New Issue of EJIL (Vol. 37 (2026) No. 1) – Out Soon

The latest issue of the European Journal of International Law will be published this week. We will publish a number of posts outlining the contents of this issue and the editorials over the coming week.  Here is the Table of Contents for this new issue, as well as the Abstracts:

Editorial: EJIL Policy on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence; In This Issue; In This Issue – Reviews

Articles

Negar Mansouri, The Colonial Aftertaste: Algerian Wine, the French Appellation of Origin, and the European Sovereignty-Property Complex in International Law   

Editor’s Choice

Bernhard Knoll-Tudor and Marko Prelec, Sede Vacante in Sarajevo? Bosnia and Herzegovina in Its Thirtieth Year under International Supervision

Focus:  The History of International Investment Law

Alexis Galán and Nicolás M Perrone, The Negotiations of the OECD Draft Convention on the Protection of Foreign Property: Unpacking the Early Blueprint of International Investment Agreements

Wiebe Hommes and Laurens Ankersmit, Shell and the Creation of International Investment Law, 1957-196

Critical Review of Jurisprudence

 Salvatore Nicolosi and Türkan Ertuna Lagrand, Integrating Gender Equality into International Refugee Law: The Contribution of the European Union’s Court of Justic

EJIL: Debate!

Christiane Ahlborn, Statehood and International Organization: Rethinking Their Conceptual Relationship with Reference to Customary International Law – A Reply to Orfeas Chasapis Tassinis

Roaming Charges: Places With(out) a Soul:  Life – It’s Not Always Black and White

ESIL Corner

Heike Krieger, European International Law in 2035: Opening Remarks at the 20th ESIL Annual Conference

Qin (Sky) Ma, Between Hope and Constraint: The Fragile Ambition of Reconstructing International Law

Soheil Ghasemi, Where ‘Falls the Shadow’: The 2025 ESIL Conference in Berlin and the Disciplinary Ambivalences of ‘Reconstructing International Law’

Marina Aksenova, The Uncertainty of International Law: Reflections from ESIL Berlin

Kyra Wigard, Reconstructing International Law: Where to Start?

Gleider Hernández, Reflections on Berlin: On Neutrality, Restraint, and Freedom

Book Reviews

Lorenzo Gradoni reviewing Anne Van Aaken, Pierre d’Argent, Lauri Mälksoo and Johann Justus Vasel (eds), The Oxford Handbook of International Law in Europe

Olivier Corten reviewing Terry D. Gill, Kinga Tibori-Szabo, The Use of Force and the International Legal System

Eliana Cusato reviewing Jonathan White, In the Long Run: The Future as a Political Idea 

Sergio Puig reviewing Natalie Jones, Self-Determination as Voice: The Participation of Indigenous Peoples in International Governance

The Last Page

William Shakespeare, Sonnet 116: Let Me Not to the Marriage of True Minds

 ABSTRACTS

Negar Mansouri, The Colonial Aftertaste: Algerian Wine, the French Appellation of Origin, and the European Sovereignty-Property Complex in International Law  

Editor’s Choice

The French wine laws of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, many of which were internationalized during the interwar and post-World War II eras, have been a vivid manifestation of European ‘state capitalism’ as evolving from the ‘immature’ independence of the economic sphere from the political sphere and the persistence of ethno-national boundaries. French wine laws specifically reacted to the extension of colonial viticulture to Algeria in the post-1848 era, paralleling France’s own state-led transition to agrarian capitalism, followed by the startling rise of Algerian wine that required the French legislature to insulate the metropole’s winemakers from global competition. In parallel, the French government sought the international protection of its wine names, joining hands with other European countries in the post-1945 era to delink the continent’s colonial and migratory past from its post-war trade landscape through international law. Undermining neoclassical economics, these laws revolved around the ‘particularization of the land and the product’, the state’s ‘very visible hand’ in supply and demand and the making of ethno-national imaginaries for that purpose. As such, they present an alternative view of international economic law that does not merely encase ‘global economic integration’ but is also employed against it. This article takes a historical materialist and post-colonial approach to French ‘viticulture protectionism’, zooming in on Algerian wine and the legal transformation of land and labour in the colony, followed by the legislation of the Third and Fourth Republics that influenced European-style ‘geographical indications’ as well as the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. The article argues that the century-long political interventions in support of national viticulture in Europe should be understood in the context of the distinct configuration of sovereignty and property in state capitalism as it reacts to Anglo-Saxon liberal capitalism and its policy of ‘fair field and no favour’.

