Along with “globalization” and ideas of a “new world order”, the last 20 years have witnessed the emergence of an (anti-)foundational critique of international law which may be associated with the postmodernist turn of philosophy. In addition, globalization has questioned some of the basic assumptions of international law, especially the primordial role of states. The article analyses several answers postmodern international legal theory has given to the challenges for international law – despair, politicization, history, subjectivism(s), democratic experimentalism, and a return to positivism. It argues that postmodern theory fails to provide a concept for the future of international law but that this is exactly what is needed to save international law from politics and irrelevance. The author comes to the conclusion that a “middle-of-the-road”-approach steering a course between positivist objectivism and the subjective responsibility of the lawyer might be the most promising avenue for the future of international law. Wer mir Dekonstruktion ans Herz legt, und auf Differenz besteht, steht am Anfang eines Gesprächs, nicht an seinem Ziele.Hans-Georg Gadamer

The present article deals with international law problems that have arisen in the process of legal clarification of the state crimes committed during the Soviet occupation in the three Baltic states. Following the restoration of their independence in 1991, the Baltic states have sought to establish the historical truth about the mass crimes committed during the Nazi and Soviet occupations – Estonia's International History Commission recently published its first report which is analyzed in this article. Moreover, the courts in the Baltic states have convicted deporters of 1941 and 1949 for crimes against humanity and/or genocide. By discussing different definitions of ‘genocide,’ the author attempts to answer the question whether the general context of the Stalinist mass repressions in the Baltic states permits to qualify the occupant's policy as ‘genocide.’

The United States is abrogating the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in order to deploy a limited missile defence shield. Amongst other developments, this is prompting a reconsideration of the global security framework. However, a crucial element is missing from the current missile defence proposals: a clearly articulated concept of peaceful use, applicable both to outer space and to earth-space. The deployment of missile defence runs counter to emerging norms. It has effects going far beyond the abandonment or re-configuration of specific Cold War agreements. In a community of nations committed to the maintenance of international peace and security (cf. national or plurilateral security), sustainable meaning for widely used and accepted norms of peaceful use and peaceful purposes is at risk.

This article discusses the judicial vision articulated by Judge Christopher Weeramantry in his time as a member of the International Court of Justice. It seeks to trace the development of his vision by examining his earlier writings, and the factors which shaped his approach to international law. It discusses some of the key elements of his vision: his sensitivity to Third World concerns, his attempts to create a universal international law which represents all the world's cultures, and his views of the judicial function and the international rule of law.

There have been several important developments concerning the ICTY and ICTR recently. For example, steps have been taken to improve the efficient operation of both ad hoc Tribunals, to include the addition of ad litem judges at the ICTY, an increase in the number of judges assigned to the common Appeals Chamber (to include the permanent assignment of ICTR judges to The Hague for this purpose), and amendments to the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of both ad hoc International Criminal Tribunals. In addition, efforts have been initiated to provide for compensation to victims and to individuals wrongfully detained, prosecuted or convicted. There have also been recent allegations of improper conduct by defence attorneys and investigators. The following article surveys these developments.

The Relationship Agreement between the United Nations and the International Criminal Court should contain provisions governing situations where requests from the Court might impinge on the privileges and immunities of the UN under its Charter and Privileges and Immunities Convention. In particular, the Court might need access to documents in the UN's archives, might require the testimony of persons serving, or having served, the UN in various capacities and might even consider some such persons as potential defendants; in addition, the inclusion of such provisions might make it advisable to include an effective disputes resolution clause in the Agreement.

The Permanent Court of Arbitration adopted Optional Rules for Arbitration of Disputes Relating to Natural Resources and/or the Environment on 19 June 2001. These Rules seek to address fundamental lacunae as identified by a panel of environmental law experts and the member states of the Permanent Court of Arbitration. This article discusses some innovative provisions of the Environmental Rules and concludes that arbitration under the Environmental Rules could have some advantages over adjudication, and that the Environmental Rules can increase access to justice functioning as a tool for interpretation of existing agreements; possibly mending some of the fragmentation of international (environmental) law. The article also offers an examination of present systems and scenarios for how the Environmental Rules may lead to direct environmental improvement.

Arbitration has been likened to a runaway train. Neverthless, internationally, it often remains the only way to get from A to B. The purpose of the CILS Conference is to examine and discuss important aspects of this journey with experienced internationals arbitrators, lawyers, and others.