In the long-lasting debate about reforming the United Nations, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan appeared to want to make a difference. On the basis of a report prepared by a high level panel of experts he presented his own reform proposals in March 2005. At the beginning of 2005 a voluminous report on the development issue, the so-called Millennium Project Report (or ‘Sachs-Report’), was presented. On the basis of these documents an intense discussion set in. Despite the fact that the immediate result of this debate, the so-called 2005 World Summit Outcome of September 2005 was rather disappointing, the world community has now at their disposal an array of detailed studies and reports on some of the most topical issues in international law. As reform of the United Nations seems to be imperative the relative discussion will continue. This article aims at examining the strengths and faults of the documents mentioned and highlighting the extent to which the positions to be found therein are corresponding to the main structural elements of the international order presently in force. Finally, the article also considers whether these proposals are opening suitable avenues for a further development of UN law.

On the night of Sunday 27—Monday 28 April 1958, the curtain fell on a diplomatic performance on the Geneva scene which had lasted for nine weeks: the Conference on the Law of the Sea. Driving back to the hotel from the Palais des Nations one could not help comparing the result of this Conference held under the aegis of the United Nations with the corresponding section of its predecessor of 1930 at The Hague, organised by the League of Nations, and being struck by two parallels and two differences. The two Conferences had in common that they had both been thoroughly prepared legally, and that it proved impossible to reach any agreement on one of the fundamental questions discussed, viz. the breadth of the territorial sea. But they differed in that, as far as the law of the sea was concerned, the Geneva Conference covered a much wider field than that of The Hague as it dealt not only with the territorial sea but also with the high seas and the continental shelf, and that they drew different conclusions from their failure to reach agreement on the breadth of the territorial sea, because while the Conference of 1930 ended with no convention at all concerning this subject, its successor of 1958 adopted one in spite of the important gaps left. The Conference of 1958 was moreover attended by a much larger number of States.

The author of the aiticle “On limitation of shipowners' liability”, published in volume X, pp. 139–155 and 239–255, asked us to insert the following remarks:

p. 139, 11th line from above: “ad referendum” to be omitted;

p. 148, 4th line from below: “The convention was signed on October 10, 1957 by 18 countries, of which 4 ad referendum (Brazil, Israel, Portugal and Spain)”. In footnote 31 “Portugal” has been omitted;

p. 254, note 81, 15th line from above: the following words are to be inserted behind “Court of Cass.”: 1927, N.J. 1927, 1259; C.A. The Hague, 1934, N.J. 1937, no. 108, aff. Court Rotterdam; Court of Cass.”.

The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is founded upon certain values and institutions common to the legal systems of all the Contracting States. In the absence of such common values and institutions the attempt to create generally applicable guidelines for the balancing of the rights of individuals against the general interest will run into difficulties.

The Republic of Rwanda is part of the African Great Lakes Region. The region straddles the east-central part of Africa. A chain of lakes is found in the region, ranging from Lakes Victoria, Albert, Edward, Kivu and Tanganyika; hence the name African Great Lakes Region. It covers the countries of Burundi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda. The region's relief is moderate and influenced by tectonic and volcanic activity. Parts of the region are heavily forested, as is the case with the Congo-basin, while the others in the east are grassland savannahs. The volcanic soil in parts of the region makes it ideal for agriculture and therefore conducive to human habitation. Indeed parts of the region, particularly Burundi and Rwanda, have high population densities and a concomitant problem of land shortage. Besides the rich arable soil the countries of this region are also well endowed with a variety of precious mineral resources, such as gold, diamonds, uranium, copper, emeralds and cobalt.

The Federal Republic of Germany, due to its geopolitical situation but also to its limited sovereignty, has never been seriously confronted with an official request to engage in military activities outside NATO, i.e., ‘out of area’. When during the Iraq-Kuwait conflict (1990/91) German armed forces were deployed in Turkey, serious concerns were raised as to their possible involvement in military activities — even though Germany would have been obliged to conform with its NATO obligations in case of an Iraqi attack on Turkish territory. Until recently, German Federal Governments always excluded a military engagement ‘out of area’ by pointing at the Federal Republic's Constitution — the Basic Law (‘Grundgesetz’). They took the view that the armed forces could only be used for defensive purposes. That is to say, either for the defence of the territory of the Federal Republic or of a NATO ally. Other uses, be they for the defence of a non-NATO member State, be they authorized by the UN Security Council, including peace-keeping operations, were considered prohibited by the Basic Law because it lacked an explicit permission to that effect. Nevertheless, in the aftermath of the Iran-Iraq conflict (1980–88) units of the Federal Navy were deployed in the Persian Gulf in order to sweep mines laid by the former belligerents off the coasts of the Gulf's riparian States. Of course, during the Iraq-Kuwait conflict, the Federal Republic of Germany took a very reserved stance and confined itself to a – considerable – financial contribution to the Allies' efforts to liberate Kuwait.

