(2026) 7 TWAIL Review
ISSN 2563-6693
Published under a Creative Commons licence.
Keith Aoki ~ Neocolonialismo, la propiedad anticomún y la biopiratería en el (no tan alentador) Nuevo Orden de la Protección Internacional de la Propiedad Intelectual
Abstract
En el nuevo orden mundial, no tan alentador, que surgió tras el colapso de la Unión Soviética en 1989, las preguntas sobre los límites del Estado-nación y el mercado cobran mayor relevancia que nunca. Existen tres grandes categorías que pueden utilizarse para analizar la política de protección internacional de la propiedad intelectual. Estas categorías abarcan cuestiones que surgen al plantearse preguntas sobre: la economía política de la propiedad intelectual, tanto a nivel nacional como global; lo que James Boyle denominó “talar el ciber-bosque”, es decir, cómo debemos concebir el “bien común” intelectual o dominio público; y la legitimidad de diversos tipos de apropiación cultural. El artículo describe algunas de las cuestiones en cada una de estas tres áreas y sugiere algunas conexiones tentativas que apuntan hacia la comprensión de la política emergente del derecho de propiedad intelectual, tanto internacional como de otro tipo. Aborda la visión globalizada emergente de la protección de la propiedad intelectual, plasmada en acuerdos multilaterales.
★ View article
Alessandra Spadaro ~ International Law and Racial Capitalism in Palestine: Occupation Gone Wrong or Settler Colonialism Done Right?
Abstract
In its 2024 Advisory Opinion, the International Court of Justice found that Israel’s ongoing presence as an occupying power in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) is unlawful. The Court scrutinized the existence of illegal Israeli settlements in the OPT and found, among other things, that Israel prioritizes its settlers in the allocation of water and allows them to exploit natural resources whilst denying the same opportunities to Palestinians, in violations of its obligations under international law. The Court also found that Israel discriminates against Palestinians, including on the basis of race, without however reaching a clear conclusion on the question of apartheid. Focusing on these two issues, this article offers a critique of the Advisory Opinion through the concepts of settler colonialism and racial capitalism. It demonstrates that the economy of occupation is not limited to the exploitation of natural resources, nor to the OPT. It is rather part of a broader settler colonial project aimed at facilitating capital accumulation through the elimination of the Palestinian people. The article employs the concept of racial capitalism to show the entanglement of profit-making and race-making that results in the racialization of Palestinians as inferior. Beyond Palestine, this analysis highlights challenges and opportunities for political-economic analyses of international law.
Muin Boase ~ Indigenous Groups as Non-Disputing Parties in Investor-State ICSID Arbitration: Can the Subaltern Speak?
Abstract
This article examines how the rules governing amicus curiae submissions from Non-Disputing Parties in Investor-State ICSID arbitration can operate to silence Indigenous groups and other third parties with a direct interest. It interrogates how the nexus that Indigenous groups have with investment disputes is more akin to that of an intervener than an amicus. It critiques the bounded conception of international investment law adopted by certain Tribunals demonstrating an intolerance which makes the law unable to accommodate a plurality of voices, by denying that Indigenous law and rights can form part of the applicable law, and by finding Indigenous groups have too much of an interest to be amici. It argues that the 2022 ICSID Rules were a missed opportunity to create a new category of Third-Party Intervener.
Dana Abuqamar ~ The Pseudo-Recognition of Palestinian Statehood and the Recolonization of Gaza
Abstract
This article contends that the recent wave of diplomatic recognition of Palestinian statehood— together with the revival of the ‘two-state solution’ and post-genocide ‘reconstruction’ plans for Gaza—far from marking a progressive shift in international law, reproduces the colonial logic that has denied Palestinians their right to self-determination since the British Mandate era. Grounded in the corpus of public international law, the analysis draws on jurisprudence, state practice, and case evidence to reveal the legal and structural foundations of Israeli impunity and third state complicity. It demonstrates that colonial powers not only failed to prevent Israel’s genocidal campaign in Gaza, but materially enabled it diplomatically, militarily, and economically while engaging in theatrical heroism to deflect from their own complicity. The article shows how recognition, reconstruction, and reform function as mechanisms of containment that aestheticize domination under the guise of diplomacy. It concludes that true decolonization requires the fulfilment of third states’ erga omnes obligations: to cease aid and assistance to Israel’s unlawful acts and to ensure the actual, rather than simulated, realization of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination.
★ View article