Volume VI, Issue I
November 2025
Type | Title | Author Name | Click to Read |
|---|---|---|---|
Long Article | Balancing Sustainability and Economic Growth: Addressing Transboundary Environmental Harm in International Law | Vaibhaw Raj; Sarah Mathew | Read Here |
Long Article | The Impact of the Individual Complaint Mechanism of the United Nations Human Rights Committee in the Protection of Human Rights in Africa | Aliyu Ibrahim, Ph.D. | Read Here |
Long Article | India's Russia Alliance: A TWAIL Stand for Energy Sovereignty Against Ukraine's Force and Western Sanctions | Misha Bhanushali; Jhilmil Jain | Read Here |
Long Article | Kurdistan and the Moments of Lausanne | Atul Pal | Read Here |
Long Article | Weaponizing the Veto: UN Inaction and the Collapse of Collective Security | Nikita Tyagi | Read Here |
Short Article | Fundamental Rights at Risk? The EU's Legal Response to the Age of Artificial Intelligence | Katerina Koukouraki | Read Here |
Short Article | Human Right to Water and Water Privatisation | Kübra Yıldız | Read Here |
Short Article | Mining the Future: India and Deep Sea Mining | Priyanshee Sharma | Read Here |
Case Note | S.S. and Others v. Italy: Revealing ECTHR's Consistently Growing State Centric Approach | Himani Jha; Anshika Gupta | Read Here |
Case Note | Upholding International Law Principles in Crisis: Navigating the ECHR Judgment on the Russia-Crimea Conflict | Manav Pamnani | Read Here |
Article 1
Title:
Balancing Sustainability and Economic Growth: Addressing Transboundary Environmental Harm in International Law
Author:
Vaibhaw Raj; and
Sarah Mathew
Recommended Citation:
Vaibhaw Raj & Sarah Mathew, Balancing Sustainability and Economic Growth: Addressing Transboundary Environmental Harm in International Law, 6 GLC-SPIL INT'L L.J. 1 (2025)
Month-Year of Publication:
November 2025
URL:
https://www.spilmumbai.org/ilj/archives/vol6no1#1
DOI:
Abstract:
The staggering scale of transboundary environmental damage, currently inflicting annual welfare losses exceeding US$4.7 trillion and projected to reach US$38 trillion by 2049, reveals a misalignment between the no-harm principle (“sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas”) and contemporary environmental realities. This study asks whether sovereignty-centred governance can effectively internalize cross-border environmental externalities, drawing on legal precedents from Trail Smelter through the International Court of Justice’s 2025 advisory opinion. Adopting an interdisciplinary method, the research combines comparative case-law analysis, econometric assessment of major pollution events, and simulation based policy modelling. Integrating legal reasoning with welfare economics (Pigouvian tax design) and game-theoretic analysis of bilateral agreements, it evaluates patterns of externalization and the performance of cross-border policy instruments. Empirical results indicate polluters commonly shift social costs at ratios of roughly 5:1 to 8:1 relative to private costs. The 2015 Southeast Asian haze, with estimated uncompensated damages of US$35 billion, illustrates regulatory failure; voluntary mechanisms often falter when faced with strong economic incentives. These findings point to the need for binding legal frameworks supported by specialised enforcement institutions. The paper proposes an integrated economic-legal architecture: interoperable emissions-trading linkages, strict liability with a reversed burden of proof for transboundary harm, and a specialised International Environmental Court of Justice empowered to adjudicate and enforce cross-border claims. Policy simulations suggest this package could plausibly reduce emissions by 35–42% and yield approximately US$1.9 trillion in annual net welfare gains by 2050. The study concludes that coordinated legal enforcement, paired with market-based internalization, is essential to reconcile sovereign interests with ecological resilience and sustainable growth.
Keywords: transboundary environmental harm, environmental externalities, Pigouvian taxation, climate litigation, liability regimes, sustainable development.
