International Law

The 2025 ASIL Abroad Meeting in Singapore, centered on "Traditions and Transitions in International Law," has significant implications for the practice of international law globally. Comparatively, the US, Korean, and international approaches to international law demonstrate distinct nuances. In the US, the emphasis on the International Criminal Court (ICC) and its Statute reflects a long-standing engagement with international justice, whereas in Korea, the focus on the Crimes against Humanity Treaty underscores the country's growing commitment to upholding human rights and combating impunity. Internationally, the convergence of perspectives from diverse jurisdictions, including Asia, highlights the increasing importance of regional and global cooperation in shaping the future of international law. In terms of jurisdictional comparison, the US approach to international law has traditionally been characterized by a strong emphasis on national sovereignty and self-determination, whereas Korea's approach has been shaped by its post-colonial history and its desire to assert its place in the international community. Internationally, the trend towards greater regional cooperation and the increasing influence of emerging powers, such as those in Asia, is redefining the landscape of international law. The 2025 ASIL Abroad Meeting in Singapore serves as a testament to this shift, bringing together scholars, practitioners, and policymakers from diverse backgrounds to explore the traditions and transitions in international law. The implications of this meeting are far-reaching, with potential impacts on the development of international law, particularly in the areas of international criminal law and human rights. The convergence of

As the Treaty Interpretation & Vienna Convention Expert, I'll analyze the implications of this article for practitioners, focusing on treaty obligations, reservations, and customary international law. The article highlights the 2025 ASIL Abroad Meeting in Singapore, which explored "Traditions and Transitions in International Law." This theme is particularly relevant to practitioners dealing with treaty interpretation, as it touches on the evolving nature of international law and its implications for state obligations. One of the sessions, "The Arc and Future of International Criminal Law," is particularly noteworthy, as it discusses the Rome Statute and the Crimes against Humanity Treaty. This session is connected to case law, such as the Prosecutor v. Lubanga case (ICC-01/04-01/06), which dealt with the interpretation of the Rome Statute and the concept of "armed conflict" in international criminal law. In terms of statutory connections, the Rome Statute is a key treaty that established the International Criminal Court (ICC), and its interpretation has significant implications for international criminal law. The Crimes against Humanity Treaty, also known as the ICC Statute, is another relevant treaty that practitioners should be familiar with. Regulatory connections are also relevant, as the ICC Statute and other international criminal law treaties often interact with national laws and regulations. For example, the ICC Statute requires states parties to cooperate with the ICC, which may involve changes to national laws and regulations. In terms of treaty obligations, the Rome Statute and the Crimes against Humanity Treaty

The EJIL: The Podcast! Episode 40 on Palestinian Legal Frontiers, particularly referencing SC Res 2803, offers a critical lens on the atomization of international legal discourse around Palestine. By foregrounding the disconnect between UN resolutions, judicial proceedings, and on-ground realities, the episode illuminates a systemic challenge in international law: the tendency to address complex issues episodically, thereby obscuring historical continuity and lived experiences. Comparatively, the US approach tends to integrate legal proceedings with domestic political narratives, often amplifying specific incidents while marginalizing broader contextual analysis. In contrast, Korean jurisprudence, while less publicly visible in global forums, aligns more closely with a structural critique of international frameworks, emphasizing procedural consistency and institutional accountability. Internationally, the trend leans toward procedural formalism, often at the expense of substantive engagement with local dynamics—a contrast that Episode 40 effectively critiques. This comparative analysis underscores the episode’s relevance to rethinking the intersection of legal formalism and human impact in international law practice.

Episode 40 of EJIL: The Podcast! offers practitioners a nuanced lens on the legal intricacies of Palestine by framing SC Res 2803 within broader historical continuities and contemporary legal challenges. The discussion on the atomization of legal attention—particularly how UN resolutions, sovereignty disputes, and human rights violations are parsed episodically—highlights a critical gap between judicial proceedings and ground realities, a point resonant with case law such as *Al-Haq v. Israel* (2019), which emphasized the necessity of contextualizing legal arguments within lived experiences. Statutorily, the episode indirectly connects to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) by underscoring the interpretive obligations under Article 31(1) to consider context and subsequent practice, particularly in the application of multilateral resolutions to evolving territorial disputes. Practitioners should note that these insights demand a shift from episodic legal analysis to sustained, contextualized engagement with Palestinian legal frontiers.

