Research & publications 2026

This article examines the international legal framework governing electromagnetic warfare in situations of armed conflict. It first considers whether and to what extent international telecommunications law continues to apply between belligerents in wartime, before turning to international humanitarian law. The article then analyses how the rules of international humanitarian law governing the conduct of hostilities apply to electromagnetic warfare, with a particular focus on the jamming of enemy communication systems and the jamming and spoofing of Global Navigation Satellite Systems that guide enemy weapon systems. It clarifies when such operations qualify as ‘attacks’ within the meaning of Article 49(1) of the 1977 First Additional Protocol and assesses how the principles of distinction, proportionality and precautions in attack operate in this context, thereby highlighting the specific legal challenges posed by such operations. The article further examines the constraints applicable to electromagnetic operations that fall below the attack threshold, including the obligation of constant care and the special protection afforded to medical services.

In its Advisory Opinion on the Request submitted by the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) concluded that, under Article 192 of the UN Law of the Sea Convention (UNCLOS), States must take all necessary measures to protect and preserve the marine environment from the impacts of climate change. Acknowledging the disruptive effects of climate change on fish stocks, the Tribunal concluded that Article 192 gives rise to additional obligations under international fisheries law. In particular, States must take climate change impacts into account when conserving and managing fish stocks pursuant to Articles 61, 63, 64, and 117–119 of UNCLOS. This article analyzes ITLOS’ interpretation of these provisions. It then explores their practical implications and applications, given the Tribunal’s limited guidance. Finally, it argues that certain obligations concerning climate-driven stock redistribution remain insufficiently clarified.