Outline Chambers Briefings | International Legal News

15 June 2026 Each week, Outline Chambers provides a concise overview of key developments across international law, arbitration and global governance.

This week’s briefing explores developments in the rule of law and women’s rights in Afghanistan, proceedings before the International Criminal Court, investment arbitration, international trade law, and recent English High Court guidance on contractual termination rights and arbitral awards.

International Legal News | 15 June 2026

 12 June 2026

Rule of Law: UN Experts condemn Afghanistan’s government for arbitrary arrests and excessive force

UN rights experts have condemned the de facto Taliban government in Afghanistan for detaining 30 women for alleged dress code violations and for the use of excessive force against protestors who have demonstrated against dress codes in the city of Herat.

Special Deputy Representative for Afghanistan, Georgette Gagnon has warned that arrests in and of themselves carry “enormous stigma” which can risk further violence and isolation against women involved in the protests. She has called for the Afghani government to comply with international legal standards and uphold freedoms in the region.

For more on this story, see here.

11 June 2026

International Criminal Law: ICC hands down redacted decision on contact restrictions in case concerning Rodrigo Roa Duterte

Trial Chamber III of the International Criminal Court has handed down a procedural decision (redacted for the public) in the case concerning Rodrigo Duterte, permitting aspects of the Defence’s request to allow an unidentified person(s) to be added to the list of non-privileged contacts of the accused.

Rodrigo Duterte served as president of The Philippines from 2016 – 2022. He faces investigation and trial at the International Criminal Court in The Hague after the Court found that there were “substantial grounds to believe” that he was responsible for crimes against humanity in connection with the Philippines drug war.

For more on this story see here.

10 June 2026

Arbitration: French Court of Appeal affirms lack of power to review ICSID awards.

The Paris Court of Appeal has confirmed that it does not have the power to consider an application made by the State of Albania to annul a €110 million ICSID award.

The ruling was made on the basis that it did not have jurisdiction just because the arbitration hearings took place in Paris.

For more on this story see here.

9 June 2026

Blog Corner: “Essential Supplies for Friends? AOTES, Export Restrictions, and WTO Non-Discrimination”

In a post for EJIL: Talk!, Yoshimichi Ishikawa provides an analysis on the Agreement on Trade in Essential Supplies (“AOTES”) as concluded by New Zealand and Singapore, signed on 4 May 2026.

The Agreement provides hard law guarantees between the two nations of a flow of essential supplies in the event of trade disruptions. Ishikawa provides a legal analysis of the possible implications that such an agreement might have on both nations and their broader trade obligations to other states who are members of the World Trade Organisation (“WTO”).

To read this article, see here.

8 June 2026

Arbitration: High Court provides guidance on the relationship between express contractual termination rights and common law rights to loss of bargain damages

Alexander Whatley has written an analysis on the case of SLB and others v Pak and others [2026] EWHC 449 (Comm) which concerned an unsuccessful appeal under section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 arising out of several arbitral awards, which themselves emanated from shipbuilding contracts for container vessels.

He provides an analysis on some of the practical implications of the case. In particular, the affirmation that a fixed deadline cannot be assumed to be in each case a condition of contract, but rather that such a determination will be subject to contractual construction on a case-by-case basis. Further, he highlights an important distinction between a contractual right of termination as opposed to a comparable common law right for repudiatory breach and claim loss of bargain damages.

To read this analysis, see here.