This note evaluates the application of rules on judicial independence and impartiality in two international decisions issued in 2004 – the ICJ Order on Composition in the Wall Advisory Proceedings and the disqualification decision of the Special Court for Sierra Leone in Sesay – and compares them with a code of judicial conduct recently prepared by an ILA study group (the Burgh House Principles on the Independence of the International Judiciary). We assert that the approach taken by the ICJ in Wall is excessively restrictive and is out of step with contemporary tendencies to embrace stricter standards of judicial independence and impartiality.

The success of the International Criminal Tribunal of the former Yugoslavia in fulfilling its mandate turns on the justness of the decisions it renders. To ensure that its judgements are accepted by the international community as just decisions the Tribunal is directed by the Report of the Secretary-General to adhere fully in its criminal proceedings to internationally recognized human rights standards. This directive suggests that the Tribunal should adhere to the interpretation of human rights principles as understood by other jurisdictions. However, in some instances the Tribunal has, by virtue of its statutory requirements, been unable to follow those standards as understood by other jurisdictions and it has justifiably adopted a contextual approach to the application of certain human rights principles to its criminal proceedings. In other instances, however, the Tribunal has purported to adhere fully to certain human rights principles as adopted by other jurisdictions. This has occurred with respect to the Tribunal's adherence to the principle of equality of arms. In this instance, however, the Tribunal's purported adherence to that principle has led to a situation where that adherence has had a negative effect on the justness of the decisions it has rendered. In the following it is argued that with respect to the application of the principle of equality of arms the Tribunal should adopt a contextual approach if the decisions it renders are to be just decisions and are to have the appearance of being just decisions.

In deciding whether to rule against a state party, international courts regularly confront a compliance dilemma: declare the state in breach of the international regime but with the risk that it will defy the court’s authority; or defer to the state but at the price of acquiescing to an unjust or undesirable outcome. Specifically, international adjudicators must solve this dilemma in a context of uncertainty, that is, without knowing with exactitude whether or not the state will prefer complying with an adverse ruling over overt defiance. I use a simple strategic model to cast light on this aspect of the compliance dilemma. Building off from the model’s insights, I then discuss the practices, doctrinal tactics and institutional mechanisms apt to reduce uncertainty and minimize state defiance. I highlight, in particular, the advantages of defiance avoidance mechanisms that help create informational feedback loops like test-the-water dicta and double-tier review. I illustrate how these mechanisms have been deployed by two of the world’s most powerful international courts, the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights. Finally, I consider the limitations of these mechanisms along with the possibility for other international dispute settlement bodies to replicate them.

This essay focuses on Alejandro Álvarez's seminal article, ‘Latin America and International Law’, published in 1909 in the American Journal of International Law. Offering and in-depth analysis of the text, it foregrounds the strategic meaning of Álvarez's work in the light of the international politics of his day. It posits that, more than simply a diplomatic history of Latin American particularity, Álvarez presents the case for a different hemispheric international order, based on an ‘American international law’ extending to the United States. He draws primarily an Latin American Precedents – based on historical and stituational commonalities – to argue for a common public law. He then grafts an idiosyncratic interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine as the United States' main contribution to this common law, as well as the fact of US sponsorship of various Americas-wide conferences resulting in the ratification of regional treaties. Notably, and this is one of the main points of this is one of the main points of this essay, Álvarez elevates certain Latin American states as leaders in regional international law and capable agents of its enforcement across the hemisphere. In short, this essay advances the claim that Álvarez's project of pan-American law in effect entreats the United States to share its hegemony and wield its power in the region jointly with Latin America's ‘better-constituted’ states.

Human rights law is often regarded as a discipline with aspirations of being an autonomous, self-contained regime within the general corpus of international law. Recent debates concerning reservations in the area of treaty law have reinforced views which claim the governing prinicples of human rights law depart – if not contradict – general rules of international law. By examining a landmark decision of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights which declared the recent purported Peruvian withdrawal from its compulsory jurisdiction invalid, against the background of general international law, the author aims to demonstrate that far from deviating from the general rules of the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties, this decision supports the view that human rights law is neither insulated from general international law nor divorced from the principle of sovereignty. For the principle of sovereignty has a twofold character: it is the fundament but also the limit of freedom of action by a state.

