1 See, e.g., Anne-Marie Slaughter, Andrew S. Tulumello, & Stepan Wood, International Law and International Relations Theory: A New Generation of Interdisciplinary Scholarship, 92 AJIL367 (1998).

2 Appellate Body Report, European Communities— Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products, WT/DS135/AB/R (discussed in case report at96AJIL435 (2002)).

3 Very similar questions have recently arisen in the context of Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement—the investment provisions of that treaty. For example, Sir Robert Jennings, former president of the International Court of Justice, writing in an expert capacity on behalf of a party in an investor-state dispute, has criticized the NAFTA parties for a “legislative” intervention apparently intended to apply to pending disputes. Se«[Methanex's First Submission Concerning the NAFTAFree Trade Commission's July 31,2001, Interpretation], attachment (Sept. 18,2001), Methanex Corp. v. United States (NAFTA Ch. 11 Arb. Trib. Aug. 7, 2002) (Second Opinion of Robert Y. Jennings), at http://www.international-economic-law.org/Methanex/.

4 32ILM1480 (1993).

5 See, e.g., Greening Nafta: The North American Commission For Environmental Cooperation (David L. Markell & John H. Knox eds., 2003).

6 1996 ICJ REP. 226 (July 8).

7 See, e.g., Michael J. Matheson, The Opinions of the International Court of Justice on the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, 91 AJIL 417,435 (1997) (analysis by principal deputy legal adviser of U.S. Department of State concluding that “whether the Court's opinion will hasten the day when nuclear weapons are eliminated,… it was never reasonable to think that the Court could do so“).