No single political issue has engaged the ICJ more than that of South West Africa (Namibia). Over a period ranging from 1949 through 1971, recourse was had to the Court, both in its advisory and contentious capacities, on various aspects of the problem. Even today, after Namibia attained independence, the Court's jurisprudence and the saga of UN-Court relations in this matter continue to intrigue. This is because the questions raised have continuing relevance to many issues bearing on international law and international relations.

Much has been, and will be, written on the approach of the Court and of individual judges to a panoply of international legal questions raised in the course of the judicial proceedings. But, in fact, the long tale also offers researchers an enticing fountain of material on the role of law and adjudication in international relations, on the interaction between the UN judicial and political fora and, more broadly, between law and politics. This article focuses mainly on these latter, relatively neglected, aspects because it is with respect to these that the benefit of hindsight offers the ability to reassess and revise some of the earlier assumptions and to note some interesting paradoxes not readily discernible at the time. Perhaps revision of some of the axiomatic propositions long perpetuated in the field will offer better guidance to those seeking to enhance the role of international adjudication in world affairs.

This essay recounts the protracted history of the proposal to create a UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, from the days of Cold War controversies and divisions until the post ultimately came into being after the World Conference on Human Rights (Vienna, 1993). While early proposals perceived the High Commissioner as an independent authority receiving complaints and lending good offices, the envisaged role of the High Commissioner progressively evolved over the years – with the setting up of a great variety of treaty-based and charter-based implementation procedures – to encompass comprehensive policy-planning and global human rights advocacy. Thus, as the UN official with principal responsibility for human rights activities, the High Commissioner became firmly embedded in the structure of the UN organization. This paper further underscores the catalytic role of non-governmental organizations in consistently pushing forward the high commissioner project, as it finally emerged in an atmosphere of high expectations.

Reprisals originally served individuals seeking redress for an injustice suffered abroad. The concept, however, has undergone extensive development. Nowadays, reprisals are -in themselves illegal- retaliatory measures used by one state seeking redress for an illegal act committed by another. The prerequisites for legal reprisals areformulated in the Naulilaa Incident arbitration of 1928. In her examination of the recent history of the concept of reprisals, this arbitration is the author's starting point. After this examination she compares reprisals to other methods of redress. Finally, she investigates the limitation of the use of reprisals as laid down in humanitarian law treaties.

The Fishery Agreement concluded in 1992 between the European Economic Communities and the Republic oj Argentina provides an excellent example of the negotiating process leading to the conclusion of a treaty in the field of international fisheries. The Agreement shows how widely diverging interests and seemingly opposing views can be reconciled by two parties prepared to negotiate constructively and to develop a new generation of agreements. This article should be considered against the background formed by developments in the law of the sea. Particularly in the fields of the protection of the environment, the administration of resources and development policy, and the diverging interests that coastal states and ‘distant water fishing states’ have in these matters. To place the conclusion of this Treaty in the appropriate context, an overview of the structural and economic conditions of the fishery sector in Argentina and the European Communities will be given. Finally, the innovative technicalities of the new treaty will be discussed against this background.

On 5 July 2018, the European Parliament adopted a recommendation to the Council endorsing a proposal for the establishment of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly. Conceived as a new primary organ of the United Nations (UN), the Parliamentary Assembly aims at complementing the work of the General Assembly by giving direct representation to the peoples of the world and passing binding legislation. This article reconstructs the historical roots of the proposal and speculates about the possible legal implications for both the UN and its member states stemming from the establishment of an elected citizens’ chamber within an intergovernmental organization. An argument is made that in order to achieve the stated goals of the model of United Nations Parliamentary Assembly endorsed by the European Union (EU), the required institutional changes to the UN system would be so radical as to effectively repudiate it in favour of a newly established system of international co-operation.

The paper analyses the dynamic procedures that work during the formation of international law in international organizations and conventional frameworks. These procedures organize and structure the interactive exercise of the normative function by law-creating bodies and law-applying bodies. The paper conceives of this ‘way’ of making international law as a law-making method that the concept of standardization helps to understand. Grounded in Aristotelian dialectic logic, standardization indeed conceptualizes the dialogic and procedural law-making that works for normative coherence in contexts characterized by co-operation and the heterogeneity of interests. Introducing this concept, the paper insists on the fact that it is the procedural nature of the dialogue that is crucial to reach normative coherence. Drawing on the consequences of standardization, and regarding dynamic procedures, it reappraises the status and the importance of both the different sources of international law and the different participants to international law-making. Also, the paper points out the predominance of normative coherence, as well as that of its ‘guarantor’, namely procedure that its author considers the cornerstone of legal certainty in the co-operative context of the international society.