Sedert het arrest van de Hoge Raad in de zaak Solbandera is het niet meer twijfelachtig dat de Hoge Raad het recht van partijen erkent om bij internationale overeenkomsten zelf het toepasselijke recht aan te wijzen. Naar mijn mening had de Hoge Raad de autonomie van partijen ook reeds erkend bij zijn arrest inzake de treuer Nicolaas, maar Hijmans, van Brakel, Schölten en A. van Oven hebben dit betwist. Geheel onbegrijpelijk was deze mening niet, daar de overwegingen van de Hoge Raad in dit arrest wel ruimte laten voor enige twijfel.

The impact of armed conflict on women is the subject of three recent international studies, two under the auspices of the United Nations and one undertaken by the International Committee of the Red Cross. These studies make a significant contribution to increasing knowledge of the ways in which women experience armed conflict and, moreover, propose strategies to address the problems they identify. There is virtual consensus, however, that the existing legal regime protecting women in times of armed conflict is adequate and that there is no place for progressive development of the law. This article challenges this conclusion. After examining the approach of the studies to the regime protecting women in times of armed conflict, the author argues that there is a need for a comprehensive initiative to consider whether in fact the law is adequate to deal with their situation of women in armed conflict.

There are two ways to study positivism in international law. Firstly, one may describe doctrinal utterances and judicial pronouncements in which a positivist attitude towards international law is revealed. Secondly, one may offer one's own view of law generally, and of international law in particular, and, on that basis, try to define to what extent, if any, international law appears to be founded in man's sovereign will.

Most textbooks on private international law, when dealing with public policy, refer to its relativity. “Public policy is not absolute but relative”. This relativity rule appears to have three different functions. The first is merely to stress that it is always the result in the concrete case that counts. Here “relativity” is a misleading description.

Multinational Enterprises (MNE's) are confronted with a growing number of Codes of Conduct. So far these Codes are all of a so-called voluntary character and not legally binding. Nevertheless the MNE's – also referred to as transnational corporations (TNC's) – are increasingly confronted with the rules of conduct expressed in these Codes. It is a subject area which is still in its early stage and developing constantly.

Combating piracy at sea and apprehending pirates have been a long-standing problem for the global community. Increasing acts of piracy off the coast of Somalia have prompted the UN Security Council to intervene in the matter. The Council, through several resolutions, has authorised states to take action against Somali pirates in the territorial waters and land territory of Somalia and recently adopted a resolution urging all states to fully implement relevant international conventions in their domestic legal systems. However, despite the Security Council's intervention in the matter most states are still reluctant to prosecute Somali pirates in their domestic courts. Considering the most recent Security Council resolution and existing international law, this article examines whether there is an international obligation to criminalise piracy under domestic legal frameworks and to prosecute pirates in domestic courts. It submits that existing international law arguably imposes an obligation to prosecute pirates, at least in certain circumstances, and the recently adopted Security Council resolution reinforces this obligation.

This article first examines the entire range of agency relationships between an international organisation, acting as a principal, and one or more states, acting as its agent(s). It is here argued that an agency relationship between an international organisation and one or more state(s) can be established by the constitutive treaty of the organisation, or ad hoc. In particular, an ad hoc agency relationship results from a state placing one of its organs at the disposal of an international organisation and under its effective control, with the purpose of carrying out functions of that organisation.

The article then examines the consequences for the responsibility of the organisation and the relevant state(s) of an agency relationship between an international organisation acting as a principal and one or more states acting as its agent(s). It is demonstrated that an international organisation may be responsible for damage caused by the conduct of the state. Furthermore, it is argued that the state itself may bear responsibility for having established or for not having terminated the agency relationship if it commits wrongful conduct on behalf of the international organisation.

Bellekom: The speaker referred to the two pillars of the conception of Meuwissen: 1. fundamental freedoms contain a constitutive element; they do not say only what is, but also what ought to be: 2. fundamental freedoms are an expression of values. The latter element can also be found in German literature, where the Constitution (containing within it fundamental freedoms and human rights) is referred to as a “Wertordnung” (order of values). Fundamental freedoms are, according to that theory, values, along with others, that can be brought to bear in a concrete case. The danger of this idea is that this “Wertordnung” will amount to an order of vested interests, one that preserves existing social-economic structures and limits the possibilities for minorities. In order to show that this danger is not an imaginary one, he referred to matters such as the “Berufsverbot” (exclusion from public service) and the exclusion of lawyers from- the defence in Germany. In those very cases an appeal was made, by way of justifying those practices, to the “freiheitlich-demokratische” (liberal-democratic) value of the Constitution, a value that is assumed to be a basic element of the Constitution, a value that outweighs even fundamental rights such as equal eligibility for the public service and the right to defend oneself through legal assistance of one's own choice.

The Rock of Gibraltar has long been a bone of contention between Spain and the United Kingdom. Talks undertaken in Lisbon in April 1980 between the two countries on the problem of Gibraltar had however, given rise to hopes that normal relations would soon be restored between Gibraltar and Spain, that is, until the Falklands Conflict led to the indefinite postponement of negotiations in June 1982. Matters have progressed only imperceptibly since.