Legal assistance to the two Ad Hoc Tribunals1 is a prerequisite for their effective achievement. The obligation to provide the Tribunals with legal assistance has been outlined in the Security Council Resolutions establishing the Tribunals, the Statutes of the Tribunals, and their Rules of Procedure and Evidence.

Arbitration is an institution which preceded courts; yet shortly after the appearance of the latter, arbitration assumed the position of the younger (and weaker) brother. In the course of history, this predicament has only been confirmed and aggravated. Courts of justice have become the representatives of the ‘normal’ settlement of disputes, their legitimacy has been beyond doubt Arbitration has been reduced to an exception, the limits and the functioning of which have been firmly been controlled by courts. There have been revolts against this plight, yet there is practically only one area in which such revolts have really been successful. This is in the domain of international trade. Today, it is an uncontested fact that arbitration is the dominant method of settling international trade disputes; and at the same time, international commercial arbitration has become an almost completely self-sufficient institution. While gaining ground and strength, international commercial arbitration has also gained self-confidence. It has been stressed with increasing frequency (and determination) that the self-reliance of international commercial arbitration is a virtue, and that it advances broader common causes. In the opening sentence of his article on court intervention in arbitral proceedings, Delaume stresses: ‘It is generally recognized that, in order to be fully effective, transnational arbitration must be freed from judicial interference.’

On 7 July 1989 the European Court of Human Rights reached a landmark decision in the case of Jens Soering. In the case of a pending extradition, the requested State, a party to the European Convention on Human Rights, violated Article 3 of the Convention if the fugitive, after surrender, faced the real risk of being subjected to ‘inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’.

Compared to other international dispute settlement bodies, the European Court of Human Rights' case law is relatively rich in situations involving a single injury and multiple contributing states. This contribution examines how the ECtHR decides such cases and explores to what extent its approach corresponds to that of the work of the International Law Commission on the topic of international responsibility. The article critically discusses the substantive criteria and doctrinal foundations employed by the ECtHR for allocating responsibility. It reflects on the adequacy of the doctrines used and examines how they can contribute to the general law on shared responsibility.

The elaboration of international legal standards relating to the status of women in the Commission on the Status of Women has led to an increased interest within the Commission with the problem of the implementation of these principles for, as Landy states:

“the adoption of international legislation and its formal acceptance by a growing number of countries cannot, by themselves, add to the stability of inter-State relations, unless there also exists some degree of assurance that the contracting parties really comply with their obligations…”

An examination of the practice of United Nations organs, including the International Court of Justice, discloses no rules requiring a party who invokes an international agreement before any of those organs to show compliance with Article 102. Nor have we found any instance in which an organ has imposed the penalty of Article 102(2) or in which a party has urged it to do so. This is not to say that no United Nations organ has ever been confronted with an agreement that required registration but which had not been registered. A number of the contentious cases before the International Court presented just such a situation. As will appear from the discussion of cases which follows, the instances in which it can be said that the Court gave effect to such unregistered agreements all involved so-called Special Agreements by which, under Article 36 of the Court's Statute, parties may bring their cases before the Court. This raises the questions whether the Court considers such agreements to be outside the scope of Article 102, and if so, why.

The Liberian conflict was a violent response to the tyranny and misrule of the then President, Samuel Doe. Doe had come to power after staging a coup d'état in 1980. After five years of military dictatorship, and due to pressure for political reform, Doe's military junta agreed to a programme of democratization which culminated in Doe being elected, allegedly fraudulently, as the first president of the new republic. Notwithstanding its professed commitment to constitutionalism and the rule of law, the violation of human rights continued under the new civilian regime. These human rights abuses, coupled with a growing economic crisis, led to the outbreak of the conflict.

The current litigation in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) over European restrictions on the importation, marketing and sale of genetically modified organisms gives rise to questions about the procedures through which international courts and tribunals may receive expert evidence from social science experts. The WTO Panel considering the EC – Biotech case received an amicus curiae brief from five social science experts who are highly qualified in precisely those fields of sociological research within which the most problematic aspects of the Biotech dispute are situated. The authors of the five-person brief themselves suggest that panels dealing with the subject of risk should contemplate formally appointing experts to assist them from disciplines additional to the natural sciences, and this suggestion merits serious broader consideration. International courts and tribunals’ handling of certain cases, such as those concerning risks to human health and the environment from new and modern technology, may stand to be improved through better access to state-of-the-art expertise on all aspects of risk and risk assessment.

The object of this article is to consider whether the ownership of expropriated property of aliens also passes to the expropriating state if the expropriation purporting to be nationalisation is not accompanied by compensation. It deals only with property (including enterprises) located within the territory of the nationalising state and belonging to aliens. The appropriation by governmental agencies of (enemy) property during or in connection with a war will not be discussed.

The present topic has been extensively addressed by several authors during the 1990s. It has provoked harsh polemics and a passionate debate and still represents an issue of interest for the international lawyers, as no formal and complete answer to the question of the international judicial review has been brought to this day. This article tries to put forward an effective and efficient mechanism allowing the International Court of Justice to review the resolutions adopted by the Security Council in the realm of Chapter VII of the UN Charter. The approach of the subject is favourable to an international judicial review, which would render the intervention of the Council more legitimate, hence more easily accepted by states. The proposed method of judicial review must however ensure both the legitimacy and the efficiency of the political organ and strengthen, not weaken the United Nations' role in the maintenance of international peace and security. That is why the international judicial review mechanism should be carefully defined and should confer upon the international judge a limited power of appreciation. At the same time, the other international courts and tribunals should defer to the International Court on matters concerning the legality of the Security Council's coercive measures by means of a preliminary ruling mechanism.

Hall's statement, widely quoted by writers on State succession, has retained a good deal of its validity. From Grotius to O'Connell, a long series of distinguished publicists have attempted to throw light upon the doctrinal obscurity of the problem. Many of them have displayed remarkable juristic imagination, but have also shown a regrettable lack of precision and discipline. In their justification, however, it must be conceded that the abundant judicial and diplomatic practice on State succession has always been—and still is—contradictory and obscure.

The current discussions on establishing a so-called New International Economic Order (NIEO) have their origin no doubt in both the poor performance of the first UN Development Decade and the profound changes — apparent since the early seventies — in world political and economic relations.