This article addresses the impact of politics and diplomacy upon the enforcement of international legal obligations through the example of non-violation complaints in the World Trade Organization (WTO). Although this remedy inherited from the past has always been criticized, both the scope and the effects of non-violation complaints upon the WTO dispute settlement system have been disregarded and misunderstood. Only a few WTO members have insisted on using this remedy to the detriment of the immense majority of WTO members for which non-violation complaints still represent an unaffordable luxury. Therefore, this article retraces the negotiation history of this remedy and its entire jurisprudence in order to demonstrate that the WTO dispute settlement system can neither undermine the results of negotiations reflecting the power struggle amongst sovereign nation-states, nor remedy their failure to negotiate by creating new legal obligations. As a result, the security and predictability of the WTO dispute settlement system is at stake, for WTO panels and the Appellate Body have been reluctant and unable to define the ambiguous legal concept of non-violation.

Following the worst industrial accident in history, the leak of poisonous methyl isocyanate gas in Bhopal, India and the deaths of more than 2,000 people with injuries to more than 200,000, suits were soon brought in the United States against Union Carbide Corporation, the owner of a little over 50 percent of the stock in Union Carbide India Limited, the owner and operator of the disastrous plant. The American suits were consolidated in one action before the United States Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Federal District Court, however, dismissed the action on the grounds of forum non conveniens, deciding that the Bhopal case would be more properly litigated in India. The District Court's opinion was endorsed by the Federal Circuit Court for the Second Circuit, also concluding that India, not the United States, was the appropriate situs for the trial.

The exercise, in the political sphere, of powers traditionally characterized as inherent in his office has become a well-established and particularly important activity of the United Nations Secretary-General.

1. A little over twelve years ago the Kingdom of the Netherlands ratified the European Convention of Human Rights and its First Additional Protocol. This study constitutes an inquiry into the application in the Netherlands of the rights guaranteed by the Convention and the Protocol, the influence they have exercised on the State organs that create or apply the law and their impact on the Dutch legal order in general. Such a study is the more called for, since the self-executing provisions of the Convention and Protocol, after publication, are directly applicable in the municipal legal order of the Netherlands, without any transformation or incorporation into national law being necessary. Moreover, these provisions take precedence over any contrary provisions of municipal law, whether enacted before or after the coming into force of the Convention. It can thus be said that the Dutch legal system— which will be explained hereafter in greater detail—perhaps more than that of any other Party to the Convention allows those falling within its ambit to profit from the rights and freedoms which the Convention extends. It will be interesting to note to what extent actual practice in the Netherlands with regard to the Convention conforms to this theory. A survey of Dutch practice would moreover also allow of comparisons with that in other States parties to the Convention.

In this article, a cross-section has been outlined of three international organisations which have come into being in the Commonwealth Carribean. First there is the parent organisation, the Caribbean Community (Caricom); linked therewith but based on separate treaties, are many other organisations, of which the Legal Council and the Examinations Council have been closely examined. The cross-section is drawn through the subjects of international law which figure in the three founding instruments examined.

On 2 April 2012, it was thirty years ago that an armed conflict between Argentina and the UK erupted. The conflict lasted two and a half months and was fought in the South Atlantic region. At the heart of the conflict was the sovereignty dispute over the Falklands-Malvinas. By coincidence or not, a series of events occurred on the eve of the anniversary which has put the dispute once again in the spotlight. The persistence of the dispute over the centuries, the current absence of sovereignty talks between both states while the dispute is heating up, coupled with the earlier 1982 breaches of international peace, make it not only timely but also necessary to revisit the question of the Falklands-Malvinas and to investigate how international law rules and mechanisms could facilitate a peaceful settlement of the dispute. The focus of this article will be on the UN as an international organization established and endowed precisely with the task of facilitating the peaceful settlement of international disputes that are likely to endanger international peace. The article provides a historical record of the UN actions in relation to the question at hand and offers some overarching observations on the adequacy of the UN in facilitating the settlement of territorial disputes.

The publication of the arbitral award in the Asian Agricultural Products Ltd. (AAPL) v. Republic of Sri Lanka case serves as a forceful reminder that long after individual confrontations in the Sri Lankan civil war are removed from the headlines, the personal, legal and financial consequences of mat country's tragedy shall continue to bedevil the society. In this case, AAPL, formerly a foreign investor in Sri Lanka, claimed damages against the Government for destruction of property arising out of military operations undertaken by official security forces. The Tribunal, by a majority, found in favour of the claimant, but did so only after a fairly lengthy review both of canons of treaty interpretation in international law and of principles of State responsibility for actions undertaken during civil unrest More specifically, because the proceedings were instituted under the United Kingdom/Sri Lanka Bilateral Investment Treaty of 1980, the primary focus of the Tribunal's attention concerned the applicability of particular provisions of mat treaty to circumstances of military and paramilitary activity; at the same time, the military background to the case also prompted the Tribunal to give broad consideration to the standard of diligence owed by government forces to foreign investors under general international law.

