U.S. District Court, D.C., August 31, 1995; modified September 15, 1995.

This action involved a constitutional challenge to the 147-year-old extradition statute, 18 U.S.C. §3184, on die ground that it violates the separation of powers. Plaintiffs were two individuals who had been found extraditable to Canada, pursuant to the extradition treaty between die United States and Canada, by a U.S. magistrate judge in the Northern District of Illinois. They brought an action in the District of Columbia against the Secretary of State, the Department of State, and the United States for a judgment declaring the extradition statute unconstitutional, and an injunction against their extradition. Plaintiffs also sought certification of a class consisting of persons who are or will be under threat of extradition from the United States pursuant to the statute, and an injunction against any such extradition. The court held (per Lamberth, J.) that (1) the extradition statute violates the separation of powers and is therefore unconstitutional; (2) the United States is enjoined from taking any further act toward the surrender of the plaintiffs to Canada; and (3) the proposed class is certified, and the United States is enjoined from surrendering anyone under the statute.

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 permits the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to investigate and impose sanctions on countries whose trade practices are found to be unfair to U.S. interests. It reaches beyond the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), to give the United States unilateral power to penalize countries that threaten American interests. Section 301 can be used to enforce United States rights under multilateral and bilateral trade agreements, as well as to remedy unreasonable, unjustifiable or discriminatory foreign trade practices that restrict or burden U.S. trade. It contains both mandatory and discretionary provisions and specific timetables for action by the USTR.

The International Law Commission of the United Nations held its forty-seventh session from May 2 to July 20, 1995, under the chairmanship of Pemmaraju S. Rao of India. The Commission continued its work on existing topics and considered aspects of the Draft Code of Crimes against die Peace and Security of Mankind, state responsibility, and liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law. The Commission began work on the two new topics of “state succession and its impact on the nationality of natural and legal persons” (“nationality“) and “the law and practice relating to reservations to treaties” (“reservations“) and made a recommendation as to two additional topics for its future agenda.

The Bosnia Proximity Peace Talks at the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base near Dayton, Ohio, took place from November 1 to 21, 1995, and ended with the initialing of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina (GFA) and several of the annexed or related instruments by representatives of the principal states parties to the conflict in Bosnia: the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The initialing was witnessed by representatives of the European Union and the five states members of the Contact Group on Bosnia. In addition, all of the twelve instruments annexed to the GFA were also initialed or otherwise endorsed on behalf of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republika Srpska. The GFA and these instruments were formally signed in Paris on December 14, and thereby immediately entered into force.

On September 20, 1986, the contracting parties to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade of 1947 (GATT 1947) agreed to launch an eighth round of multilateral trade negotiations known as the Uruguay Round. More than seven years later they concluded the round, not with an amended version of the GATT 1947, but with an entirely new treaty, the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization.

The Special Committee on the Charter of the United Nations and on the Strengthening of the Role of the Organization, established in 1974, had never proposed an amendment to the UN Charter before its decision on March 10, 1995, to recommend deletion of the “enemy states” clauses. This action came, not coincidentally, during a year when the United Nations celebrated its fiftieth anniversary—a time for retrospective and prospective assessment. Amid the hoopla of the anniversary festivities, UN members engaged in serious reflection on ways and means of enhancing the effectiveness of the Organization as it confronts the challenges of a changing world.

This Note briefly analyzes the judicial work of the International Court of Justice from November 1994 until December 1995,’ deriving the Court’s current record from the updated General List, pleadings filed, orders and judgments given, and hearings held at the Peace Palace.

The fifty-first session of the UN Human Rights Commission took place in Geneva from January 30 to March 10, 1995, under the genial chairmanship of Musa bin Hitam of Malaysia.’ The Commission showed that great powers are not exempt from critical consideration by the UN human rights machinery, addressing human rights situations involving three permanent members of the Security Council: China, Russia and die United States.

The Commission closed the book on its years of activity concerning South Africa. Indigenous issues assumed a higher profile. The Commission took a cautious look at whether it had a role in the important “gray area” of internal armed conflict. In a controversial move, it created a new Special Rapporteur on human rights and toxic wastes.

During 1994, the total sales value of chemicals exported from the United States exceeded $51 billion, up 15 percent over the previous year and resulting in the chemical sector outpacing all other sectors that finished the year with favorable trade balances. Chemicals leaving the United States were shipped under the control provisions of both the Department of Commerce's Export Administration Regulations (EAR), and the Department of State's International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). Though this is something of an oversimplification, the EAR basically concerns itself with products that have civilian application, and the ITAR with products of use to the military. Currently, the Commodity Control List of the EAR, overseen by Commerce's Office of Export Licensing within the Bureau of Export Administration, identifies fifty-four chemicals and ten toxins as intermediate agents and precursors to chemical weapons subject to export regulation. The Munitions List of the ITAR, administered by the Office of Defense Trade Controls of the State Department's Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs, identifies twenty-two chemicals as subject to regulation and cautions that this listing is merely illustrative, as any “chemical agent,” defined as “a substance having military application,” is subject to export control.