institutional reliability, a significant omission given Türkiye’s subsequent suspension of readmissions and the CJEU’s insistence in Case C-134/23 that formal safe third country arrangements cannot substitute for their effective operation.

Free education under international law

Bede Sheppard makes the case that international law takes an unjustifiably fragmented approach to free education, imposing clear obligations for primary education while treating free secondary education as something that can be realised progressively and largely omitting pre-primary education. Tracing inconsistencies across the ICESCR, CRC, UNESCO Convention Against Discrimination in Education, treaty-body interpretations, and regional human rights systems, he contends that children’s entitlement to free education currently varies according to age, treaty regime and geography. What is needed is a new Optional Protocol to the CRC guaranteeing free public pre-primary and secondary education: this would harmonise rather than fragment existing international law and strengthen equal access to the right to education.

The relationship between IHL and IHRL

Marko Milanovic gives us an update on the relationship between IHL and IHRL and lex specialis. The ECtHR’s merits judgment in Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia and the ICJ’s recent advisory opinions on Policies and Practices, Climate Change, and UNRWA, probably constitute the most significant judicial engagement ever with this relationship: and they have largely abandoned lex specialis as the framework for the relationship between IHL and IHRL in favour of simultaneous application and harmonious interpretation. Contrast this judicial trend with Human Rights Council Resolutions 62/4 and 62/20 (2026), which revive lex specialis terminology; however, this should be understood only as permitting IHL to inform the interpretation of IHRL rather than displacing it. Looking ahead to CESCR’s proposed General Comment on armed conflict, the Committee should avoid using lex specialis, and instead embrace the opportunity to explain that socio-economic rights can be violated in armed conflict even if IHL was not violated, as IHRL can offer a big-picture, macro analysis of the aggregate harms that military operations have inflicted on a civilian population in ways that IHL cannot.

Faulty nuclear reactors on the Moon?

Yunus Emre Bakiler and Güneş Ünüvar examine whether existing international law adequately addresses liability for accidents involving nuclear reactors on the Moon, as nuclear power becomes increasingly central to sustained lunar operations. While the Outer Space Treaty and 1972 Liability Convention impose State responsibility and differing standards of liability for terrestrial and space-based damage, they are poorly adapted to nuclear risks such as contamination, latent injury, and economic loss. The Vienna and Paris nuclear liability regimes provide more tailored rules but their application to lunar installations remains uncertain. A dedicated civil-liability framework for lunar nuclear power is needed, drawing on terrestrial nuclear law’s strict operator liability, financial-security, and compensation mechanisms while preserving existing State responsibility under Articles VI–VII OST and the Liability Convention.

And as ever, announcements can be found here.