Only future conflicts might finally solve the issue of whether current conduct could consolidate relevant legal developments in this area.

Legitimate expectations about ius ad bellum concerns and community interests might conflate with beneficial effects of the ‘strict’ neutrality regime, which was set up to limit the spread of armed conflicts and keep economic business as usual. To summarise, this conflict is a further scenario in the continual shift of the pendulum between public and private interests in international legal order.

Further, theories centered outside the law of neutrality could be recorded using references to circumstances precluding wrongfulness, such as collective self-defense and countermeasures. For example, in the concept of ‘benevolent/qualified’ neutrality, potential exemptions for non-lethal military material, or, conversely, refusals of military assistance. Bartolini argues that based on the positions held by States, the reasoning for providing and abstaining from providing military support can be identified in part in the law of neutrality. The practice in this field could provide a legal perspective on the factual provision (or non-provision) of belligerent material. The writer focuses on the largely unexplored positions of States on the provision of belligerent materials. Giulio Bartolini examines the Law of Neutrality and state practice in the context of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Johnston argues that the 1998 agreement is relevant to the interpretation of the UK-EU Withdrawal Agreement. In particular, the relationship between the multi-party agreement and the obligations created by the future reform of the NI political institutions. Johnston analyses the potential implications of the hybrid nature of the multi-party agreement of 1998 and relevant subsequent practice under the British Irish Agreement of 1999. Katie Johnston explores the Good Friday Agreement in the context of International Treaty Law.

Only time will tell book summary