### **Jurisdictional Comparison & Analytical Commentary on U.S. Arms Export Regime: Constitutional Crisis and International Law Implications** The article by Arooshe Pahooja Giroti highlights a critical tension in U.S. arms export policy—where constitutional authority (Congress’s Article I powers) clashes with executive discretion, human rights obligations, and global security risks. **In the U.S.,** arms sales are governed by the **Arms Export Control Act (AECA)** and **International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR)**, with Congress exercising oversight through notifications and appropriations, while the Executive Branch (State Department, DoD) manages licensing—creating a fragmented system prone to constitutional disputes (e.g., *Zivotofsky v. Kerry*). **In South Korea**, arms exports are regulated under the **Foreign Trade Act** and **Defense Acquisition Program Act**, with the Ministry of National Defense playing a central role, reflecting a more centralized approach under a unitary executive model. **Internationally**, the **Arms Trade Treaty (ATT, 2014)** imposes human rights and humanitarian law checks on transfers, but compliance varies—with the U.S. (a non-party) prioritizing strategic interests over binding obligations, while South Korea (an ATT signatory) faces pressure to align export controls with international standards. The constitutional crisis in the U.S. thus underscores a broader dilemma: **how to reconcile national security prerogatives with

### **Expert Analysis: Constitutional and Treaty Implications of U.S. Arms Export Authority** The article highlights a constitutional tension between **Article I, Section 8** (Congress’s power over foreign commerce and war powers) and **Article II** (presidential authority over foreign affairs and arms sales), which has been shaped by statutory frameworks such as the **Arms Export Control Act (AECA, 22 U.S.C. §§ 2751–2799aa-2)** and **International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR, 22 C.F.R. §§ 120–130)**. Judicial interpretations, such as *Zivotofsky v. Kerry* (2015) (regarding passport designation and executive foreign policy powers), suggest that while Congress retains significant oversight, the President retains broad discretion in arms export decisions—particularly under **emergency authorities (e.g., 22 U.S.C. § 2778)** and **executive agreements** that bypass congressional approval. Practitioners must also consider **Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) Article 27** (domestic law not invalidating treaty obligations) and **customary international law on state responsibility (ARSIWA)** when assessing liability for unauthorized arms transfers. The **Wassenaar Arrangement** and **UN Register of Conventional Arms** further complicate compliance

The article’s jurisdictional implications reveal nuanced distinctions between the U.S., South Korea, and international frameworks. In the U.S., the emphasis on tort law and product liability aligns with existing precedents in medical device regulation, offering a robust, litigation-ready structure for AI accountability. South Korea, by contrast, integrates AI governance through a hybrid model blending regulatory oversight with ethical advisory bodies, emphasizing proactive compliance and public-private collaboration—a model that aligns with broader East Asian regulatory pragmatism. Internationally, the UN and WHO frameworks prioritize cross-border standardization, advocating for interoperable ethical and legal metrics that transcend national boundaries, particularly in transnational surgical technologies. The article’s classification of responsibility—Accountability, Liability, Culpability—provides a conceptual scaffold adaptable across jurisdictions, though Culpability remains the most contentious due to its reliance on evolving AI autonomy metrics, which vary significantly between U.S. case law, Korean administrative law, and international adjudicative bodies. This comparative tension underscores the necessity for harmonized, yet flexible, legal architectures in AI-driven medical innovation.

As a Treaty Interpretation & Vienna Convention Expert, I will provide domain-specific expert analysis of this article's implications for practitioners, noting any case law, statutory, or regulatory connections. The article discusses the development of standards in artificial intelligence (AI) and autonomous robotic surgery, highlighting the need for frameworks and standards that address ethics, regulation, and legal aspects. The classification of responsibility into accountability, liability, and culpability is a critical aspect of this discussion. In international law, the concept of accountability is closely tied to the principle of state responsibility, as enshrined in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) and the International Law Commission's Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA). The VCLT also addresses the issue of reservations to treaties, which may be relevant in the context of AI and autonomous robotic surgery (Article 20). Regarding liability, the article mentions the importance of developing frameworks that address the unique challenges posed by AI and autonomous technologies. In this regard, the Product Liability Directive (85/374/EEC) and the Medical Devices Regulation (2017/745/EU) are relevant EU directives that establish liability standards for products and medical devices. Additionally, the Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects (1972) may provide a framework for addressing liability in the context of autonomous robotic surgery. The concept of culpability, as discussed in the article, raises interesting questions about the responsibility of AI

