Between October 19 and November 1, 2026, international law faced a series of institutional tests spanning from the Hague to Helsinki, as courts and regulatory bodies grappled with shifting state alliances, asset enforcement, and maritime jurisdiction. Sebastian von Massow detailed these developments, highlighting how tribunals and compliance mechanisms navigated persistent political pressures.
The ICJ litigation coalition around South Africa v. Israel saw significant strain during the period. Kyra Wigard examined Colombia’s decision to withdraw its declaration of intervention in the case, followed a month later by its withdrawal from the Hague Group—the coalition of nine states committed to “coordinated legal and diplomatic measures” in defence of international law and solidarity with the people of Palestine.
Wigard’s analysis points to the inherent fragility of intervention coalitions, which have become vehicles for political mobilisation beyond their original function of facilitating treaty interpretation. Under the International Court of Justice’s amended Rules, procedural asymmetry allows states to withdraw from interventions much more freely than they can submit them. This dynamic leaves these legal coalitions vulnerable to shifts in electoral politics.
Enforcing Strasbourg Judgments Against Russia
Financial accountability for non-compliance remains a central hurdle for the Council of Europe. Grigory Vaypant analyzed the Council’s Parliamentary Assembly Resolution 2678 (2026) and Recommendation 2315 (2026), which address the enforcement of European Court of Human Rights just satisfaction awards owed by Russia. Outstanding obligations currently exceed €3.3 billion.
The proposed remedies include an institutional funding mechanism utilizing Russian State assets alongside domestic court enforcement of Strasbourg judgments. Vaypant notes that Article 46 ECHR does not preclude collective enforcement by other Council of Europe Member States, making exceptional measures necessary to preserve the Convention’s effectiveness despite ongoing questions surrounding sovereign immunity.
Criminal Jurisdiction Over Submarine Cable Damage in the EEZ
Maritime security and jurisdictional limits came to the forefront in the Baltic region. Johannes Ipsen reviewed the Helsinki Court of Appeal’s ruling regarding damage inflicted on submarine cables by the vessel Eagle S within Finland’s exclusive economic zone.
The Court distinguished between an initial, potentially accidental anchor-dragging and subsequent damage resulting from the crew’s continued conduct—intentional damage falls outside Article 97(1) UNCLOS and therefore does not preclude Finnish criminal jurisdiction. The Court’s reliance on Article 59 UNCLOS to resolve concurrent jurisdiction is less convincing, as the separate issue of coastal State enforcement jurisdiction over foreign vessels in the EEZ remains unresolved.
Climate Obligations Tested Under Trade Agreements
Environmental governance intersects with international trade in a new challenge before the European Commission. Oliver Hailes reported on the first formal climate-related complaint submitted under the EU–New Zealand Free Trade Agreement.
The filing challenges New Zealand’s recent weakening of climate legislation, including restrictions on tort liability in Smith v. Fonterra, and the reversal of its offshore oil and gas exploration ban. These actions are challenged under the agreement’s environmental non-regression obligation (Article 19.2.4) and the requirement to implement the Paris Agreement effectively (Article 19.6.2). While meeting the higher threshold of materially defeating the Paris Agreement’s object and purpose, which could trigger trade sanctions, remains unlikely, the complaint offers an important opportunity to clarify the relationship between trade obligations, climate commitments, and access to environmental justice in light of the ICJ’s 2025 Climate Change Advisory Opinion.
Institutional Pressures Facing the International Criminal Court
Institutional resilience took center stage in Episode 47 of EJIL: The Podcast!, where Leena Grover spoke with Christian Wenaweser, Larissa van den Herik, and Asad Kiyani.
The panel addressed mounting external pressures on the International Criminal Court, including US sanctions against the Court and its officials, threatened withdrawals by states parties, and Russia’s criminal proceedings against ICC judges and prosecutors. These challenges unfold against a backdrop of democratic backsliding, even as state participation in international adjudication reaches unprecedented levels.
