The editors are pleased to publish this 14th volume of the New Zealand Yearbook of International Law covering the year 2016.

The articles in this volume commence with an article by Ozlem. In light of potential violations of humanitarian law and human rights law posed by developments in robot weapons, the author explores how a “world community interest” approach might develop and whether International Court of Justice (“icj”) provisional measures could be used to prevent the use of “robot weapons”. The author discusses the role the icj could play in providing clarification of state obligations regarding use of “robot weapons”. The author uses the hypothetical case of Pakistan requesting provisional measures from the icj in examining this proposition. This is followed by a paper by Abbasi, who engages in an intriguing theoretical discourse on the implications of democracy in international law-making. The author elaborates on conceptual inquiries on the very notion of democracy in international law-making, with the objective of providing international scholars with new literature in the discourse on democracy and international law-making. In doing so, the author draws on theories developed by the Iranian philosophers Jalāl ad-Dīn Muhammad Balkhī and Shahab al-Din Suhrawardi. The paper discusses conceptual skepticisms in the literature regarding the very existence and effectiveness of international law and global governance models, then introducing the idea of what he describes as “fragmented democracy” as a response.

Using land-based pollution as a case study, Naporn’s article provides an interesting reflection on the possible role and contribution of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in handling environmental cases from Regional Sea Programmes, in addition to the challenges and legal obstacles it would face. Naporn considers why the service of this Tribunal has been so infrequently utilized in light of its potential advantages. The author argues that the potential role of the Tribunal is limited given procedural prerequisites set out by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The author discusses treaty parallelism and various dispute settlement provisions of the Regional Sea Programmes’ environmental agreements, assessed against the compulsory dispute settlement procedure of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, with a view to evaluating the possibility of a land-based pollution case reaching the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Lenard’s article takes us to the area of cyber operations. Introducing the reader to the novel notions of cyber blockades and zones, the author highlights the need for developments in international law to better regulate this space. The author discusses recent cyber operations against Estonia and Georgia in the late 2000s as examples, which, the author explains, appeared to constitute cyber blockades. These cyber operations or blockades, as the author suggests, were the cause of considerable disruption and harm to both states, highlighting difficulties posed by the lack of current positive law regulating cyber blockades and zones. The author engages in an interesting discussion of the legalities of state actions if wishing to instigate a cyber blockade or zone, or to defend one. She draws corollaries with the law of navel and aerial blockades and zones, explaining their history, legal content, the purpose of these tactics, and their legal regulation. Lenard does this to assess whether the law applicable to these types of operations could similarly regulate cyber blockades and zones, whether in their current forms or with adjustments to the particularities of cyber operations. She argues for adaption of these existing regulatory rules to cyber operations, given similarities of purpose across these various forms of blockades and zones, while congnizant of the need for legal adjustments.

Kafedzic’s article examines the utility of common purpose (via the doctrine of joint criminal enterprise (“jce”)) and control over crime theories in the complex task of determining liability of co-perpetrators of mass atrocity crimes before international criminal tribunals and the International Criminal Court. The author critiques both approaches, arguing that jce is the strongest legal response to mass atrocity crimes, given its focus on common intention. She notes that common intention is one of the key characteristics of mass atrocity crimes. Kafedzic argues that the doctrine of jce enables international courts to hold to account a broader spectrum of those responsible for the perpetration of these crimes, regardless of the essential nature of their conduct’s contribution to perpetration. This brings us to the next paper, by Thamir, who introduces readers to the theory of “background-vernacularism” developed by the author. The author poses this approach as a theoretical framework aimed at enabling better comprehension as to how the persistence of cultural and social norms might be navigated and boundaries pushed in promoting human rights norms in particular cultural and religious contexts. Thamir’s arguments, and the tool proposed by the author, are underpinned by feminists and legal anthropology discourses. The central focus of the paper is the promotion of gender norms in Muslim-majority countries. The author engages in a re-interpretation of some Islamic feminist arguments, using the lens of a background vernacularist approach. The author’s intention is to demonstrate how religious backgrounds can and have been challenged through putting forward alternative religious discourses with the aim of promoting women’s human rights. The author argues that understanding the resistance cultural backgrounds give rise to is an imperative first step towards compliance with human rights conventions.

This volume includes a regular update, this year by Angelo, on the activities and developments with respect to the Pacific Island Forum. Yearly, the Yearbook encourages submissions on issues of international law affecting the South Pacific Region. The Year in Review section focuses inwardly and outwardly on New Zealand and its role in contemporary international law during the 2016 year. It covers international human rights law, indigenous peoples’ rights under international law, international economic law, international environmental law, law of the sea and fisheries, the Antarctic treaty system, international criminal law and international humanitarian law, and international law and security. The commentators provide a brief overview and commentary on New Zealand’s practice and developments with respect to each of these areas of international law during 2016. The Year in Review continues with a comprehensive report on New Zealand state conduct with respect to Treaty Action and Implementation in New Zealand for the 2016 period. The Yearbook ends with a number of book reviews.

The views of the authors throughout are naturally their own.

The Editors wish to extend their gratitude to the Advisory Board, the academics who continue to provide annual contributions to the Yearbook Year in Review, the authors contributing to this volume, and other academics, practitioners and government officials from New Zealand and globally who continue to support the development of this publication. A particular thank-you goes to members of the Advisory Board and those taking the time to review contributions.

Finally, we would like to thank a number of individuals, without whom the publication of this Volume would not have been feasible. We would like to thank our Book Reviews Editor, Professor Annick Masselot, and our Editorial Assistant, Emily McGeorge, for their valuable contributions and hard work in producing the Yearbook. We would also like to thank the staff at Brill for their input in developing this publication.

Dr Róisín Burke

Editor

Dr Christian Riffel

Associate Editor