Dissenting opinions, separate opinions and declarations are a familiar aspect of the international jurisprudential landscape. Despite this, in comparison to domestic judicial systems, there has been comparatively little by way of attempts to rationalise the institutional and systemic implications of this practice. While there is widespread agreement that the impact of additional opinions lies in their effect upon the authority of the court or tribunal and its decisions (‘institutional judicial authority’), the nature of that impact is open to greater contestation. How should additional opinions be viewed? An unnecessary and counterproductive distraction or an important mechanism of accountability for the exercise of judicial power? By conceiving additional opinions as the expression of individual judicial authority, this thesis examines the interplay between individual judicial authority and institutional judicial authority within two paradigms of international justice. The first – comprising the ICJ and PCIJ – represents the traditional paradigm of international justice wherein the culture of expressing individual judicial authority in international law was born. The second paradigm is international criminal justice as pursued by two institutions in particular, the ICTY and the ICC. By comparing these two paradigms, and the nature and purposes of judicial authority therein, this thesis considers how individual judges through their additional opinions have contributed to the evolving international judicial culture, and how that practice affects the manner in which the institutions in question advance the project of international justice. Drawing upon Mirjan Damaška’s work demonstrating how procedural choices and practices have implications upon authority, and the relationship between procedure and the purposes for which authority is claimed, this thesis demonstrates that not only is the expression of individual judicial authority consistent with institutional authority but it is constitutive of it. The final section of the thesis turns to consider a form of judicial expression – defined as judicial dissent – that places institutional and individual authority in conflict with one another. Despite the negative implications of judicial dissent upon judicial authority (both institutional and individual) and judicial collegiality, the final section considers whether such practice can play a legitimate systemic function.

The thesis considers the educational function of the trials of Nazis by the British and American authorities after the Second World War. As has generally been overlooked in the literature, legal proceedings were instituted not only to punish the abhorrent actions of the Third Reich, but also to provide an historical record for the edification of victors, vanquished and posterity alike. The route from this Allied intention to its fulfillment was not a straightforward one, however, bedeviled by enduring preconceptions of Nazi criminality on all sides, and by the very nature of the legal process. To illustrate by case study the difficulties of disclosing information through the trial medium, the theme of the murder of the European Jews has been selected. The limiting influence of British and American socio-cultural and politico-legal norms on the parameters of the trials is developed in the first section. This analyses the prosecutorial methods with which it was considered the didactic aims would best be achieved, alongside the prevailing trend towards downplaying the particular identity of the chief victims of Nazism. The image of the Jewish catastrophe thus compiled as theory was translated into reality in the Allied courtrooms is the initial focus of the second section. That deals with the problematic image of the 'concentration camps' established in a selection of trials; and with the influence of such proceedings upon the academic historiography of the Holocaust. Finally, the thesis confronts the popular receptivity in Britain, the USA and West Germany to the information made available.

This thesis begins with the observation that a gap exists between the universal consensus among all States regarding the criminalisation of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes on the one hand, and the prevalence of impunity on the other. It then puts forward the hypothesis that this gap may be explained by the unsuitability of the approach taken by the international community to address the issue of responsibility for core international crimes. In order to test this hypothesis, this thesis critically examines the different forms of responsibility for core international crimes available in International Law. One of the important characteristics that distinguish core international crimes from other international crimes or ordinary crimes is that they are often committed with the simultaneous participation of several actors, including individual perpetrators, the State and, in some instances, non-state actors. Addressing the impunity for the commission of core international crimes cannot, therefore, be limited to the lack of consequences for individual perpetrators. This thesis challenges the focus of International Criminal Justice on individual criminal responsibility and argues for a comprehensive approach to responsibility for international crimes, including State and collective responsibility, in order to convey the collective and political features of these crimes. The issue of responsibility for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes has been widely discussed in the scholarly literature, in particular with the development of International Criminal Law. One can observe, however, an imbalance between the amount of research dedicated to the issue of individual criminal responsibility for core international crimes and the issue of State responsibility for international crimes. This imbalance is partly due to the fact that the notion of State criminal responsibility was rejected by a large majority of States, and discussions on these issues were abandoned. The originality of this thesis comes from the broad approach it adopts to examine the issue of responsibility for core international crimes with the aim of bridging the gap between the distinct academic perspectives. It weaves together different approaches to responsibility, from individual responsibility to State responsibility, in order to identify the weaknesses of the current forms of responsibility and to highlight the complementary aspects of the main questions discussed in these different fields of law. The thesis goes beyond highlighting the complementary aspects of the different forms of responsibility for core international crimes and puts forward a concrete proposal to develop a comprehensive normative framework, based on the model of the Responsibility to Protect concept, to implement a comprehensive approach to responsibility. This framework relies on the emergence of a duty to end impunity that lies with the territorial State as well as the international community. The purpose of this comprehensive normative framework is to promote the cooperation and interactions between the different mechanisms available in International Law and designed to deal with issues of responsibility for core international crimes. The proposal is based on the assumption that including the different norms and measures which aim to end impunity within one framework would optimise their synergy to respond to core international crimes and protect the interests of humanity as a whole.