Bernhard Knoll-Tudor and Marko Prelec, Sede Vacante in Sarajevo? Bosnia and Herzegovina in Its Thirtieth Year under International Supervision

This article examines the contested appointment of Christian Schmidt as High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina and evaluates the legal claim – advanced most vocally by the Russian Federation – that the post is vacant due to procedural irregularities. Through a systematic examination of state and institutional practice from 1995 to 2021, the article traces the evolving but consistent procedure by which previous High Representatives were designated by the Peace Implementation Council and endorsed by the United Nations Security Council. It argues that this established practice was disrupted in Schmidt’s case, undermining the legal validity of his appointment and casting doubt on the legitimacy of his subsequent actions. By engaging doctrinal questions of authorization, subsequent institutional practice, the formation of procedural customary norms and fiduciary authority, the article contributes to broader debates about the legal frameworks underpinning international interventions and co-governance of territory. With it, it supplies a micro-history of international institutionalism within the niche of state building in the aftermath of conflict. It concludes that the absence of a Council endorsement may leave the Office of the High Representative exposed to legal challenge and further weaken Bosnia and Herzegovina’s constitutional stability amid renewed internal and geopolitical contestation. The crisis, which led Schmidt to announce his resignation in May 2026, represents not merely a procedural dispute but also a deeper reckoning with the limits of international co-administration after 30 years of incomplete state building.

Alexis Galán and Nicolás M Perrone, The Negotiations of the OECD Draft Convention on the Protection of Foreign Property: Unpacking the Early Blueprint of International Investment Agreements

Two multilateral processes marked the formation and consolidation of modern ­international investment law: the 1965 ICSID Convention and the 1967 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) Draft Convention on the Protection of Foreign Property. While the former has attracted significant attention, the latter remains largely unexplored despite its influence over bilateral treaties and the literature. This article draws on several archives to unearth the confidential negotiations that led to the 1967 OECD draft. Unlike studies of bilateral investment treaties, the negotiations at the OECD were dominated by the tensions between capital-exporting and capital-importing countries and focused on important legal questions that continue to worry experts and negotiators today, such as the notion of investment, corporate nationality, customary international law, exceptions, the transfer of funds and investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). The OECD negotiations show the significant role of business groups, the sometimes conflicting interests of capital-exporting states and the main concerns of capital-importing states. The latter were less interested in standards of protection and ISDS, focusing instead on limiting protection to productive investments and demanding the inclusion of investor obligations and a stronger derogations/exceptions clause.

Wiebe Hommes and Laurens Ankersmit, Shell and the Creation of International Investment Law, 1957-1968

This article explores the role that Shell – in particular, through its legal department – played in shaping international investment law from 1957 to 1968. Drawing on a wide range of archival sources, including personal correspondence and governmental archives, it reconstructs Shell’s strategic campaign to protect foreign investments. It does so by analysing the activities of key Shell lawyers such as Lord Hartley Shawcross, John Blair, George Winthrop Haight, Louis Sandberg and Jan Wouter Josephus Jitta. These individuals lobbied governments, drafted treaties and shaped legal precedents to safeguard corporate interests. As a result, the article sheds light on the broader implications of corporate influence on international law, revealing how Shell’s legal strategiescontributed to the current system of investor-state dispute resolution, a system, in other words, that cannot be seen in isolation from the interests of the oil industry.

 Salvatore Nicolosi and Türkan Ertuna Lagrand, Integrating Gender Equality into International Refugee Law: The Contribution of the European Union’s Court of Justice

This article sheds light on the role played by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in clarifying and expanding the scope of European Union (EU) asylum legislation to accommodate gender-related claims. Through an integrated analysis of the Court’s landmark rulings in the cases of Afghan women (A.H. and F.N.), gender equality (K., L.) and women victims of domestic violence (W.S.), the article argues that the CJEU innovates the approach to refugee protection by taking three progressive stances: (i) integrating the concept of systematic discrimination into EU asylum law for the conceptualization of women as a particular social group; (ii) applying the axiological relevance of gender equality for the construction of such a distinct social group; and (iii) easing the procedural requirement for the individualized assessment of women’s claims in refugee status determination procedures. Accordingly, the article pursues a twofold goal. First, it explains that a gender-based reading of refugee law is necessary to fulfil the concept of effective protection mandated by international and European refugee law and that the CJEU has followed this path to strengthen the protection of women in refugee law. Second, it shows that the three judgments make an invaluable contribution to further integrating gender equality and mainstreaming within refugee law.

Christiane Ahlborn, Statehood and International Organization: Rethinking Their Conceptual Relationship with Reference to Customary International Law – A Reply to Orfeas Chasapis Tassinis

In his article entitled ‘Statehood and International Organization: Rethinking Their Conceptual Relationship with Reference to Customary International Law’, Orfeas Chasapis Tassinis aims to reconceptualize how international organizations relate to the ‘outside world’ with a focus on the applicability and formation of customary international law. This reply challenges his dismissal of some of the established ways of thinking about international organizations, including the use of analogies with states and corporations. The reply argues that those established ways are largely capable of reaching the same results as Chasapis Tassinis’ framework. Although the use of analogies has clear limitations, it can explain why international organizations are bound by customary international law in the same way as states. In fact, by characterizing international organizations in terms of political communities, Chasapis Tassinis’ framework inevitably has an internal focus, which has limited added value in explaining which customary international law applies to them in their external relations. A look behind the corporate veil of international organizations may be necessary to determine how they contribute to the formation of custom. However, by suggesting that the practice of organs composed of member states should only count as state practice, the article risks undermining the distinct will of international organizations, which is the crucial condition for their international legal personality.