Article 2
Title:
The Impact of the Individual Complaint Mechanism of the United Nations Human Rights Committee in the Protection of Human Rights in Africa
Author:
Aliyu Ibrahim
Recommended Citation:
Aliyu Ibrahim, The Impact of the Individual Complaint Mechanism of the United Nations Human Rights Committee in the Protection of Human Rights in Africa, 6 GLC-SPIL INT'L L. J. 25 (2025).
Month-Year of Publication:
November 2025
URL:
https://spilmumbai.org/ilj/archives/vol6no1#2
DOI:
Abstract:
Africa has experienced massive violations of human rights over the years. The African human rights system was established to protect individual rights; however, it has largely proved to be ineffective and many African states refuse to implement recommendations made by the bodies saddled with the responsibility of overseeing the protection of human rights in Africa. This has left individuals with ineffective mechanisms for accessing remedies for human rights violations at the regional level. The HRC, which oversees the implementation of OP1 to the ICCPR is an avenue for individuals to seek redress for violations of their rights contained in the ICCPR. In addition, about two-thirds of African states are parties to the OP1, and the HRC has been intervening on behalf of individuals within these states, which raises the poser whether the HRC can adequately bridge the human rights protection gap between individuals and African states? This paper adopted a normative research method in analyzing primary and secondary data, it appears the impact of the HRC in African states is mixed, and there is a need for HRC to be more visible on the Continent.
Keywords: African State Parties, First Optional Protocol, ICCPR, Human Rights Committee, United Nations
Article 3
Title:
India's Russia Alliance: A TWAIL Stand for Energy Sovereignty Against Ukraine's Force and Western Sanctions
Author:
Misha Bhanushali; and
Jhilmil Jain
Recommended Citation:
Misha Bhanushali & Jhilmil Jain, India's Russia Alliance: A TWAIL Stand for Energy Sovereignty against Ukraine's Force and Western Sanctions, 6 GLC-SPIL INT'L L. J. 49 (2025).
Month-Year of Publication:
November 2025
URL:
https://spilmumbai.org/ilj/archives/vol6no1#3
DOI:
Abstract:
India’s rise in Russian crude oil imports during the 2022 Ukraine war and ensuing Western sanctions is evidence of its strategic autonomy and independence of action in energy policy. This article posits that India’s continued business with Russia counters Western unilateralism and affirms their own sovereign independence as well as the principles of non-intervention found in Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations. Using a Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) framework, the article takes issue with hegemonic double standards in international law, and considers how remnants of colonial reliance support selective enforcement of international law in favour of the West and burden the Global South. The study investigates India’s strategy, which includes dual tracks: one of selective compliance with the G7’s price cap of $60 per barrel for crude oil to access Western shipping and insurance; and diversification through rupee-Ruble payments to evade SWIFT sanctions. Our key findings establish that India’s actions are consistent with WTO rules and customary international law. The evidence suggests that India’s priority is energy security and economic development in the context of increased volatility in global markets. The TWAIL analysis demonstrates that the West’s sanctions have had and will continue to have an impact on import-dependent vulnerable countries such as India, which is anticipated to depend on Russia for between 35 - 40% of its crude, cumulatively, by 2025. India’s diplomacy-oriented approach in calling for and hosting BRICS and SCO summits can be framed in the manner of a global multipolar legal order, which is in contrast to the western model. Indian strategy clearly illustrates how the Global South can resist the West, balancing the use of realpolitik with legal norms, and sets forth an example for equitable international law frameworks.
