مصطفی فضائلی

Francesca P. Albanese and Lex Takkenberg’s Palestinian Refugees in International Law,the substantially expanded second edition of which was published in 2020 by OxfordUniversity Press, is an exhaustive and meticulous work that can be considered the seminallegal text on the status of Palestinian refugees. This volume, which is fundamentallya new work built upon the foundation of the 1998 first edition, adopts a holistic andmultidisciplinary approach to examine the historical, legal, and political dimensions ofone of the world’s most protracted refugee crises. The authors, both possessing extensiveexperience with the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the NearEast (UNRWA), present a profound analysis of the distinctive legal regime governingthis refugee population, arguing that any just and durable solution to their predicamentmust be firmly rooted in the principles of international law.

In the contemporary world, the Liberal International Order (LIO) is widely recognised as a key force shaping the domestic and international agendas of states and numerous global institutions. As the dominant global order, its efficacy is fundamentally influenced by liberalism and its approach to justice. Given the direct impact of justice on both domestic and international peace and security, the LIO’s justice agenda warrants close scrutiny—especially at a time of escalating conflicts, geopolitical tensions, and growing resistance to liberal norms. Against this backdrop, the present article addresses the key question: How is the LIO’s pursuit of justice evaluated, and what major obstacles hinder its ability to promote peace and security at national and international levels? Employing qualitative content analysis, this article supports the hypothesis that the LIO’s conception and implementation of justice are fundamentally flawed—criticised not only by non-liberal states but also increasingly questioned within liberal democracies themselves. These endogenous and exogenous challenges have fuelled inequality, disillusionment, and instability in various regions. The article concludes that, without aligning its normative justice principles with more inclusive, coherent, and consistently applied practices, the LIO will remain ill-prepared to respond effectively to the growing peace and security needs of a rapidly multipolar world.

The attribution of conduct to a state in international law, particularly in international claims, is a fundamental and complex subject that determines how states are held accountable for the actions of non-state entities. While the general principle is to attribute the conduct of state organs to the state, under specific circumstances, the conduct of non-state actors may also be attributable to the state, contingent upon the state’s control or direction over those entities. The standard of control, particularly in the practice of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal (IUSCT/ Tribunal), is a critical aspect in determining state responsibility. The IUSCT maintains that for a state to be held responsible for the actions of non-state entities, it must be proven that the state exercised effective control over those actions. This control requires an examination not only of the mandates and statutes of the non-state entities but also proof of the state’s direct influence on their operations. In cases involving the Islamic Revolutionary Committees and private entities, the Tribunal has considered clear indications of state responsibility, especially when tangible state control and direction have been established. For instance, in conditions of chaos such as during a revolution, a state cannot evade its responsibility by citing the prevailing disorder; however, at the same time, for the acts of private entities to be attributable to the state, mere state ownership is insufficient. The Tribunal emphasizes that it must be proven that the actions of the non-state entities were carried out pursuant to the state’s instructions or under its direction. In summary, the IUSCT strongly emphasizes the necessity of “effective control” and a causal link between this control and the violation of international law to prevent the undue imposition of responsibility on states.

In the international arena, it is uncommon to find a nation with a comprehensive nationality law and citizenship policy, as complexities arise frequently across various contexts. This article seeks to explore some of these challenges, which are not confined to individual nations but are indeed global in nature. By examining the laws and policies regarding the acquisition and loss of citizenship in six randomly selected countries, this study aims to deepen the understanding of citizenship from domestic and international perspectives, clarifying states' positions on these pertinent issues. Through its analysis, the article highlights significant nuances within a broad legal framework that influences individuals' rights and obligations, irrespective of their nationality. It aspires to contribute to the ongoing discourse surrounding citizenship laws by thoroughly investigating these topics. The article is structured into sections, detailing the system of nationality law in Nigeria, along with a discussion of the relevant provisions in the selected nations. It addresses the matter of dual citizenship before examining laws concerning the loss of citizenship in other countries. Additionally, it considers the issue of statelessness in Nigeria and the measures taken to combat it. The article concludes with robust recommendations for nations to better uphold their citizens' inherent rights.

The return of Palestinian refugees to their ancestral lands remains a pressing human, political and legal issue in the third millennium. The present study aims at exploring the legal status of Palestinian refugees as well as investigating their right of return to their lands in an international law framework. In so doing, the role of nationality and the principle of genuine link between claimants of the right of return and the country of origin are examined. It is concluded that considering the historical context of the Palestinian territories, part of which is now called Israel and the other part is under the control of the Palestinian state, Palestinian refugees can pursue and demand their right of return. Obviously, neither the passage of time nor the refusal of the Israeli side undermines the existence and validity of their claim for the right of return. Library data and field studies are used in delineating concepts, analyzing theories and confirming research hypothesis in the study.