This article presents an analysis of the role and content of proportionality under contemporary international humanitarian law governing the means and methods of warfare (jus in bello) and is designed to present a legal analysis of proportionality to help provide a context for state practice. The events of Operation ‘Cast Lead’ and the reactions of the international community may be instrumental in determining the role assigned to proportionality in the context of armed conflicts. A study on jus in bello proportionality with reference to Operation ‘Cast Lead’ offers a contribution to a further development of the concept of proportionality and to resolving some of its controversial issues concerning its role and content in order to improve the current compliance of the principle.

Despite great efforts made to conform maritime practice at The Hague in 1907, and later in London in 1909, the sheer pace of industrial competition in evidence by 1914 meant not only that disarmament remained out of the question, but further, that new theories of wartime necessity might over-ride the many developed, ‘civilised’ wartime restraints, if to do so favoured victory. One body of rules quickly disregarded was that for armed neutrality at sea, by which is meant a state stance of abstention and impartiality declared on the outbreak of war, in exchange for continued neutral rights of peaceful maritime commerce. Illustrative of the impact industrial warfare had on rules of maritime neutrality was the infamous Baralong incident of 9 August 1915, in which a German submarine was sunk by the British Q-ship. It is argued, however, that the unrestricted manner in which World War 1 was fought was not caused by any deficiency of the known rules of maritime neutrality, per se. Instead, the essence of that war may be sought in political, chauvinistic demands for ultimate success, and an associated greed that would ultimately force neutral states to share the costs of a conflict not of their making.

The territorial scope of the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court was an issue which was hotly debated prior to the adoption of the Rome Statute. Yet, in the first 10 years of the Court's operation the negotiators' concerns with regard to a jurisdictional overreach seem to have been misplaced. To date, the interpretation and application of Article 12(2)(a) of the Rome Statute – the key provision in this context – have remained uncontroversial. This practice, however, has left certain important questions untouched, and particularly the issue of jurisdiction in cases of the partial commission of a crime on State Party territory. In this context, the question is how little of an international crime should take place on State Party territory for the ICC to have jurisdiction. It is hereby suggested that in order to answer this question, the Court may have recourse to the jurisdictional rule of reason developed by Francis Mann in the context of his work on state jurisdiction and antitrust law. In this context, it is suggested that the Court would have jurisdiction over any case or situation that would have a sufficiently strong connection with the territory of a State Party. The meaning of a ‘sufficiently strong connection’ – an essential ‘reasonableness’ approach, showing the absence of an abuse of rights or arbitrariness – would then need to be specified on a case-by-case basis.

Only three years after the first milestone on the road towards the establishment of a legal regime of outer space was reached through the unanimous adoption by the XVIII General Assembly of the United Nations of a “Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space” (13th December 1963, no. 1962), a second landmark was passed.

It is not at all difficult to criticize the United Nations human rights programme on the grounds of inefficiency, hypocrisy, double standards and lack of imagination. But critics often tend to take a myopic view and overlook what has been achieved over a slightly longer period of time. One such development which has so far received little attention outside the small world of human rights activists and specialised diplomats is the emergence of the ‘thematic’ or issue-oriented response to human rights violations by the UN Commission on Human Rights.

In 1893 the Hague Conference on Private International Law convened for the first time and put also certain matters of family law on its agenda. With respect to the law of husband and wife three conventions were drafted in a short period of time and opened for signature and ratification by the member states:

1. the Convention of 12 June 1902 Governing Conflicts of Laws Concerning Marriage

2. the Convention of 12 June 1902 Governing Conflicts of Laws and Conflicts of Jurisdiction concerning Divorce and Separation

3. the Convention of 17 July 1905 concerning Conflicts of Laws relating to the Effects of Marriage on the Rights and Duties of Spouses inter se and on the Spouses' Property.

The United States intervention in Grenada has been characterised by some as a rescue mission, by others an act of aggression. A study of the legality of this intervention involves broad and fundamental questions about the content and nature of international law. To what extent can the policy goals put forward by President Reagan in the above-quoted speech be consistent with the present legal system? What place do human rights considerations have in international law, and how are a state's defence needs defined? These basic questions arise in studying the US intervention in Grenada, as well as the question of the capacity of a particular individual to request military intervention in his state.