KEYWORDS: Sanctions, Energy, Sovereignty, TWAIL, Russia, India
Article 4
Title:
Kurdistan and the Moments of Lausanne
Author:
Atul Pal
Recommended Citation:
Atul Pal, Kurdistan and the Moments of Lausanne, 6 GLC-SPIL INT'L L. J. 69 (2025)
Month-Year of Publication:
November 2025
URL:
https://spilmumbai.org/ilj/archives/vol6no1#4
DOI:
Abstract:
The paper attempts to use a comparative analysis to discuss the self- determination of Kurdistan in about two moments. One moment corresponds with the early days of Kurdish nationalism coinciding with World War I. It traces the relevant developments till the Treaty of Lausanne of 1923, which ended the hopes of an independent Kurdistan. The second moment begins in the aftermath of the Gulf War of 1990 which resulted in the autonomy of the Kurdish region of Iraq till the US exit from Syria in 2019, leaving the much-persecuted Kurdish population of the Middle East and their hopes of independence in a lurch. A comparative analysis of the striking similarity between the turn of events corresponding to both these moments have been discussed. It explores the set of actions spread over the course of a century and discusses the impediments to the possibility of an independent Kurdistan. The paper attempts to explore the idea of an independent Kurdistan in the legal, historical and diplomatic aspects of these two moments.
Keywords: Kurdistan, Betrayal, Autonomy, Independence, Diplomacy
Article 5
Title:
Weaponizing the Veto: UN Inaction and the Collapse of Collective Security
Author:
Nikita Tyagi
Recommended Citation:
Nikita Tyagi, Weaponizing the Veto: UN Inaction and the Collapse of Collective Security, 6 GLC-SPIL INT'L L. J. 86 (2025).
Month-Year of Publication:
November 2025
URL:
https://spilmumbai.org/ilj/archives/vol6no1#5
DOI:
Abstract:
This article interrogates the legal implications of the veto power wielded by the permanent members (P5) of the United Nations Security Council in the face of atrocity crimes. While the veto was conceived as a political safeguard to preserve international peace and stability, its deployment—particularly by Russia, China, and the United States—has increasingly shielded perpetrators of mass atrocities from international accountability. This article explores the growing dissonance between the Security Council’s mandate under Article 24 of the UN Charter and the repeated paralysis it exhibits during crises such as Syria, Myanmar, Ukraine, and Gaza.
Building on recent developments at the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court, this article makes a novel argument: that the legal architecture of the UN Charter, when read in conjunction with customary international law, human rights treaties, and jus cogens norms, may already limit the veto's lawful use in situations involving genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes. The article critiques the prevailing assumption that the veto is politically absolute, instead presenting legal pathways—including advisory opinions, General Assembly action under the Uniting for Peace resolution, and the evolving jurisprudence of international courts—as tools to constrain abusive veto use.
By bridging legal theory, doctrinal analysis, and case studies, the article aims to reconceptualize the veto not as a sacrosanct privilege, but as a legal instrument subject to accountability. It concludes with practical reform proposals—such as a formal code of conduct and selective abstention pledges—that could reshape the veto's role in the twenty-first century. This contribution is both timely and essential as the international community confronts unprecedented challenges to the legitimacy and efficacy of collective security.
Keywords: Veto, Security Council, Peace Resolution, Atrocity Crimes, War Crimes
Article 6
Title:
Fundamental Rights at Risk? The EU's Legal Response to the Age of Artificial Intelligence
Author:
Katerina Koukouraki
Recommended Citation:
Katerina Koukouraki, Fundamental Rights at Risk? The EU's Legal Response to the Age of Artificial Intelligence, 6 GLC-SPIL INT'L L. J. 109 (2025).
Month-Year of Publication:
November 2025
URL:
https://spilmumbai.org/ilj/archives/vol6no1#6
DOI:
Abstract:
Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become all the rage in international discourse, with legal challenges and human rights concerns put at the centre. As AI systems evolve rapidly, the discussion of how they affect fundamental rights and how to mitigate these risks should remain active. This article aims to unravel some of the threats that AI poses to fundamental rights, and to analyse how the European Union’s AI Act tries to regulate them. By exploring both the rights at stake and the safeguards introduced under the Act, this article contributes to the broader discourse on aligning technological innovation with human rights protection.