**Jurisdictional Comparison and Commentary on Interest Groups in International Law** The concept of interest groups in international law, as exemplified by the American Society of International Law (ASIL), serves as a catalyst for collaboration and knowledge-sharing among professionals, academics, and practitioners. A comparative analysis of US, Korean, and international approaches reveals distinct nuances in their approaches to interest groups. The US-based ASIL's interest group program, with over 30 groups, demonstrates a robust and diverse framework for facilitating discussions and recognizing contributions in various areas of international law. In contrast, the Korean approach to interest groups in international law is less formalized, with a greater emphasis on informal networks and professional associations, such as the Korean Association of International Law. This approach allows for more flexibility and adaptability in addressing the country's specific international law needs. Internationally, the interest group concept is often integrated into broader professional organizations, such as the International Law Association (ILA) and the International Bar Association (IBA). These organizations facilitate global collaboration and knowledge-sharing on various aspects of international law, including dispute resolution, human rights, and intellectual property law. The ILA's interest groups, for instance, focus on topics such as the law of the sea, international environmental law, and the law of international trade. The implications of these approaches are significant, as they impact the development and implementation of international law. A more formalized and structured approach, like that of the ASIL, can lead to greater recognition and advancement of

As a Treaty Interpretation & Vienna Convention Expert, I'll analyze the article's implications for practitioners in the context of international law. The article discusses the American Society of International Law's (ASIL) Interest Group program, which brings together practitioners and scholars with common interests in various areas of international law. However, from a treaty interpretation perspective, this article does not directly address any specific treaties, reservations, or customary international law. However, it's worth noting that the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) emphasizes the importance of cooperation and communication among states and international organizations, which is reflected in the ASIL's Interest Group program. Article 31 of the VCLT, in particular, emphasizes the importance of considering the object and purpose of a treaty in its interpretation, which may be relevant to the work of ASIL's Interest Groups. In practice, practitioners working with ASIL's Interest Groups may need to consider the implications of treaty interpretation and the Vienna Convention in their work, particularly when addressing issues related to international dispute resolution, human rights, or intellectual property law. For example, in the context of the International Court of Justice, practitioners may need to consider the implications of Article 31 of the VCLT in interpreting the Court's judgments and decisions. In terms of case law, statutory, or regulatory connections, the following may be relevant: * The International Court of Justice's judgment in the Nicaragua v. United States case (1986), which emphasized the

**Analytical Commentary: Jurisdictional Comparison and Implications Analysis** The article highlights various statements and releases from the American Society of International Law (ASIL) regarding significant international law issues. A comparative analysis of the US, Korean, and international approaches to these issues reveals distinct perspectives and implications for international law practice. **US Approach:** The ASIL statements reflect a strong emphasis on the importance of upholding international law and promoting human rights, as evident in the statements on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, the protection of civilians, and the defense of women's rights in Iran. This approach is consistent with the US's long-standing commitment to promoting democracy and human rights globally. However, the US approach has also been criticized for prioritizing national interests over international law, as seen in the statement on the US action in Venezuela. **Korean Approach:** Korea has traditionally maintained a more neutral stance in international affairs, but in recent years, it has increasingly engaged with global issues, such as human rights and humanitarian law. The Korean government has also made efforts to strengthen its international law framework, including the ratification of key international treaties. However, Korea's approach to international law is often shaped by its complex relationships with neighboring countries, particularly North Korea, which can influence its decision-making on key issues. **International Approach:** The international community, as reflected in the statements from the ASIL and other international organizations, emphasizes the importance of upholding international law and promoting human rights, humanitarian law,

As the Treaty Interpretation & Vienna Convention Expert, I will provide domain-specific expert analysis of the article's implications for practitioners. Upon reviewing the article, I noticed that it primarily focuses on statements made by the American Society of International Law (ASIL) on various international law-related topics, including the rule of law, humanitarian crises, and human rights. However, there is no specific mention of treaty obligations, reservations, or customary international law. However, there are a few statements that indirectly touch on these topics. For instance, the statement regarding the situation in Ukraine (February 23, 2022) mentions the importance of upholding international law and the rule of law in the face of conflict, which is relevant to treaty interpretation and customary international law. In terms of case law, statutory, or regulatory connections, I would point to the following: - The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) 1969, which provides a framework for the interpretation of treaties, including the principle of good faith and the importance of considering the object and purpose of a treaty. - The International Court of Justice (ICJ) case of Nicaragua v. United States (1986), which dealt with the issue of treaty interpretation and the concept of "object and purpose" in the context of a treaty. - The U.S. Supreme Court case of Medellín v. Texas (2008), which touched on the issue of treaty interpretation and the role of customary international law in U

