On 1 March 2005 the European Court of Justice in Owusu v Jackson held that the English doctrine of forum non conveniens was inconsistent with the Brussels Convention (the ‘Convention’) when a defendant was domiciled in the United Kingdom, even if the natural forum was in a Non-Contracting State.

The UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage 2001 came into force in 2009, providing a much-needed international legal framework for the protection of underwater cultural heritage (UCH). This article explores the reasons why the UK has neglected to ratify the Convention and why accession should now be prioritized. In doing so, the article reconciles the UK's stance with the agreement; moving the State into a position where it can reconsider ratification. In this context, it examines the definition of UCH and the purpose of the Convention, the extension of sovereign immunity for wrecked warships, and the likelihood of creeping coastal State jurisdiction beyond the competences conferred by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. This transformative analysis moves forward the debate on these issues and is of international significance to States that have been similarly hesitant to ratify the Convention until now.

To assist effective legal co-operation in combating criminal activity, the Justice and Home Affairs Council of the European Union has recently concluded two new conventions to simplify and improve extradition procedures between member States of the European Union. In doing so, the Council set in motion a process whereby existing arrangements for extradition were examined with a view to making them more flexible. In 1995 the Council recommended that the convention on simplified extradition be adopted in order to fulfil the aim of efficiency in the field of criminal justice. Its aim was to speed up extradition in cases where persons consented to be extradited. However, after further discussion concerning other aspects of extradition the Council eventually recommended that member States adopt far more radical procedures. The 1996 convention relating to “involuntary” extradition between member States appears to bypass several procedures designed to offer a degree of protection for the fugitive offender. Traditionally, extradition procedures have sought to offer a balance between judicial co-operation in the fight against crime and protecting the fundamental rights of the individual, and these concerns are acknowledged within the preambles to both the new EU conventions. However, the new conventions make several alterations to what can be regarded as established extradition procedures. In this article we examine these new procedures and consider whether the balance has shifted too far in favour of law enforcement at the expense of fundamental legal protections.

The Indian Constitution embraces economic and social rights as directive principles of state policy, ostensibly insulated from judicial review. The Supreme Court's interpretation of traditional civil and political rights to include economic and social guarantees has been praised by academics and activists keen to advance the cause of justiciable economic and social rights. In recent commentary, however, the extent to which the court's jurisprudence furthers the goal of increasing access to goods such as health care, housing, food and water for India's poor, is questioned. This article reconsiders the court's record in this area. It suggests that a more realistic assessment of the court's jurisprudence is necessary and draws on the South African experience of economic and social rights adjudication to argue for more serious engagement with factors that inform the level of judicial activism or restraint applied in the cases.

In the early evening hours of Saturday, 26 June 1993, the United States launched a missile attack on Iraq. Twenty-three Tomahawk sea-to-ground missiles were fired from two US warships, the USS Chancellorsville and the USS Peterson, located in the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea respectively.1 Sixteen of those launched hit their desired military target, the Military Intelligence Headquarters, situated just outside the Iraqi capital of Baghdad. A further four missiles fell within the compound of the intelligence service complex. Conflicting reports put the death toll at between six and eight civilians, with 20 injured, when the remaining three missile warheads went astray.2 The Venezuelan Embassy was also reported to have been damaged.3

The importance of the safe and environmentally sound management of radioactive wastes had been strongly reaffirmed by the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. This question was dealt with in Chapter 22 on “safe and environmentally sound management of radioactive wastes” of Agenda 21, adopted at the time of the Conference, which specifically referred to the necessity for States to “support efforts within IAEA to develop and promulgate radioactive wastes safety standards or guidelines and codes of practice as an internationally accepted basis for the safe and environmentally sound management and disposal of radioactive waste”. This political statement was probably the first step in the process which has led to the adoption, in September 1997, of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management (hereafter the “Joint Convention”). In 1994 the importance of elaborating safety standards for radioactive waste management appears again in the Convention on Nuclear Safety of 20 September 1994, the Preamble to which (paragraph ix) reads: “Affirming the need to begin promptly the development of an international convention on the safety of radioactive waste management as soon as the ongoing process to develop waste management safety fundamentals has resulted in broad international agreement.”

The effectiveness and legitimacy of the Council of Europe can be undermined by the actions of Member States which fail to comply with their international law obligations of genuine cooperation with the organization. This article first briefly examines the practice of international organizations in applying sanctions such as expulsion and suspension to their members. It then explains why it is necessary to discuss potential sanctions that the Council can apply in the context of current controversies involving the Council and Member States. It will be argued that the scale and intensity of challenges distinguish the current state of affairs from other ‘problematic’ periods in the Council's history. It proceeds to outline the considerations that should be taken into account in deciding whether a Member State should be suspended or expelled. These considerations include the implications of sanctions on the legitimacy of the Council of Europe, the level of human rights protection and the financial stability of the organization.

It is not surprising that, at a time when the world's political maps are being constantly redrawn, the subject of “State succession” features prominently in international legal discourse. By the same token, the infrequency of “waves” of transformation, the diversified modalities of change (cession, annexation, decolonisation, dissolution, secession, merger, unification) and the varying contextual circumstances have resulted in a less than coherent theoretical or practical framework for resolving issues of State succession.1 Nor can limited international attempts at “codification”—represented in the 1978 Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties2 (the “1978 Succession Convention”) and the 1983 Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Property, Archives and Debts3—be regarded as expressing established customary norms or articulating laws grounded in consistent State practice, judicial precedent or juristic opinion.

The E-commerce Directive1 has introduced a country of origin rule2 for the provision of online services (‘information society services’). This means in principle that service providers are only subject to the rules of their country of origin or home country, ie the country where they are established. The country to which they are providing the services to, the country of destination, must refrain from applying its regulations. For regulators this means that they must not applytheir national regulations to services provided from another Member State3 (‘incoming services’).Likewise they must extend national regulation to services provided to residents in another MemberState (‘outgoing services’).

In this paper, I assert that the prohibition on the death penalty brings with it an obligation on abolitionist States to refrain from assisting the use of the death penalty in retentionist States. By considering the law on complicity and State responsibility, the obligation to protect under international human rights law, and the practice of States, I argue that although there are jurisdictional issues and although the death penalty is not prohibited under general international law, an obligation to refrain from being complicit in the death penalty is developing in international law.

Fortunately it is still startling, in this country, to find a person held indefinitely in executive custody without accusation of crime or judicial trial. Executive imprisonment has been considered oppressive and lawless since John, at Runnymede, pledged that no free man should be imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed, or exiled save by the judgment of his peers or by the law of the land, (per Jackson J, Shaughnessy v United States ex rel Mezei 345 US 206 (1953))