This article argues for a change in the normativeassumptions of international law so as to attenuatethe historical marginalization of developingcountries. It describes a form of collectiveresponsibility called “cooperative cosmopolitanism”that requires individuals and states to takeresponsibility for harms to those beyond theirborders. Cooperative cosmopolitanism entailsobligations shared by all that are realizedcollectively and cooperatively. Taking aphenomenological approach and relying on examples ofareas of international law (especially internationalinvestment law) that have a disproportionatelynegative impact on developing countries, the articlesuggests five ways in which international law shouldevolve in order to take better account of ourcosmopolitan obligations: (1) widening the ambit ofinternational law beyond state-based issues; (2)de-emphasizing state practice and opinio juris ascriteria for creating international law; (3)recognizing an increased role for equity ininternational law; (4) broadening stateresponsibility to include harms caused by theirnationals abroad; and (5) articulating acosmopolitan understanding of the responsibility toprotect foreign nationals.

Le durcissement des politiques migratoires a diminuéles possibilités légales de migration, créant ainsiun environnement propice au trafic de migrants. En2002, le Canada a drastiquement augmenté lespénalités associées à ce phénomène. Ces dispositionssont inadéquates: elles cherchent moins à réprimerune activité criminelle présumée dangereuse qu’àdissuader l’immigration irrégulière. D’une part, lesdispositions législatives s’inscrivent en faux avecle traitement jurisprudentiel du trafic de migrantsau Canada, et ne correspondent ni aux lois ni à lajurisprudence étrangères: on surestime la gravité ducrime. D’autre part, elles ne se conforment pas audroit international. En excluant la recherche d’unavantage financier de la 'définition canadienne del’infraction, on privilégie la lutte à toute formed’aide à la migration irrégulière, et non seulementau trafic de migrants.

If state practice is any indication, targeted killingis increasingly becoming regarded as a viable andeffective response to the threat posed by terroristorganizations. Its growing role in armed conflictmakes it particularly important that internationalhumanitarian law (IHL) prove capable of providing aneffective framework within which this practice maybe governed. As it is currently conceived, however,IHL has shown itself ill-suited to the particularnature of armed conflicts between states andterrorist organizations on a broad level and, morespecifically, to the practice of targeted killing.This article examines the decision of the Israelisuprême Court in Public Committee against Torture inIsrael v. Government of Israel as an example of aneffort to fit targeted killing within IHL, focusingon its characterization of “terrorists” and itsimposition of the “least harmful means” requirement.The author suggests that, while the former exposesthe difficulty of reconciling this development inarmed conflict with existing rules, the latterdemonstrates the benefits of relying on fundamentalprinciples of IHL, in this case that of militarynecessity. The article concludes by contending thatit is these principles, rather than existing rules,that should be viewed as the appropriate mechanismby which to accommodate targeted killing withinIHL.

The internal conflict in Colombia has resulted indocumented violations of human rights andinternational humanitarian law. In particular,Colombian women and their human rights have beendisproportionately impacted by the conflict. It iswithin this context that the Canada-Colombia FreeTrade Agreement (CCFTA) is being proposed, and thereis serious concern that Canadian investors couldperpetuate the violence or become complicitbeneficiaries of human rights violations in Colombiaonce the CCFTA is ratified. Against this background,this article takes a feminist approach tointernational investment law to demonstrate thatinternational investment agreements (IIAs) and freetrade agreements with investment provisions (FTAs),such as the CCFTA, maintain and reinforce genderhierarchy to the detriment of women’s socio-economicrights, needs, and interests. By engaging in afeminist critique of the CCFTA’s provisions onnon-discrimination, performance, expropriation,corporate social responsibility, reservations,investor-state arbitration, and general exceptions,as well as the labour side agreement, theramifications of international investment law onColombian women’s rights and women’s rightsgenerally becomes apparent. In order to remedy theseshortcomings, recommendations are made to alleviatethe potential strain of international investment lawand the CCFTA specifically on women’s rights.

In 1994, Canada and China began negotiating a bilateralforeign investment promotion and protectionagreement (FIPA). After sixteen years and multiplerounds of negotiations, the two states have not beenable to solidify a workable treaty. By examiningeach country’s substantive and proceduralpreferences in their respective bilateral investmenttreaty models and in past treaties, this articleoutlines some of the likely “on-the-table” obstaclesin the negotiating process. The analysis indicatesthat there are areas of considerable convergencebetween each country’s preferences, althoughsignificant areas of divergence exist on some keyissues. Further confounding the disagreement thatexists between the two countries are “off-the-table”factors such as general bilateral relations. Onefurther aspect that is considered is the idea ofcoordinating compliance between international tradeand human rights norms in the context of theCanada–China FIPA. While bilateral investmenttreaties are economic agreements, pronouncednon-economic elements shape the practical and legaleffect that these treaties have on various affectedactors. Despite the important implications theCanada–China FIPA has for human rights andenvironmental policy concerns, it can be inferredthat these factors will have little bearing on theactual negotiated outcome of the agreement.

La décision Munyaneza constitue la première analysejudiciaire de la Loi sur les crimes contrel’humanité et les crimes de guerre et desdéfinitions qu’elle propose des infractions de droitinternational maintenant criminalisées dans lesystème juridique canadien. Il s’agit d’un régimejuridique nouveau, original et complexe, qui faits’entrecroiser le droit international et le droitcanadien, et qui constitue un pilier important del’entreprise globale de lutte contre l’impunité pourles crimes internationaux les plus graves. L’auteurepropose une analyse critique du jugement Munyanezaen ce qui concerne les éléments constitutifs ducrime de génocide, des crimes contre l’humanité etdes crimes de guerre. Elle offre me discussion decertains des aspects les plus difficiles desdéfinitions de ces crimes et vise à contribuer à ceque la jurisprudence future soit cohérente avecl’esprit et la lettre de la loi et avec le droitinternational. Le régime des peines applicables envertu de la Loi est aussi brièvement analysé.

The proliferation of private military and securitycompanies has attracted significant public andscholarly attention during the last decade. Thiscomment examines the United Nations DraftInternational Convention on the Regulation,Oversight and Monitoring of Private Military andSecurity Companies (Draft Convention). It discussesthe significance of the Draft Convention and thendescribes the approach taken to the regulation ofthis controversial topic. Several problematicelements of the Draft Convention are identifiedincluding the definition of prohibited activities,State responsibility for the conduct of privatemilitary and security companies and the proposedInternational Criminal Court referral mechanism.Finally, specific policy recommendations are madefor the government of Canada as a home state andcontracting state of private military and securityservices, irrespective of the progress ofnegotiations on the Draft Convention.

The concept of risk requires preventative measures aswell as measures of liability and redress in thecase that damage is actually caused. The CartagenaProtocol on Biosecurity limits itself in Article 27to the establishment of a mandate for theelaboration of norms and procedures in regard toliability and redress. The fulfillment of thismandate requires, first, a definition of the conceptof damage to the conservation and sustainable use ofbiological diversity; second, a survey of the extentof damage to health; and, third, the considerationof socio-economic aspects. In this context, thisarticle analyzes the concept of damage in theinternational instruments that deal with thismaterial, taking into account levels ofimplantation. The article concludes by presenting adefinition of damage for use in the context of thedevelopment of the content of Article 27, using anadministrative focus in regard to the concept ofdamage for civil liability in domestic law.