Heike Krieger, European International Law in 2035: Opening Remarks at the 20th ESIL Annual Conference

In her opening remarks held at the 20th European Society of International Law’s Annual Conference, Heike Krieger creates a scenario of how international law and its scholarly community will have developed by the year 2035. She focuses on possible consequences resulting from the rise of right-wing populist movements and geopolitical shifts. Based on a longue durée perspective, her remarks argue in favour of a reconstruction of the existing international legal order.

Qin (Sky) Ma, Between Hope and Constraint: The Fragile Ambition of Reconstructing International Law

This article examines the ‘fragile ambition’ at the heart of current efforts to reconstruct international law. The issue was brought to the forefront at the 2025 European Society of International Law’s Annual Conference amid widening geopolitical tension and declining institutional confidence. The article argues that this ambition reflects a renewed scholarly impulse to revive international law’s normative imagination. Yet it is persistently constrained by structural inertia, political gloom, cultural distance, language barriers and the weight of historical inscriptions. The analysis presents ‘fragile ambition’ as a condition shaped by the discipline’s internal epistemic, professional and institutional boundaries. The discussion situates this tension within broader debates on international law’s reformability and emphasizes that meaningful regeneration requires more than doctrinal innovation. It relies on the academic community’s sustained practices of critical dialogue, shared commitment and collective meaning making. The article offers a framework that explains why international law struggles to regenerate itself and shows how fragility, rather than weakness, can serve as a productive site for scholarly engagement and normative reconstruction.

Soheil Ghasemi, Where ‘Falls the Shadow’: The 2025 ESIL Conference in Berlin and the Disciplinary Ambivalences of ‘Reconstructing International Law’

Reflecting on the theme of reconstructing international law as debated at the annual conference of the European Society of International Law in Berlin in September 2025, this article identifies a sense of liminal ambivalence that pervades the intra-disciplinary narratives of crisis and renewal. It argues that the constellation of reformist proposals and discursive strategies articulated across different conference panels uncovers how the calls for reconstruction do not simply warn against international law’s normative decay but also operate as discursive tools for sustaining its functional relevance. In its engagement with the intrinsic ambivalence of international law’s reconstruction, this contribution also serves as a reminder that the calls for reconstruction are essentially discursive constructs whose contingent production and development reveal much about how selectively the discipline forges its reformist agenda in response to crises.

Marina Aksenova, The Uncertainty of International Law: Reflections from ESIL Berlin

This article reflects on the 2025 European Society of International Law’s (ESIL) gathering in Berlin, selectively unpacking significant contributions such as the workshop organized by the ESIL’s Interest Group on International Law and Technology. It ponders the overall state of uncertainty as it affects international law. This condition arises from three primary factors: significant geopolitical shifts; the rapid development of predictive technology and its subsequent disruption of habitual temporal patterns; and, finally, the gradual erosion of human presence from the field of legal reasoning. The general conclusion is that the state of uncertainty has potential to enhance authentic expression in practising and researching international law.

Kyra Wigard, Reconstructing International Law: Where to Start?

This essay reflects on the European Society of International Law’s (ESIL) 20th Annual Conference held in Berlin on 11–13 September 2025, which explored the theme of ‘Reconstructing International Law’. Through the lens of the conference discussions, the essay examines the dual meaning of reconstruction – rebuilding damaged structures and re-examining historical narratives – against the backdrop of global crises such as armed conflicts, climate change and challenges to rule of law structures. It critiques the foundational flaws of international law, including its colonial legacy, and emphasizes the need for diversity and inclusivity in its institutions. The essay explores the tension between crisis management and deliberate reflection, highlighting the fragility of international law and the academic spaces that sustain it. Ultimately, it argues that reconstruction is an ongoing project, requiring both critical reflection and hope, and offers insights into the possibilities of reimagining international law within its inherent limits and contradictions.

Gleider Hernández, Reflections on Berlin: On Neutrality, Restraint, and Freedom

This article reflects on the place of institutional neutrality in international legal scholarship at a time of heightened geopolitical conflict, the politicization of universities and increasing demands for institutional voice. Drawing from personal reflections to revisit the 1967 Kalven Report, the article considers neutrality not as dogma or indifference but, rather, as a form of principled restraint aimed at safeguarding academic freedom from the potentially chilling effects of collective institutional speech. While recognizing that absolute neutrality is neither possible nor desirable, it is contended that unrestrained institutional speech risks narrowing the space for scholarly disagreement and undermining pluralism and dissent. The article distinguishes academic freedom from general freedom of expression, framing the former as a collective responsibility to protect spaces for critical inquiry and dissent. While acknowledging the profound ethical tension where silence feels like complicity in moments of global tragedy, the author concludes that institutional reflexivity and restraint remain vital – if imperfect – tools for sustaining academic institutions as open, pluralistic sites for the contestation of ideas.