For over three decades, it has been the International Law Commission's position that the circumstance of consent involves something other than the consent which, through the rule pacta sunt servanda, imparts objective force to international agreements. During the tenure of the second Special Rapporteur on the law of state responsibility, Roberto Ago, the Commission adopted the view that the former suspends the international obligations which are incumbent on states whereas the latter functions to create, modify, or extinguish the rules whence such obligations stem forth. However, as the result of the study carried out by its last Special Rapporteur, James Crawford, the Commission has now come to distinguish between the circumstance of consent defined as a justification for non-performance of subsisting obligations, and consent defined as a requirement for the application of obligations. In this contribution, it is argued that both analyses are problematic. The former gives succour to a mistaken view of the sources of international law. The latter is based on a misunderstanding of the primary-rule–secondary-rule terminology; it justifies itself by referring to an ill-conceived definition of the notion of peremptory norms, and no less importantly undermines the purposefully cumbersome mechanism envisaged in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties for suspension of multilateral treaties as between certain of the contracting parties only.

In international criminal tribunal discourse, appeals to history and legitimacy are omnipresent. This article addresses the widespread practice of combining these appeals into one narrative. It analyses how international prosecutors engage with justifying the legitimacy of trials through the invocation of a tribunal's own history. The scrutiny of such ‘auto-histories’ as a specific form of history-telling illuminates an overlooked dimension of trials as fora for writing history. The opening statement is a perfect opportunity for constructing and communicating auto-histories. A comparative study of opening statements at the International Military Tribunal, the Special Court for Sierra Leone and the International Criminal Court reveals a recurrent, self-justifying narrative where both rootedness in history and a break with the past are key to singing the tribunal into existence as a crucial mechanism in the transition from chaos to peace. The connections between auto-histories at different tribunals show how legal practitioners discursively contribute to constructing the international criminal law's identity by relying on both origins and future.

This article discusses the judicial vision articulated by Judge Christopher Weeramantry in his time as a member of the International Court of Justice. It seeks to trace the development of his vision by examining his earlier writings, and the factors which shaped his approach to international law. It discusses some of the key elements of his vision: his sensitivity to Third World concerns, his attempts to create a universal international law which represents all the world's cultures, and his views of the judicial function and the international rule of law.

In this piece we introduce and contextualize the contributions to the special focus on the international theory of Carl Schmitt, and argue that Carl Schmitt's much neglected international thought can provide scholars of both international relations and international law with a new common multidisciplinary research platform pivotal in thinking about the present international predicaments of crisis in international order and legitimacy, of contested liberal hegemony, and of the issue of unipolarity and the emergence of new forms of warfare, such as terrorism and the ‘global war on terror’.

Peter Fitzpatrick and Patricia Tuitt (eds.), Critical Beings: Law, Nation and the Global Subject, Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004, 226 pp. (hb).

Sinkwan Cheng (ed.), Law, Justice, and Power: Between Reason and Will, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004, 278 pp. (pb).

This article critically examines the dynamics between public health, intellectual property, and international trade in the context of the TRIPS Amendment and its theoretical implications in international law. The article suggests that international efforts in the TRIPS 2003 Waiver and 2005 Amendment addressing public health concerns have not been very successful due to the birth defect of TRIPS, i.e., hoping a private-rights-in-nature regime could accommodate public interests in health concerns. TRIPS’ birth defect further reveals itself in post-TRIPS development and contributed to the failure of the TRIPS Waiver and Amendment due to the resulting practice fragmentation and procedural hurdles in domestic compulsory licensing administration. Moreover, the TRIPS Amendment raised a fundamental theoretical issue, i.e., how the WTO as an international organization in public international law can regulate compulsory licensing of intellectual property rights as private rights – in particular the proprietary right to remuneration – while recognizing that TRIPS grants no positive rights. The paper suggests that the key to the issue is the treatment of private rights in public international law. It is submitted that the TRIPS Amendment has no legal basis in international law due to its unwarranted intrusion into members’ domestic affairs and individuals’ private proprietary rights. The article thus calls for alternative thinking about the TRIPS Amendment, in particular to leave administration of compulsory licensing fully with domestic authorities as it is in the Paris Convention.