Despite the great body of academic research on international criminal justice, little attention has been given to the situation of those who have been acquitted. This article aims to fill this gap by offering an empirical overview of what happens to persons acquitted by the ICTY, ICTR, and the ICC. Rather than providing an in-depth legal analysis, the article emphasizes the challenges acquitted persons encounter. It discusses in particular: (1) to what extent and why some acquitted individuals are barred from residing in the country of their preference; (2) whether and why they are facing subsequent prosecution; and (3) what obstacles there are for acquitted persons seeking to obtain compensation for the lengthy periods spent in detention. Although similar problems may be experienced by individuals who have been acquitted for conventional crimes in domestic systems, the authors argue that persons acquitted by international criminal tribunals are relatively more susceptible to post-acquittal challenges because of the unique nature of the alleged crimes and the institutional context in which international criminal trials take place. The authors conclude that there are no easy solutions, and that some of the problems identified are inherent to the system of international criminal justice.

This article presents a theoretical framework by which to understand how disasters are reconciled with a state’s existing obligations under international law. This ‘reactive’ model of disaster regulation hinges on two regulatory techniques, ‘disapplication’ and ‘exculpation’, both of which involve a deviation from the ordinary application of a norm owing to the occurrence of a disaster or to measures adopted by a state in relation to it. It proceeds to outline the various doctrines and mechanisms across different subfields of international law, including international human rights law, investment law and trade law, which may operationalize these techniques in disaster situations. Finally, it argues that the applicability of certain disapplication and exculpation mechanisms to disasters relies on an anachronistic view of such disasters as rare and episodic occurrences beyond human control. This puts these mechanisms at odds with the central objectives of international disaster law and their underlying sociological and scientific premises, which emphasize the need for an ‘adaptive’ model of comprehensive and prevention-oriented disaster regulation. Accordingly, this analysis exposes the conceptual limitations of the reactive model for disaster regulation and explains and validates the inclination toward an adaptive model within international disaster law. It also indicates how mechanisms within the reactive model could be recalibrated to better regulate disasters.

In 1954, following the US explosion of a large thermonuclear device in the South Pacific, Prime Minister Nehru of India led the first international call for a comprehensive ban on nuclear testing. It took until 10 September 1996 for the General Assembly of the United Nations to adopt the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). As at the end of April 1997, it had been signed by 142 states including the five nuclear-weapon states.

This commentary will give an analysis of the purpose of the first site visit by the International Court of Justice, viewed in the context of the Court's specific judicial functions under its Statute and Rules; the factors bearing upon the success of the site visit; and the circumstances, in reality somewhat limited, in which the exercise might usefully be repeated in future cases.

The present article describes the dispute settlement system of the Organization of the Islamic Conference through the envisaged creation of the International Islamic Court of Justice. The Court's Statute, adopted in 1987, considers the Islamic Shari'ah or Islamic law as the fundamental law to be applied by the Court for the resolution of international disputes. Therefore, the Court will have a religious character considering a local religious code as the primary applicable law. The International Islamic Court of Justice has not yet been set up. Its creation might have the effect of grouping Islamic states under the same international judicial system, and of causing a strong political impact in respect of the relations with the State of Israel and of the Palestinian question.

[…] risks and conflicts of interest can be overcome by rules of conduct adequate to the challenges of life if a conscious effort is made to foresee and counter the problems likely to emmerge.

The bombing of Kosovo was a crude manifestation of a clash of immanent world-views. The negative of a pre-1945 horizontal and bilateral international structure by a post-1945 vertical and multilateral structure is beginning to produce a new structure, a structure of international social order, a third dimension which contains and surpasses the other two. The International Court, itself an institutional relic of an horizontal and bilateral world, is not well placed to assert social responsibility over the arrogant public-realm power which is being wielded in the name of international social order.

The African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, which is mandated under the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights with promoting and protecting human rights in Africa, has attracted considerable criticism for being an ineffectual body. One of the complaints is that the Charter based regime lacks an effective system of remedies. This paper examines whether this criticism is justified. An analysis of the jurisprudence of the African Commission proves that the Commission is patiently constructing a concept of reparations which has some similarities with that developed by the UN Human Rights Committee.

