After US President Joe Biden took office, some believed he would take a different path from that of his predecessor and that the Trump years were over. However, one of President Biden’s first moves was to strengthen American protectionism by heightening the United States’s “Buy America” and “Buy American” requirements. With this, the American government procurement market started to close off even more, and Canadian suppliers, in turn, grew worried. Given the United States’s international procurement commitments and the specificity of the Buy American Act and the Buy America Policy, this article explores the pathways to favourable treatment of Canadian suppliers in keeping with applicable international trade rules.

This article deals with the implementation, at the national level, of European human rights protection standards as enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). It discusses the principles of interpretation of the ECHR by the ECtHR, the interaction and mutual dialogue between the ECtHR and national courts, and the approach of the latter to interpretation and application of the case law of the ECtHR. Using the concrete examples of France and the Czech Republic as case studies, it is shown to what extent and how European constitutional courts take into account and apply the letter of the Convention and its interpretation by the ECtHR.

This article explores and appraises international legal developments regarding the right to self-defence against vicarious aggression — that is, armed attacks by non-state entities that are sponsored or hosted by a foreign state. Despite efforts to develop a normative framework and mechanisms of accountability to curb states’ use of non-state entities as proxies for armed activity, some states continue to view these entities as valuable tools for the realization of their foreign policy goals. Consequently, international practice shows general recognition of a right of self-defence against non-state armed entities. There is also an emerging body of authoritative opinion, backed by an evolving state practice, that supports the extension of the application of this right against a non-state entity’s host or sponsoring state, provided some conditions are met.

La convention de varsovie du 12 octobre 1929, pour l’unification de certaines règles relatives au transport aérien international, a été ratifiée par soixante-seize pays. Les principes généraux gouvernant la responsabilité du transporteur aérien international sont les suivants: durant la phase aérienne du transport, le transporteur est responsable de plein droit des dommages causés tant aux personnes qu’aux biens transportés. Cependant, selon l’article 20 de la Convention de Varsovie, le transporteur a la possibilité de s’exonerer en rapportant la preuve que lui et ses préposés ont pris toutes les mesures nécessaires pour éviter le dommage, ou qu’il leur était impossible de les prendre (cas de force majeure). D’autre part, en ce qui concerne le transport de marchandises et de bagages, la responsabilité du transporteur disparaît, s’il prouve que ce dommage provient d'une faute de pilotage, de conduite, de navigation et que, a tous autres égards, lui et ses préposés ont pris toutes les mesures nécessaires pour éviter le dommage.

In sharp contrast to the high hopes raised by the reconstitution of the International Court of Justice in 1946, its subsequent record has been somewhat less than inspiring; and its impact as an organ for the settlement of disputes has been anything but spectacular. Established as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, it broods at The Hague in idle splendour, waiting hopefully for the occasional suit to be taken before it. Despite the hopes, the promise and the optimism, recourse to adjudication is exceptional, infrequent, and limited to disputes of minor importance.

Writings on the Court are suffused with lamentations over the chasm between the idealized aspirations of its founders and its actual performance. From the depths, however, the call is heard; the vision of the jurists becomes the burden of the reformers — the burden of recasting the machinery of world order. Political theorists, lawyers and institutional reformers are all prepared to shoulder the burden, and each considers it his duty to add to the literature on the Court yet another “epilogue for the improvement….”

The Advisory Opinion handed down by the World Court on July 20, 1962, concerning Certain Expenses of the United Nations has become a political cause célèbre in so far as the majority judicial position in it was backed up by the Western-sponsored action, in terms of Article 19 of the United Nations Charter, to deprive the Soviet Union and France of their vote in the General Assembly. The Advisory Opinion of the World Court has, however, its own intrinsic interest in terms of juristic method and of basic Soviet and Western differences in scientific approach to law. In his dissenting, judicial opinion in that case, the then President of the Court, the Polish jurist, Judge Winiarski, formulated principles of interpretation which reveal, very dramatically, the basic doctrinal differences between Soviet bloc and Western jurists as to the nature and character of the Charter. As President Winiarski commented:

The Charter has set forth the purposes of the United Nations in very wide, and for that reason too indefinite, terms. But… it does not follow, far from it, that the Organisation is entitled to seek to achieve those purposes by no matter what means. The fact that an organ of the United Nations is seeking to achieve one of those purposes does not suffice to render its action lawful. The Charter, a multilateral treaty which was the result of prolonged and laborious negotiations, carefully created organs and determined their competence and means of action.

In 1998, a Canadian oil company, Talisman Energy Incorporated of Calgary, acquired part interest in an oil concession in southern Sudan. In 1999, it began exporting oil from the region and paying royalties to the Sudanese government, some of which have been used to fund government forces engaged in a civil war against separatists in the south. The war has caused numerous human rights abuses. Talisman’s investment in Sudan therefore raises concerns about corporate operations in countries where there are serious and frequent human rights violations. What are Talisman and Canada’s obligations at this particular juncture — a point of fertile development in the field of international corporate social responsibility? This comment examines this question in light of recent events.

Le 5 octobre 1971, le ministre canadien de l’Industrie et du Commerce déposait devant la Chambre des communes un échange de lettres intervenu entre le gouvernement du Canada et l’ambassadeur du Japon au Canada, aux termes duquel le Japon consentait à limiter ses exportations vers le Canada dans le domaine des textiles et de la radio. Quelques jours plus tard, soit le 15 octobre, le gouvernement des Etats-Unis annonçait que des mémoires d’entente avaient été négociés avec le Japon, Hong Kong, la République de Chine et la République de Corée, aux termes desquels ces pays acceptaient de restreindre leurs exportations de textiles de laine et fibres artificielles vers les Etats-Unis. De tels arrangements, communément appelés “entente de restriction volontaire à l’exportation” (Voluntary export restraint agreements), sont devenus suffisamment fréquents ces dernières années pour que l’on puisse parler d’un développement important dans le domaine du droit international économique. L’objet de la présente étude est précisément d’examiner les aspects juridiques de ce développement.