The thesis critically analyses the legal problems associated with the recognition and enforcement of domestic and foreign arbitral awards in Saudi Arabia. The aim is to illuminate whether or not the new Saudi Arbitration Law 2012 (SAL) and the new Enforcement Law 2012 (SEL) will be able to resolve these problems. In the thesis, we investigate the reasons for the problems with regard to the SAL 1983, and then discuss the SAL 2012 in terms of the possibility of resolving such problems. Moreover, the study includes a semi-comparative study in the light of Sharia Law and international practice. The thesis deals with Saudi judicial practices by looking at a significant number of Saudi judicial cases that relate to the enforcement of arbitral awards. This is what enhances the view that the thesis will make an effective contribution to the field of arbitration. A number of legal problems, such as the lack of identification of the limited grounds for a challenge, the competent court to decide such a challenge, the arbitration having the authority of res judicata, and the potency of the competent court to review the merits of the dispute, should all be considered due to their negative impact on the enforcement process. In this thesis, we have concluded that the new SAL 2012 and SEL 2012 can cope with and resolve many of the legal dilemmas associated with the matter of the enforcement of arbitral awards. These new pieces of legislation will be able, to some extent, to reassure and comfort national and international parties without violating Sharia law. However, some potential legal obstacles may emerge in terms of the enforcement process as it relates to arbitral awards. Therefore, the author of the thesis believes that the level of satisfaction may not be as much as is hoped for.

The argument of this thesis is that measures taken by international bodies to establish the rule of law in postconflict situations are undertaken in the mistaken belief that they will automatically enhance conditions for the rule of law to flourish. In fact, examination of the situation in Southern Sudan demonstrates that there is a wide disconnection between the measures pursued and the outcome of the process. This study will therefore inquire into the different meanings attributed to the concept of the rule of law in order to establish what the concept signifies in the context of statebuilding, with a focus on Southern Sudan. How does the theoretical understanding of the rule of law correlate with the legal and institutional measures taken by international organizations such as the United Nations and the African Union to build the effectiveness of the state in Southern Sudan? The study will further address issues such as what kind of state institutions are envisaged by rule of law reforms, together with the historical and theoretical imperatives which orient and drive the rule of law building process in post-conflict situations. The research is envisaged as a contribution to the debate on how to make ‘rule of law work on the ground’. It is hoped that if practitioners and policy makers take into account the findings of this study, their contribution to rule of law reforms in countries like Southern Sudan that have experienced protracted conflicts will not only achieve their objectives of reforms but also significantly improve the social and economic wellbeing and human rights protection of the people in whose name these reforms are pursued.

This research aims to contribute to the analysis of the laws and regulations related to remuneration practices. It is also intends to offer recommendations and solutions to the problem of setting levels and Structures of remuneration in Saudi Arabia, an area which is currently neglected despite its importance. Remuneration is a crucial tool in solving the agency problem between shareholders and managers in public companies where the separation of ownership and control exists by providing incentives. However, in Saudi Arabia this practice shows a tendency towards high fixed remuneration and variable remuneration set without any clear links between this and performance, causing variable remuneration to become another salary. Since inadequate laws and regulation have been found to be at least partially responsible for this state of affairs, solving this problem requires careful analysis of the most important jurisdictions which have developed laws and regulations. Thus, the thesis adopts a comparative legal study of the relevant laws and regulations within a descriptive and analytical framework, presenting a detailed discussion of remuneration regulation in the UK, EU and USA. Moreover, informal discussions have been conducted with individuals in the public sectors of the Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency (SAMA) and the Capital Market Authority (CMA), in order to complement the black letter law analysis of the research, by providing a realistic insight into the nature of the challenges in formulating the policy process in Saudi Arabia. Serious flaws and shortcomings were found in the existing law and regulation regarding remuneration in Saudi Arabia, and recommendations for reform of these are provided.

