The Social Science Research Council (SSRC) is an independent, international, nonprofit organization founded in 1923. It fosters innovative research, nurtures new generations of social scientists, deepens how inquiry is practiced within and across disciplines, and mobilizes necessary knowledge on important public issues. For nearly 100 years the SSRC has coordinated the research, policy, and philanthropic communities in the pursuit of evidence-based policies to promote human well-being, emerging as both a pivotal force in the academy and a respected contributor to the public good. The SSRC is guided by the belief that justice, prosperity, and democracy all require better understanding of complex social, cultural, economic, and political processes. We work with practitioners, policymakers, and academic researchers in the social sciences, natural sciences, humanities, and related professions. We build interdisciplinary and international networks, working with partners around the world to link research to practice and policy, strengthen individual and institutional capacities for learning, and enhance public access to information.

The secession of Crimea and its annexation to Russia recalls both the fundamental principles of contemporary international law and the limitations of their effective application in the international society. Indeed, the unlawfulness of the situation, which results from the Russian intervention in Ukraine, faces the deadlock of the Security Council. The international reaction is therefore restricted to the duty of non-recognition and the eventual use of retorsion. This limitation provides an opportunity to reflect on the connection between law and politics on the international stage.

Uno de los principales desafíos en la lucha contra el cambio climático ha sido lograr un consenso internacional universal en torno a un régimen jurídico de reducción de emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero aplicable a todos los países. Ante la diversidad de intereses políticos en juego, reflejados en la pluralidad de grupos negociadores en la materia,la cuestión de cómo reflejar en los marcos normativos compromisos aceptables de manera universal ha constituido durante casi tres décadas uno de los principales obstáculos para alcanzar una eficacia real de la acción internacional ante un problema por naturaleza global, transfronterizo y multidimensional.

accordance with the subsidiary solution prescribed by International Maritime Law as the Court has interpreted it. Moreover, the judgment recognized the starting-point of the agreed boundary as the intersection of the geographical parallel passing through Boundary Marker nº 1 with the low-water line. Five declarations, five dissenting opinionsone individual and another common to four judges-and two separate opinions were enclosed to the judgment. The proliferation of individual positions makes evident the existence of irreconcilable differences in the Court's reasoning, which seem to indicate the adoption of a compromise solution without solid legal bases.