The Hague Convention on Cultural property of 1954 prohibits the transfer by the occupier of cultural property from territory occupied by him. Under the Protocol annexed to the said Convention, the parties to it undertake to return cultural property transferred in contravention of the Convention to their countries of origin. These provisions arc clearly inadequate when dealing with Jewish cultural property looted by Nazi-Germany and its collaborators in the course of World War II. Jewish cultural heritage was usually considered as endangering the cultural heritage of the host nations and, consequently, subject to harassment and destruction. It would therefore seem inequitable to return looted Jewish cultural property (representing the cultural heritage of the Jewish people) to (those countries from which it was looted; the proper recipient of this heritage (also by virtue of the principle of self-determination) is the Jewish people represented by the State of Israel and the major contemporary Jewish communities around the world.

Environmental changes, such as sea level rise and coastal erosion, have an increasing impact on coastlines worldwide. Unilaterally declared maritime limits are generally determined by reference to coastlines and they are only binding insofar as they conform to the applicable law. Bilateral maritime boundaries are not equally affected by changing coastal geography because, once established, they are binding on parties to the arrangement under the pacta sunt servanda and res judicata principles. Maritime delimitation generally produces geographically stable boundaries. In principle, these remain fixed notwithstanding changes to the coastal geography that generates maritime entitlements or the ecosystems central to national interests. Indeed, stability and predictability are among the objectives of maritime delimitation. However, legal stability can be achieved without geographic stability and the requirement of predictability may be unattainable in a new world of environmental uncertainty. After all, baselines and derived outer limits fluctuate to reflect changing coastal geography and the same is true of bilateral boundaries, unless and until otherwise agreed. States have concluded boundary agreements that refer to fluctuating concepts, such as the equidistance line, instead of fixed co-ordinates. Furthermore, the International Court of Justice has left a segment of a maritime boundary to fluctuate until otherwise agreed and a Chamber of the Court has addressed the possibility of establishing a boundary by reference to a fluid oceano-biological boundary in the marine environment. This suggests that maritime boundaries can fluctuate if established by reference to sufficiently clear and relevant limits in the natural environment.

This essay focuses on the (non)application of the precautionary principle in the Hormones Case. It concludes that the finding of the Appellate Body that the precautionary principle, as such, cannot overrule the explicit wording of Articles 5.1 and 5.2 of the SPS Agreement is debatable, if a similar principle or concept were to exist in health law – a line of thought that is not pursued by the Appellate Body in its consideration of the precautionary principle. In addition, the article includes considerations about the problems that arises if substantive unity is sought in a procedurally non-unified system for international dispute settlement.

The World Health Organization (WHO) had, among other things, been examining and deliberating the hazardous effects to health by the use of nuclear weapons. These discussions culminated in a resolution which requested an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the legality of the use of nuclear weapons in the following terms: [i]n view of the health and environmental effects, would the use of nuclear weapons by a Stare in war or other armed conflict be a breach of its obligations under international law including the WHO Constitution?

By an application filed on 29 March 1994, Cameroon instituted proceedings against Nigeria, relying on the declarations under Article 36(2) of the Statute of the Court, made by both states without reservations. The dispute, according to the Application, related “essentially to the question of sovereignty over the Bakassi Peninsula”, where, “since the end of 1993”, the Nigerian troops were “occupying several Cameroonian localities”. Cameroon also requested the Court “to determine the course of the maritime boundary between the two states beyond the line fixed in 1975”. In an ‘Additional Application’, filed on 6 June 1994, Cameroon extended the subject of the dispute “essentially to the question of sovereignty over a part of the territory of Cameroon in the area of Lake Chad”, which had become the object of “the official […] claim […] by […] Nigeria quite recently, for the first time”; and also requested the Court “to specify definitely” the whole frontier line from Lake Chad to the sea, and to examine the two Applications as a single case. In its counter-memorial, filed within the prescribed time-limit (18 December 1995), Nigeria raised objections to the jurisdiction of the Court and the admissibility of the Cameroonian claims, whereupon the proceedings on the merits were suspended and the President of the Court fixed 15 May 1996 as the time-limit within which Cameroon might present its observations on the Nigerian objections.