Supported by Athens and Ankara, and implemented largely by the League of Nations, the Greek–Turkish population exchange uprooted and resettled hundreds of thousands. The aim here was not to organize plebiscites, channel self-determination claims, or install protective mechanisms for minorities – all familiar features of the Allies’ management of imperial disintegration in Europe after 1919. Nor was it to restructure a given economy and society from top to bottom, generating an entirely new legal order in the process; this had often been the case with colonialism, and would characterize much of the Mandate System in the interbellum. Instead, the goal was to deploy a unique legal mechanism – not in conformity with European practice, but also distinct from most extra-European governance regimes – in order to resolve ethno-national conflict by redividing land, reshaping national identities, and unleashing new processes of capital accumulation.

This essay traces the relationship between activists and academics involved in the campaign for “women's rights as human rights” as a case study of the relationship between different classes of what I call “knowledge professionals” self-consciously acting in a transnational domain. The puzzle that animates this essay is the following: how was it that at the very moment at which a critique of “rights” and a reimagination of rights as “rights talk” proved to be such fertile ground for academic scholarship did the same “rights” prove to be an equally fertile ground for activist networking and lobbying activities? The paper answers this question with respect to the work of self-reflexivity in creating a “virtual sociality of rights.”

Engaging with a mundane topic like the softness of international law may certainly look surprising to the readership of a journal known for its avowed and constant quest for an intellectually and conceptually rigorous ‘off-Broadway’ scholarship. Why would a journal that tries to establish itself as a leading alternative voice in the field replay a comedy so often staged in mainstream scholarship? It is with the full awareness of such an anticipated feeling of déjà vu that the editors of the Leiden Journal of International Law have decided to open the ensuing pages to an oft-debated topic with the ambition of evaluating the possibility of transcending the traditional pitched battle between opponents and advocates of soft law. It is well known that, after the juvenile success of the concept1 and its embrace by a great number of international scholars, soft law became the object of severe criticisms, resulting in a chasm in the international legal scholarship. Indeed, the debate about soft law came to literally split authors into two camps, firmly pitted against one another. On the one hand, there are the advocates of the notion for whom the binary nature of law is incapable of explaining the complexity of the international exercise of public authority in a pluralized world2 or who see soft law as an instrument of (programming of the) development of hard law.3 These apostles of the notion of soft law are opposed by those who see the notion as redundant because it turns into either hard law or not law at all,4 it is self-serving for the profession,5 it is dangerously deformalizing our instruments of law ascertainment,6 or it is weakening the general authority of law.7 The fierce character of that confrontation originates in soft law's being intrinsically intertwined with one's core and inner understanding of (international) law, thereby making these discrepancies seem irreconcilable.

Thus far, witnesses have played a crucial role in most proceedings before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. It can be expected that this will also be the case in the proceedings before the future International Criminal Court. The author of the note focuses on the position of witnesses and compares the rules, practices, and experiences of the Tribunal with the Rome Statute in this respect. In particular, the support and protection of witnesses and the role of the Victims and Witnesses Units of the respective courts will be discussed.

In the summer of 1997, a member of the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia met with Slavko Dokmanović in Serbia in order to lure him into Croatia, where he was ultimately arrested by UN peacekeeping personnel, Dokmanović was the subject of a sealed indictment for his role in the execution of 261 people forcibly taken out of the Vukovar hospital in 1991. The Tribunal rejected Dokmanović's argument that the manner of his arrest violated the sovereignty of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) and international law. In doing so, the Tribunal focused on the distinction between ‘luring’ and ‘forcible abduction’, reckoning that the former was acceptable while the latter might, constitute grounds for dismissal in a future case. The article argues that the Tribunal's decision rests on an artificial distinction between luring and abduction which may needlessly discourage future apprehensions undertaken by NATO and UN troops in the territory of the former Yugoslavia. What the Tribunal in Dokmanović should have focused on, is that there is no violation of international law where the Security Council or the Tribunal has authorised law enforcement activities, where the state has consented to such activities, or where such activities are necessary under the principle of self-defence. Moreover, even where the manner of apprehension violates international law, the Tribunal may apply the so-called ‘Eichmann-exception’, while at the same time recognising that the mala captus bene dententus principle is generally inconsistent with the modern law of human rights.

