State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — Claim in tort against foreign State — Claim arising out of operation of ship for military purposes — Whether constituting sovereign activity — Whether foreign State entitled to jurisdictional immunity — The law of the Netherlands

Territory — Acquisition — Occupation — Elements — Terra nullius — Intention to act as Sovereign — De facto exercise of authority — Importance of context — Acquiescence and recognition by States and international organizations — Status of Pitcairn Island as part of United Kingdom — British Settlements Act 1887 (Imp)

Human rights — Fair trial — Independent and impartial tribunal — Judicial tenure — Application of right to committal proceedings — Fair and public hearing — Whether required provision for jury — European Convention on Human Rights — The law of the United Kingdom

State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — Employment dispute — Locally recruited catering assistant and cleaner employed by foreign State — Claim for damages for unfair dismissal — Whether foreign State entitled to jurisdictional immunity — Subordinate nature of employment relationship — The law of Portugal

Human rights — Freedom of expression — Press freedom — Injunction on distribution of magazine issue — Grounds for injunction — Applicability of international instruments — National security — Whether magazine article promoting war and inciting violence contrary to Act on Public Information and Constitutional Order

Relationship of international and municipal law — Treaties — International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 — European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 1950 — Whether applicable — Whether restrictions on freedom of press contrary to international instruments — Whether national security valid ground for injunction — The law of Serbia

Human rights — Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment — Right to life — Right to dignity — Right to equality — Death penalty in South Africa — New legal order — Constitutionality of death penalty — Death penalty for murder under Section 277(1) (a) of Criminal Procedure Act 1977 — Whether Section 277(1) (a) of Criminal Procedure Act 1977 in conflict with Section 11(2) of Constitution — Whether Section 277(l)(a) in conflict with Chapter 3 of Constitution — Constitutional interpretation — Whether Section 277(1) (a) justifiable in terms of Section 33 of Constitution — Proportionality — Constitution of Republic of South Africa Act 1993 — Interim Constitution of Republic of South Africa 1993, Sections 8, 9, 10, 11(2) and 33(1)

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Public international law — Foreign case law — Traditional African jurisprudence and values — Relevance — Interim Constitution of Republic of South Africa 1993, Section 35(1) — The law of South Africa

Aliens — Removal of appellant from South Africa to United States — Appellant to stand trial in United States on capital charges — Whether South Africa having duty to obtain assurances that death penalty not be imposed — Whether handing over by South African authorities for removal to United States lawful — Characterization of removal — Whether deportation or unlawful disguised extradition — Relevance — Whether South African authorities empowered to deport appellant — Aliens Control Act 1991 — Whether appellant’s consent valid

Human rights — Constitutional rights — Right to life — Right to human dignity — Right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment — Death penalty held to be unconstitutional in Makwanyane — South African Constitution 1996, Sections 10, 11, 12(l)(d) and (e) — Handing over of appellant without assurances that death penalty not be imposed — Whether South African government having duty to secure assurances — Whether infringing appellant’s constitutional rights — Constitutional duty of Court

International criminal law — Cooperation between States in criminal matters — Removal of appellant from South Africa to United States — Death penalty unconstitutional in South Africa — Appellant to stand trial on capital charges in United States without assurances that death penalty will not be imposed — Whether appellant’s removal lawful

Terrorism — Bombings of United States embassies in 1998 — Federal grand jury in New York concluding Al Qaeda responsible for attacks — Appellant indicted by grand jury in United States — International arrest warrant issued for appellant following his indictment — Appellant removed from South Africa to United States to stand trial — South African court ruling on whether removal unlawful and unconstitutional — Whether appropriate to inform United States court of South African judgment — The law of South Africa

Human rights — Property rights — Recognition of indigenous land rights — Whether indigenous Nama people of Richtersveld entitled to restitution of land — Section 2(1) of Restitution of Land Rights Act 1994 — Interpretation — Act applying retroactively — Legal rights of indigenous inhabitants to strip of land in Richtersveld — Whether rights including ownership of minerals and precious stones — Determination of nature and content of land rights — Determination of law governing land rights — Indigenous law — Character of indigenous title to land — Nature and content of rights in land prior to annexation of territory in 1847 — Legal consequences of annexation — Whether land rights surviving annexation — Nature of land rights before and after 19 June 1913 — Whether dispossession of land by State — Precious Stones Act 1927 — Scope and effect of Act — Racial discrimination — Whether dispossession result of racially discriminatory laws or practices