Malicious cyber-attacks, those cyber-attacks which do not rise to the level of force in international law, pose a significant problem to the international community. Attributing responsibility for malicious cyber-attacks is imperative if states are to respond and prevent the attacks from continuing. Unfortunately, due to both technical and legal issues attributing malicious cyber-attacks to the responsible state or non-state actor is difficult if not impossible in the vast majority of attacks. Even if an injured state may recursively trace the malicious cyber-attack to the responsible IP address, this is not enough under the current international customary law to hold a state or non-state actor responsible for the cyber-attack as it is virtually impossible to bridge the air gap between the computer system and end user to demonstrate affirmatively who initiated the attack. Even if a state could demonstrate the identity of the end user that initiated the attack, this is not enough to link the end user to the state for responsibility to lie under existing customary international law. As such this study was conducted to analyze the issue of malicious cyber-attacks as a matter of customary international law to ascertain mechanism to hold states responsible for malicious cyber-attacks which originate from a state’s sovereign territory. Specifically, this study addresses the issue of legal and technical attribution of malicious cyber-attacks for the purposes of holding states responsible for those attacks. This study argues that under existing customary international law attributing malicious cyber-attacks for the purpose of ascertaining state responsibility is difficult if not impossible. As such, this study proposes alternative theories, which already exist within customary international law, for holding states responsible for malicious cyber-attacks which originate from their sovereign territory. This study addresses alternative theories of state responsibility existing in customary international law such as those put forth in Trail Smelter and Corfu Channel and the theory of strict liability for ultra-hazardous activities. In addition, this study addresses the theory of indirect responsibility, the duty to prevent harm, and due diligence in cyber-space. Lastly this study analysis the impact of the post-9/11 invasion of Afghanistan by the United States and NATO forces and determines that a burgeoning rule of attribution may be present which would impact the attribution of malicious cyber-attacks to states. This study makes an original and important addition to the corpus of international law by addressing the issues of technical and legal attribution, state responsibility, and the duty to prevent malicious cyber-attacks as a matter of customary international law. This study is needed; malicious cyber-attacks implicate international law, as the majority are interstate in nature. However, international law currently has no paradigm, per se, in place to effectively deal with the issue of malicious cyber-attacks.

The Olympic Movement has a constantly expanding mandate which has seen it venture into many fields other than simple staging of the Olympic Games. For example, it has extended its mandate into the equal representation of women in sport, but more importantly, this thesis examines its new mandate of building peace through sport, which is contained in the Olympic Charter’s 2nd Fundamental Principle of Olympism. It has also indirectly influenced the production of the UNGA Olympic Truce Resolutions, by calling on the UN to revive the ‘concept of ekecheiria’. However, the Olympic Truce Resolutions are frequently flouted, and more often than not, by the Host Nation itself, including the UK and the USA in recent years. This thesis examines a possible solution to this failing, which is the Olympic Truce Resolutions codification into a binding Treaty where states and the entire Movement are party to it. This thesis recognises that there is the inherent problem in this, in that the Olympic Movement is not comprised of states. Its core actors are the International Olympic Committee, National Olympic Committees, and International Sporting Federations (and to a lesser extent OCOGs). Hence this thesis submits the novel concept of Olympic Singularity, eight unusual features that amplify the EU doctrine of the specificity of sport on the Olympic playing field. These eight cumulative features unite to allow the Movement to be co-signatories to the Truce Treaty, alongside states. It also enables the Movement to govern the Truce Treaty and any sanctions thereof. Again, this is because of the features of Olympic Singularity, the most notable of which is that the Movement is unusual because of its universal singular webbed framework which necessitates its consideration as a single powerful organ capable of action on the international stage equivalent to states. Olympic Singularity justifies the Movement’s special treatment before law, in the form of an atypical international law subject, in that it unites independent actors into one organ, enabling them to have capacity on a par with those reserved to states and international governmental organisations. This would only take the form of governing and sanctioning a Truce Treaty. This thesis examines precedent for this in that the ancient Olympic Games were governed by a single state who dispensed real sanctions for the breach of ekecheiria. It also examines in a case study, South Africa which shows that the end of apartheid was assisted by the UN and the Movement uniting and using sport by way of a binding international Treaty, ICAAS 1985. Hence the capacity of the state system was required alongside the recognition of all involved that it was a Treaty.