Keywords: Artificial Intelligence, fundamental rights, risks, AI Act, safeguards.
Article 7
Title:
Human Right to Water and Water Privatisation
Author:
Kübra Yıldız
Recommended Citation:
Kübra Yıldız, Human Right to Water and Water Privatisation, 6 GLC-SPIL INT'L L. J. 119 (2025).
Month-Year of Publication:
November 2025
URL:
https://spilmumbai.org/ilj/archives/vol6no1#7
DOI:
Abstract:
Access to clean and safe water remains a pressing global issue, with billions lacking adequate sanitation and potable water. Population growth exacerbates this challenge, necessitating innovative approaches to water management. This paper explores the dual perspectives on water—whether it is a human right or a commodity—within the context of water privatization. While the recognition of water as a human right underscores the imperative of equitable access, privatization offers potential solutions but raises concerns about affordability and quality. Drawing on case studies from Kwa-Zulu Tana and Manila, this study evaluates the efficacy of water privatization in ensuring universal access to clean water. It argues that a balanced approach, combining privatization with stringent regulations, holds promise in addressing water scarcity while safeguarding human rights and environmental sustainability.
Keywords: Water Privatization, Human Right to Water, Access to Clean Water, Sustainable Water Management
Article 8
Title:
Mining the Future: India and Deep Sea Mining
Author:
Priyanshee Sharma
Recommended Citation:
Priyanshee Sharma, Mining the Future: India and Deep Sea Mining, 6 GLC-SPIL INT'L L. J. 128 (2025).
Month-Year of Publication:
November 2025
URL:
https://spilmumbai.org/ilj/archives/vol6no1#8
DOI:
Abstract:
India recently signed a contract with the International Seabed Authority for exploration of Polymetallic Sulphides in Carlsberg Ridge in the Indian Ocean, becoming the first country in the world to have two contracts with the International Seabed Authority. India's pursuit of deep sea mining reflects a broader global trend, as nations realize the increasing significance of Critical Minerals for energy transition, defense technology, and healthcare sector.
This rush towards deep sea mining raises significant environmental concerns, as the ocean floor hosts fragile ecosystems that have evolved over millennia in complete darkness. To explore seabed, countries or companies with sponsoring countries must first seek approval from International Seabed Authority, which is yet to finalise 'The Mining Code' that codifies the Exploitation Rules. Another concern is that not all nations are equally placed with respect to exploration technologies, raising obvious equity concerns, especially for Island Nations that cannot compete but would bear the brunt of ecological damage.
The deep sea is no longer a realm of mystery; it is fast becoming a reservoir of solutions. From critical minerals to untapped freshwater aquifers, the ocean floor may hold answers to the energy, resource, and water crises of the coming decades. But to treat it merely as a vault to be emptied is to repeat the mistakes of terrestrial extraction. India now stands at a decisive moment. With exploration rights secured and domestic legislation underway, it can either follow the familiar path of 'extract first, regulate later' or set a precedent for responsible ocean governance rooted in precaution, equity, and long term resilience. If India wishes to secure the seabed for strategic autonomy rather than short term exploitation, its legal architecture must evolve before its mining machinery does. The deep sea is not just the next frontier; it is a test of whether humanity has learned from its past excesses. In this race to the ocean floor, true leadership will belong not to the fastest extractor, but to the most foresighted steward.
Keywords: Common Heritage, Critical Minerals, Deep Sea, Exploitation, ISA, Mining Code.
Article 9
Title:
S.S. and Others v. Italy: Revealing ECTHR's Consistently Growing State Centric Approach
Author:
Himani Jha; and
Anshika Gupta
Recommended Citation:
Himani Jha & Anshika Gupta, S.S. and Others v. Italy: Revealing ECTHR's Consistently Growing State Centric Approach, 6 GLC-SPIL INT'L L. J. 137 (2025).