In the process of selection of articles for the International Court of Justice section at the Editorial Board of the Leiden Journal of International Law (LJIL), we tend to be seduced by those manuscripts which are effective in making use of the jurisprudence of the Court as an instrument to engage in an in-depth examination of substantive legal issues of a general nature. This reflects our conviction – hardly an original one, since it appears to be shared by our entire legal community – that the Court has a fundamental role to play in the advancement of international law as a legal system. It also echoes an idea that is present in the mission statement of our journal, which is conceived as ‘a forum for two vital areas, namely international legal theory and international dispute settlement’, thus establishing an intrinsic link between them. But how is the Court's contribution to the development of international law to be assessed? And what do we expect from a scholarly piece examining its case law in this respect?

In seeking to define torture in international humanitarian law, the ICTY and ICTR have turned to the definition of torture contained in the UN Convention against Torture for guidance. The Convention definition contains a requirement that the actor be a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. The ad hoc tribunals have put forward various views as to whether this is an element of the definition of torture in international humanitarian law. This article examines these views. Potentially more significant are the pronouncements of the tribunals on the actor element of the definition of torture in international human rights law. This article also explores these pronouncements. It compares them with the drafting history of the Convention against Torture and with the jurisprudence of the Committee against Torture, the European Court of Human Rights and the UN Human Rights Committee. It questions whether the approach of the ad hoc tribunals is part of a trend towards a wider reading of ‘the actor’ in international human rights law.

The interplay between the International Criminal Court (ICC) and domestic jurisdictions under the complementarity regime has unveiled statutory and policy limitations. These loopholes became vivid when the ICC faced new complex situations that were not initially envisaged by the drafters of the Rome Statute. On the practical side, the Libyan situation revealed setbacks and shortages in the policy(ies) adopted by the ICC. The first of these setbacks is the apparent lack of a coherent strategy on positive complementarity as invoked by (some) organs of the Court. The second aspect is the Court's adoption of a restrictive interpretation of the constituencies of the complementarity regime, making it extremely difficult even for some willing and able states to exercise their primary duty to prosecute core international crimes.

The unfortunate loose interpretation of ‘unavailability’ that the ICC has developed has led to inaccurate interpretations of the complementarity mechanism in certain situations, such as Libya. Furthermore, the fair trial standards within the admissibility regime should not be exaggerated, but rather invoked to determine whether the state has a bona fide intention to investigate and prosecute these crimes. Contrary to some writers’ interpretation, this is an objective test of intention, not one of relativity or specific result.

The ICC practice has shown a patchy approach that lacks a consistent and clear vision of its relation with domestic jurisdictions. While the ICC has not missed every opportunity to hail its commitment to positive complementarity, the reality is that the Court seems keen on understanding its success through conducting more international prosecutions.

It is always a pleasure and privilege to address a body of students as they commence their graduate studies. You have climbed the foothills successfully and have reached the first plateau. But there are many peaks ahead, and as you commence your ascent of one of them today, I wish you the very best of luck in reaching the sunlit plateau that lies ahead. When you arrive there, you will no doubt see other peaks which you may wish to climb, because any branch of study reveals ever higher and higher peaks. The higher you go, the more you see. These summits are sometimes even hidden in the clouds. You keep discovering them, and even if their existence is known, they are often unexplored territory. Pathways have to be found through them. That is part of the intellectual excitement you will commence today as you leave the well-trodden paths and begin to carve out pathways for yourselves. I congratulate you and wish you God speed on your journey.