This dissertation develops a historical and theoretical reconstruction of the category and praxis of extraterritoriality in the fields of International Relations and Public International Law. The analysis first addresses the dominant Neo-Liberal tradition and its focus on the concept of 'judicial globalisation', before engaging with critical and Marxist studies that rely on imperialism and capitalism as explanatory phenomena. In response, the thesis argues that extraterritoriality is a political process, covering a set of jurisdictional struggles determined by contested social property relations. As legal strategies of accumulation, these struggles can neither be explained by a chronologically and discursively progressive deterritorialising world order, through which they emerge as depoliticised events, nor by structural and functional theories of capitalist or Western imperialism that narrowly assume their logic and behaviour. This argument emerges from the analysis of three historical case studies: 16th to 17th century Spain, 17th to 18th century France, and 19th century Britain. Each case, set in its international context, evinces the role of specific intellectual debates, juridical institutions and legal strategies of accumulation in shaping contending extraterritorial regimes and legal world orders. Thereby, the thesis reformulates a Political Marxist approach as a historical sociology that places the actors and politics of international legal processes at the forefront of the history of Public International Law. This approach enables a non-determinist understanding of contemporary extraterritoriality. It dissociates its analysis from a naturalised history of judicial globalisation and from a monolithic history of capitalism, to resituate extraterritorial practices in a more open and contested field in between those of International Relations and Public International Law. In conclusion, examining the politics of extraterritoriality exposes Public International Law as a practical site of struggle between legal strategies of expansion, accumulation and resistance. This historical and theoretical reconstruction asserts the political legitimacy and agency of otherwise excluded legal actors and ideas, affected by and involved in the multiple transitions in the forms of sovereign jurisdiction and territorial control.

The initial focus of the thesis is on Ireland, a small militarily neutral state, but one with a long tradition of contributing to peacekeeping operations. Despite its significant contribution to peace support operations to date, there is little research on the past and future implications of this for Ireland. This thesis seeks to address some of the key legal and political issues confronting Ireland, and to provide a unique perspective on the dilemmas and problems confronting many small states of the UN in the post cold war era. The thesis uses two case studies, Somalia and Lebanon, to conduct a comparative analysis of traditional peacekeeping and that of peace enforcement The conduct of UN forces in Somalia, and the outcome of the UN mandated operations there, had a profound effect on the willingness of states to support UN peace support operations in the post cold war period. UNOSOM II was one of the most ambitious and controversial multidimensional operations ever mounted by the UN. It reflected the optimism associated with the dawn of a 'new world order' and an effective Security Council. The UN operation in Lebanon (UNIFIL), in contrast, was a less ambitious traditional peacekeeping mission, but it too was controversial and the Force encountered serious difficulties implementing the apparently more straightforward mandate. Both operations show that whatever the nature of a peace support operation, its role and effectiveness is dependent upon support from the Security Council. Without political support and adequate resources, especially at the time of its establishment, a UN force remains at the mercy of the parties to the conflict. Both operations also highlighted serious difficulties that arise in the command and control of UN peace support operations, although the larger more complex UNOSOM II mission presented significantly more serious dilemmas in this regard. These problems are often exacerbated by deficiencies in the municipal laws and domestic political concerns of contributing states. An important distinguishing feature between traditional peacekeeping operations and that of more robust peace enforcement operations is the policy regarding the use of force. Nevertheless, both Lebanon and Somalia presented remarkably similar difficulties regarding devising and adopting appropriate rules of engagement, and the differing interpretations of what action justified the resort to, and the degree of force deemed appropriate in a UN multi-national operation. The thesis seeks to draw lessons from the experiences of UNIFIL and UNOSOM in regard to these and related issues. The matter of the applicability of international humanitarian law to UN forces was also relevant to both sets of operations. Despite the recent adoption of the Convention on the Protection of UN Personnel, and a Secretary-General's bulletin on the applicability of humanitarian law to UN forces, the situation remains unsatisfactory.