British Institute of International and Comparative Law

This study investigates the impact of school principals' transformational and instructional leadership styles on academic performance in Sri Lanka. School leadership is essential for increasing teacher effectiveness, student learning, and overall school quality, particularly in a highly centralized education system. The study uses a qualitative research approach and draws on secondary data from academic journal articles, research papers, and prior empirical studies on school leadership. A qualitative content analysis was utilised to uncover main themes regarding how leadership styles affect teacher motivation, school culture, instructional methods, and student accomplishment. According to the findings, transformational leadership improves teacher commitment, cooperation, and school culture by fostering shared vision, innovation, and ethical behaviours. Through monitoring, professional development, and curricular support, instructional leadership improves teaching quality and student academic success. However, many principals struggle to enact instructional leadership due to administrative overload and limited professional preparation, highlighting the need to strengthen leadership development to improve school performance in Sri Lanka.

Abstract The end of the Soviet Union continues to present courts with difficult questions of international law. In particular, the succession to foreign property of the former Soviet Union remains highly controversial. In a dispute over a plot of land in Vienna, the Austrian Supreme Court in its judgment 10 Ob 9/23f ruled that both Ukraine and Russia gained co-ownership of the property and continue the legal status of the Soviet Union with regard to assets located outside its (former) borders. The Austrian Supreme Court’s judgment is significant because the law of state succession is characterised by uncertainty due to scarce practice. This article takes a critical look at the Supreme Court’s findings concerning the legal fate of the former Soviet Union’s foreign property. It addresses four questions that were not fully answered in the Supreme Court’s judgment but may be important for authorities and courts in countries where other assets of the former Soviet Union are located and where similar disputes may arise. The article discusses (1) whether Russia’s payment of the former Soviet Union’s external debts had consequences for the ownership of Soviet foreign assets, (2) whether the practice of states where the foreign assets are situated can contribute to the formation of customary international law, (3) whether it is possible that one successor state (in this case Ukraine) can be classified as a persistent objector and thus not have the rules of customary international law on state succession applicable between other successor states applied to it, and (4) why the interpretation of the relevant treaties between the successor states pursuant to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) leads to the result that the contracting states have acquired co-ownership of foreign property.

Leah Trueblood has written an elegantly clear and concise work on a subject that is only to grow in importance in the coming years. Her attempt to provide a new normative basis for referendums is admirable for its ambition, depth and rigour. Referendums as Representative Democracy is an original and thought-provoking account of referendums that is, in itself, coherent. However, it is a partial account that does not do justice to the various types of referendums as they have evolved over centuries in different constitutional systems and as they are used in practice today. Taking as its starting point a particular theoretical model of referendums, Trueblood develops a counter-model that in many ways reproduces the deficiencies of the model it criticises. At the same time, she disregards a whole category of other referendums, namely, those that may be initiated by citizens. Bottom-up referendums have philosophical and historical roots that are very different from those of the top-down instruments Trueblood is interested in. Placing citizens, rather than authorities, centre stage, they are less prone to populist misuse than referendums initiated from above. It is these instruments with real democratic potential that we should shift our focus to, instead of trying to salvage a category of referendums that, given their top-down approach, cannot and should not be salvaged.

Abstract The dispute between China and Korea over substantial areas of the Yellow Sea has resulted in thousands of incidents at sea, predominantly relating to fisheries. The renewal of maritime boundary delimitation negotiations between China and Korea in late 2015, following a seven-year long hiatus, suggested that a resolution of this longstanding source of friction in their bilateral relations might be in prospect. Progress in discussions over the last decade appears to have been slow however. This paper outlines and critically analyses the two States’ competing maritime claims against the context of developments in the international law of ocean boundary-making and highlights key challenges likely to arise in maritime delimitation negotiations between them. The paper then outlines a number of avenues towards resolution or management of the dispute before concluding consideration are offered.

The Agreement on Marine Biodiversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) is poised to play a critical role in regulating access to and benefit-sharing from Marine Genetic Resources (MGR) located in areas beyond national jurisdictions. MGR are increasingly valued for their potential in biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, and other scientific advancements, raising urgent questions about equitable benefit-sharing from these resources. The BBNJ Agreement introduces specific measures aimed at addressing these issues, but its effectiveness depends on harmonizing with other international frameworks, notably the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and the WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge (GRATK). This paper explores these intersections and identifies challenges to ensuring that benefits derived from MGR flow equitably to all parties, including developing nations and indigenous communities.First, the BBNJ Agreement brings to light the unique legal status of MGR in areas beyond national jurisdiction, where no single state holds sovereignty. Unlike the CBD, which primarily covers genetic resources within national territories, the BBNJ must address MGR in international waters, requiring cooperative frameworks among states. However, the agreement does not fully resolve the question of access rights or the distribution of benefits from MGR, which could result in exploitation by entities from wealthier nations unless robust regulations are established.Furthermore, while the CBD has advanced mechanisms for benefit-sharing, it focus on resources within national borders. The BBNJ will need to create parallel mechanisms suited for international waters, yet compatible with existing CBD and other instruments, to ensure a seamless integration of benefit-sharing practices. An additional challenge lies in identifying and recording the origin of genetic material in international waters to enable fair benefit distribution. Advances in traceability and transparency technologies, as well as international cooperation, will be essential for implementing effective monitoring under the BBNJ.In Latin America, and specifically in Brazil, the implementation of benefit-sharing for MGR presents unique challenges, especially where MGR are connected to traditional knowledge. In Brazil, many marine genetic resources are intertwined with the cultural practices and traditional knowledge of Indigenous and local communities, who have preserved and utilized these resources for generations. Additionally, regional cooperation within Latin America could foster a collective approach to these challenges, creating aligned benefit-sharing frameworks and reinforcing protections for traditional knowledge.In conclusion, implementing effective benefit-sharing mechanisms under the BBNJ Agreement will require addressing the legal and procedural gaps among BBNJ, TRIPS, CBD, and GRATK. It demands concerted international cooperation, regulatory innovation, and the deployment of new traceability technologies. Only through harmonization of these frameworks can the BBNJ’s goals be realized, ensuring that MGR from international waters serve as a shared resource and source of equitable benefits, particularly for those nations and communities historically marginalized in global resource-sharing arrangements. This paper proposes potential policy recommendations for navigating these complex intersections and ensuring that the promise of the BBNJ Agreement is fulfilled through fair, transparent, and inclusive benefit-sharing practices.

Abstract In 2018, the United Nations (UN) Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD Committee) received its first three inter-State communications since the Convention it monitors was adopted in 1965: Palestine v Israel, Qatar v Saudi Arabia and Qatar v United Arab Emirates. These were the first inter-State cases ever initiated before this or any other UN human rights treaty body, activating a mechanism which had laid dormant for decades. In August 2024, the ad hoc conciliation commission for Palestine v Israel published its final report, marking the first time that an inter-state communication before a UN treaty body reaches its final phase. The awakening of the mechanism has inspired new lines of research, testing the mechanism in the practice of the CERD Committee and triggering analysis of its procedural features in this and other treaties. What remains underexplored is the connection between those features and the aims that States and other actors envisage for the procedure. This article explores that connection and contends that any revision of the features of the mechanism that its use may bring should be informed by its aims, which are multiple and evolving. The article proceeds in three parts. The first part analyses distinctive features of the mechanism. The second part explores the evolution in the aims of inter-State communications in connection with those features. The third part concludes by reflecting on how those connections could inform forthcoming reforms of the mechanism.