Jurisdictional Comparison and Commentary: The recent initiative by the American Society of International Law (ASIL) to integrate international and human rights law into high school curricula highlights a jurisdictional disparity in the approach to teaching international law between the US, Korea, and international standards. While the US has traditionally focused on domestic law and its historical context, Korea has been more proactive in incorporating international law into its education system, reflecting the country's strategic position in East Asia. Internationally, the United Nations and other global organizations have emphasized the importance of human rights and international law education, but its implementation remains inconsistent across countries. Implications Analysis: The ASIL's teaching modules aim to provide a global perspective on historical events, which is a crucial aspect of international law practice. By incorporating international law into high school curricula, students can develop a more nuanced understanding of the global implications of domestic events, such as the American Civil War and the Civil Rights movement. This approach can help bridge the gap between domestic and international law, enabling future generations of lawyers and policymakers to navigate the complexities of global governance. Comparative Jurisdictional Approaches: - **US Approach:** The US has traditionally focused on teaching domestic law and its historical context, with limited emphasis on international law. The ASIL's initiative aims to change this by providing teachers with resources to integrate international law into existing curricula. - **Korean Approach:** Korea has been more proactive in incorporating international law into its education system, reflecting the country's strategic

As a Treaty Interpretation & Vienna Convention Expert, I analyze the article's implications for practitioners in the field of international law and education. The article highlights the importance of incorporating international law into high school curricula, particularly in subjects such as history and civics. This is crucial for practitioners in international law who need to understand the global context and perspectives of their clients or countries. By integrating international law into high school education, students will be better equipped to engage with global issues and understand the complexities of international relations. The article's emphasis on creating teaching modules that supplement existing curricula aligns with the principles of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), which emphasizes the importance of transparency and clarity in treaty interpretation. Similarly, the VCLT's Article 31(1) requires that treaties be interpreted in good faith, taking into account the context and object and purpose of the treaty. In terms of case law, the article's focus on supplementing existing curricula is reminiscent of the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) approach to treaty interpretation in cases such as the Nicaragua v. United States (1986) and the South China Sea Arbitration (2016), where the ICJ considered the context and object and purpose of the treaties at issue. For practitioners, this article's implications are significant, as it highlights the need for international law to be integrated into education at an early stage. This will ensure that students have a solid understanding of global issues and can

The EJIL book review series exemplifies how scholarly critique informs international legal discourse by contextualizing doctrinal evolution across jurisdictions. In comparative perspective, the U.S. approach tends to emphasize statutory codification and judicial precedent in human rights litigation, whereas Korea’s legal tradition integrates constitutional interpretation with domestic implementation mechanisms, often prioritizing state compliance over international adjudication. Internationally, the trend toward hybrid frameworks—blending customary law, treaty obligations, and institutional oversight—mirrored in works like An-Na’im’s on Islamic law and human rights, reflects a broader shift toward contextualized, pluralistic legal reasoning that informs both academic and practitioner communities. These comparative trajectories underscore the evolving role of book reviews as catalysts for normative convergence in transnational legal practice.

The article’s focus on book reviews in EJIL underscores their role in advancing scholarly discourse, particularly on nuanced issues like human rights in Islamic contexts (e.g., An-Na’im and Baderin) or maritime law (e.g., Aznar and Boesten). Practitioners should note that EJIL’s review process—both solicited and unsolicited submissions—provides a platform for critical analysis of contemporary legal scholarship, influencing doctrinal development. Case law connections may arise indirectly via the cited works’ influence on judicial reasoning in regional courts (e.g., ICJ jurisprudence referenced in Alexandrov and Amr), while statutory/regulatory links are less direct but may emerge as practitioners cite these reviews in submissions to domestic or international tribunals. The archive’s breadth (nearly 600 reviews) supports ongoing academic-practitioner dialogue.