Month-Year of Publication:
November 2025
URL:
https://spilmumbai.org/ilj/archives/vol6no1#9
DOI:
Abstract:
The European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) recent decision in S.S. and Others v. Italy, wherein the extraterritorial jurisdiction of Italy was narrowly read, represents as argued by many commentators a growing state-centric approach of the court. The case involved the interception of migrants on the high seas by the Libyan Coast Guards who were equipped to carry out such a mission as a direct result of Italian–Libyan bilateral agreements. The case presented the Court with an opportunity to address the growing practice of pullback agreements, whereby European States outsource migration control to third countries to avoid direct legal accountability. Unlike earlier pushback cases such as Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy (2012), the S.S. case concerned indirect control exercised through the coordination and training of foreign coast guards. By rejecting the application on grounds of lack of extraterritorial jurisdiction, the Court avoided scrutinising this practice, reinforcing an increasingly state-centric jurisprudence.
This article argues that the Court’s narrow reading of extraterritorial jurisdiction under Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights undermines non-refoulement protections under Article 3 and incentivises States to exploit loopholes through pullback strategies. It situates S.S. within a broader trajectory of cases such as M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece and Safi and Others v. Greece, highlighting the Court’s shift towards the state-centric approach seen through the raising of evidentiary thresholds and most recently, through the narrow reading of the jurisdiction. The analysis demonstrates that even if jurisdiction had been established, the Court’s reluctance to challenge the migration outsourcing policies would likely have persisted. Ultimately, the judgment represents a missed opportunity to condition migration agreements on human rights safeguards and to close a growing legal vacuum that leaves refugees and asylum seekers vulnerable to abuse and refoulement.
Keywords: Non-refoulment, Pullback agreements, Human Rights, Accountability, EctHR
Article 10
Title:
Upholding International Law Principles in Crisis: Navigating the ECHR Judgment on the Russia-Crimea Conflict
Author:
Manav Pamnani
Recommended Citation:
Manav Pamnani, Upholding International Law Principles in Crisis: Navigating the ECHR Judgment on the Russia-Crimea Conflict, 6 GLC-SPIL INT’L L. J. 145 (2025).
Month-Year of Publication:
November 2025
URL:
https://spilmumbai.org/ilj/archives/vol6no1#10
DOI:
Abstract:
International human rights violations often arise in regions marked by political conflict and territorial disputes, necessitating judicial interventions to uphold accountability and safeguard thousands of people from losing their lives and livelihoods due to the resultant catastrophic consequences. The epitome of such an intervention is the recent European Court of Human Rights’ judgment against Russia concerning its actions in Crimea, wherein the Court has held Russia liable on several grounds arising from the violation of the Convention. In this backdrop, this paper critically examines this judgment which marks a pivotal moment in international human rights jurisprudence. The judgment comprehensively addresses Russia’s systemic violations under the European Convention on Human Rights, including suppression of freedoms, targeted persecution of minorities, and abuse of legal frameworks post-annexation. Through an analysis of doctrines like effective control and administrative practice, the Court reaffirms the extraterritorial applicability of human rights obligations, even amidst political complexities and Russia’s exit from the Council of Europe. This paper contextualises the ECHR’s findings within broader legal frameworks, interrogating their intersection with state sovereignty, international humanitarian law, and the limits of enforcement mechanisms in politically contentious regions. Additionally, it also assesses the judgment’s implications for future accountability frameworks in occupied territories and its role in shaping evolving international norms. The overarching structure is cemented by first exploring the background of the Russia-Crimea conflict before delving into the legal intricacies and then subsequently examining the potential impacts and challenges of this decision and its corresponding implementation. Therefore, by engaging with these legal, political, and doctrinal dimensions, this research contributes to an understanding of the ECHR’s role in upholding human rights amid geopolitical turbulence, while also critiquing the practical challenges of ensuring compliance in contested zones.
Keywords: Crimea, European Court of Human Rights, Human rights, International law, Judgment, Russia