The Case of the Polish art treasures in Canada presents two important issues: the question of immunity of a foreign state’s public movable property and the question of state responsibility for such property.

Removal from Poland and Entry into Canada

In 1940 the Canadian government permitted the duty free entry into Canada, as property of the Polish state, of a number of cases and trunks containing Polish art treasures which had been removed from the museum at the Wawel Royal Castle in Cracow before invading German armies could seize them. The treasures were stored in the Records Storage Building at the Central Experimental Farm in Ottawa, on the clear understanding that Canada was to assume no responsibility for their safekeeping. At no time was an inventory of the treasures given to the Canadian government.

The Nigerian situation of 1967-70 and the India-Pakistan conflict of 1971 should ensure that we do not ignore lightly the need for an adequate international response in cases of man-made disasters. The latter, in particular, involved serious international complications. Since March 1971, when the flow of Pakistani refugees from East Pakistan into India began, the Indian government called for international help to stem the tide, to feed the hungry hordes, and to make possible their return home. As time passed and the help did not come, to some it seemed almost a matter of simple economics — it was cheaper to go to war than to continue caring for the refugees. Granted the history of confrontation between the two sides, it is clear that the primary catalyst for the war of 1971 was the plight of these refugees. This danger of serious conflict resulting from humanitarian need is one of the main reasons for the increasing attention being paid to the problems of international humanitarian relief in cases of man-made disasters.

The international legal framework has traditionally been divided into a “state of war” and a “state of peace.” Most contemporary authorities still insist upon sharp and tidy categorization in this area, although some would prefer a three-fold or a multi-fold division, instead of the standard two-fold split. This whole approach has come under attack in recent years.

A division into “states” of “war” and “peace” should theoretically produce simplicity and clarity. Instead, however, it leads to hopeless complications. This is clear as soon as any attempt is made to define the “state of war.”

Legal commentators have not always considered advisory opinions as a legitimate judicial function. Under both national and international law, it is often considered that only ripe controversies can be legitimately decided by a court of law. Under international law, advisory opinions are also criticized for undermining sovereignty when consent is not obtained from all states affected by the matter. By examining the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) advisory opinions in light of comparative law, the author argues that this criticism underestimates the evolution of the judicial function, as much in international as in national law. The advisory opinion is a mode of social ordering that stands somewhere between consultation and adjudication. The advisory opinion not only adopts most of adjudication’s characteristics but abo has the added flexibility of consultation because it can consider a wider spectrum of opinions than can adversary procedures. The ICJ’s advisory opinions can almost be assimilated to adjudication. Considering that they have also greatly contributed to the development of international law, the ICJ’s advisory opinions remain an integral and legitimate part of the court’s judicial function.

To the impressive list of Italian periodicals on international law led by the prestigious Rivista di Diritto Internazionale there has now been added The Italian Yearbook of International Law, published exclusively in English. Italian scholars have made a very significant contribution to doctrinal developments in international law; however, some of their work has gone unnoticed because Italian is not among the languages in widespread use in international law circles. In addition, Italian scholarship has suffered somewhat from what some consider to be an overly theoretical or abstract approach to the subject matter. While it is always a noteworthy occasion to welcome a new member into the family of international law yearbooks, the advent of the Italian yearbook is particularly noteworthy, contributing as it does to the accessibility of a broad range of material and learned comment. It is appropriate, therefore, that the first issues of The Italian Yearbook of International Law receive extended comment in the pages of this Yearbook.

This article addresses the problems related to the use of the Internet in Canada in an international context. Does international law allow Canada to regulate the Internet and its actors even if they are located abroad? Under the constitution, which level of government has the authority to do so? In which circumstances have the courts in Québec and in the common law provinces personal jurisdiction over persons using the Internet in an international context and which law do these courts apply? When are Canadian courts prepared to recognize and enforce foreign judgments involving the Internet and its actors? The author deals with these questions and is of the opinion that in most situations the federal Parliament has the jurisdiction to prescribe and the Canadian courts have the jurisdiction to adjudicate with respect to the Internet and its actors in an international context without violating international law. However, to avoid conflicts of jurisdiction, it would be better to adopt an international convention covering the various aspects of the Internet.

La façon dont les divers acteurs de l’ordre juridique international ont appréhendé la relation entre les piliers économique et environnemental du développement durable témoigne d’une évolution: alors qu’une première interprétation estimait que cette relation se fondait sur la recherche d’une conciliation, une seconde interprétation a par la suite considéré qu’elle était au contraire caractérisée par l’existence d’un soutien mutuel. Si cette seconde conception, qui conduit à extraire du développement durable toute idée de tension entre l’environnement et l’économie, a connu une influence grandissante au cours des dernières années, la Cour internationale de Justice a réaffirmé dans l’ Affaire des Usines de pâte à papier sur le fleuve Uruguay son attachement à la première interprétation de la relation entre les piliers économique et environnemental. Il semble donc actuellement coexister en droit international deux lectures opposées du développement durable, l’une se fondant sur le paradigme de la conciliation, l’autre sur le paradigme du soutien mutuel.