Territory — Title — Effects of change of sovereignty — Annexation — Annexation of Richtersveld by British Crown on 23 December 1847 — Acquisition of sovereignty by British Crown upon annexation — Legal consequences of annexation — Effect of annexation on land rights of indigenous people — Whether extinguishing indigenous land rights — The law of South Africa

War and armed conflict — Nuclear weapons — Military installations — United Kingdom Government’s defence policy — Nuclear deterrent policy — Trident nuclear warheads — Trident programme — Whether merits of Trident programme justiciable — Whether manufacture or maintenance of nuclear weapons contrary to international law — Humanitarian principles of international law — Relevance of Advisory Opinion of International Court of Justice

Treaties — Interpretation — Scope — European Atomic Energy Community Treaty, 1957 (“Euratom Treaty”) — Article 2(b) of Euratom Treaty — Chapter III of Title 2 of Euratom Treaty — Whether Euratom Treaty applying to military activities

Environment — Environment agency — Scope of powers — Radioactive Substances Act 1993 — Environment agency granting authorizations — Authorizations permitting discharge of radioactive waste — Whether authorizations decided on legally permissible grounds — Euratom Treaty, 1957 — Council Directive 80/836/Euratom — International Commission on Radiological Protection, Publication 60 — Justification principle — Whether Trident programme justifiable — The law of England

Territory — Rivers — River Eden forming boundary between Scotland and England in Solway Firth — River changing course to run through former burgh lands in Scotland — Whether lands Scottish territory — Salmon and trout fishing rights in River Eden — Jurisdiction — Whether English defenders having jurisdiction to regulate fishing in river after change of course — River reverting to its original course — Whether action incompetent — The law of Scotland

Sea — Territorial waters — Bays — Closing lines — Fisheries — Sea fishing within Firth of Clyde — Whether permitted — Inshore Fishing (Prohibition of Fishing and Fishing Methods) (Scotland) Order 1989 (“the 1989 Order”) — Validity of the 1989 Order — Territorial Waters Order in Council 1964 (“the 1964 Order in Council”) — Whether Clyde Bay closing line drawn in conformity with Article 4 of the 1964 Order in Council

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, 1958 — 1964 Order in Council giving effect to Geneva Convention — Whether Clyde Bay closing line drawn in conformity with Article 4 of the 1964 Order in Council — The law of Scotland

International criminal law — Defendant convicted of capital offences — South African Constitutional Court judgment — Relevance — Whether defendant entitled to relief — Whether Court should direct United States Government to discontinue its capital case against defendant — Whether South African Constitutional Court judgment mitigating factor — The law of the United States

Jurisdiction — Executive — Executive’s powers to carry out law enforcement operations abroad — Whether political branches having power to override principles of territorial sovereignty — Transborder abduction — United States agents kidnapping Mexican national Alvarez in Mexico and transporting to United States to stand trial — Whether United States agents having authority to make warrantless arrest outside United States borders — Whether giving rise to claims under Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) and Alien Tort Statute (“ATS”)

Claims — Claims for damages for tort of false arrest and arbitrary arrest and detention in violation of law of nations — Alvarez making claims under Federal Tort Claims Act and Alien Tort Statute — Scope of FTCA and ATS — Whether United States liable to Alvarez for damages under FTCA for tort of false arrest — Whether Mexican kidnapper Sosa liable to Alvarez for damages under ATS for violation of law of nations — Whether damages payable to Alvarez under United States law

State immunity — Federal Tort Claims Act — Scope — Whether United States liable for tort of false arrest under FTCA — Waiver of sovereign immunity in Section 1346(b)(1) of FTCA — Limits to waiver of sovereign immunity — Whether “foreign activities” exception in Section 2680(k) of FTCA applicable — “Headquarters doctrine” — Whether applicable — Whether “international tort” exception in Section 2680(h) applicable

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Alien Tort Statute — Scope — Whether Mexican kidnapper Sosa liable to Alvarez for damages under ATS — Section 1350 of ATS — Whether violation of law of nations — Whether ATS creating new causes of action — Whether federal courts precluded from recognizing claim under law of nations — Judicial caution — Whether law of nations adaptable to private rights — Interaction between ATS at time of its enactment and ambient law of era — Whether international norm prohibiting arbitrary arrest and detention — Treaties — Human rights instruments — Customary international law — Whether Alvarez having claim under ATS

Terrorism — Global war on terrorism context — Relevance — Foreign policy — Role of Congress and executive branches — National security — Whether non-justiciable political question — The law of the United States