Trademark delimitation agreements are entered into for the purpose of avoiding or settling disputes between owners of conflicting trademarks by defining the spheres within which trademarks may be used. The authors of this article treat the relevant case law and literature on the conflict between trademark delimitation agreements and the Treaty provisions on the free movement of goods and competition in an analytical and critical manner. They propose that the Commission and the ECJ accept delimitation agreements that cause fewer restrictions on trade and competition than would have existed in the absence of the agreement as compatible with Article 85 of the EEC Treaty, in so far as the restrictions flowing from the agreement are covered by the specific subject matter of the trademarks.

One of the objectives of the 1982 Convention on law of the sea (LOSC) is that the Convention will bring about an equitable and efficient utilisation of the marine resources. The Preambule states, inter alia, that special notice should be taken of legitimate Third World aspirations. In order to promote their socio-economic development many developing countries -among them various West-African states have directed their attention to the introduction of a resource related maritime zone regime since the 1970's. Several countries made proposals about an ‘Exclusive Economic Zone’. Many states were able to harmonize their position on essential elements of the regime which contributed to the rapid acceptance of the EEZ-concept in international law. The right to explore, exploit, conserve and manage all natural resources in an area not exceeding 200 nautical miles was acknowleged in Articles 56,1 and 57 of the LOSC. The wide support enjoyed by the EEZ concept did not occur in relation to maritime delimitation. Diametrically opposed views were held by the so-called pro-equidistance and pro-equity groups. Delimiatation conflicts between several African states could only be solved with the help of international arbitral tribunals. In order to reach an ‘equitable’ delimitation solution several factors were found to be of importance; a novum was the factor described as ‘the exercise of the right to development’.

The variety of notions of responsibility and liability, used by many publicists, continues to be a source of confusion. It would, therefore, be very clarifying to introduce one meaning for one concept and, thus, use the notions as the ILC defines them. The survey of the several 1LC reports on responsibility and liability shows that the concepts have become more and more interrelated. A different approach might be needed on the subject of international liability in order not to diminish the usefulness these rules can have within the environmental fiel.

The liberal extension by the United States of its laws to non-resident non-nationals under a so called ‘effects’ doctrine has been the cause of much concern to its closest trading allies. Some fear the European Court of Justice's recent Woodpulp case indicates that the European Community will follow the example of the United States. Jeffrey examines the legality of the ‘effects’ doctrine before looking in detail at the ECJ's decision in Woodpulp. He concludes that the Woodpulp case will not support the use of an ‘effects’ doctrine. Instead it evidences an exciting development in Community jurisprudence within the accepted limits of international law.

Attention for the pollution and degradation of the human environment over the last decades has resulted in an unprecedented increase of activities regarding environmental policy and law at both international and national levels. Since 1972 international resolutions and agreements have distinguished between environmental problems of developing countries and those of industrial countries. In that year it was proclaimed at the Stockholm UN-Conference on the Human Environment that in the developing countries most of the environmental problems are caused by under-development. The extremely complex situation in those countries in this regard was made known to the world community again by the so-called Brundtland Commission in its final report.

As a result of the Iraq-Iran war, Iraq's economy has been exhausted. It had a foreign debt of nearly 80 billion dollars. Iraq apparently failed in its attempts to borrow in foreign capital markets the amounts for investment-in particular for the reparation and expansion of oil production capacity-which it needed to restore its economy. In June 1990, Iraq stated that Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates had undermined the Iraqi economy by persistently producing more than their OPEC quotas. On July 18, 1990, the Iraqi Minister of Foreign Affairs Tariq Aziz stated in the Arab League that Kuwait had stolen Iraqi oil worth 2.4 billion dollars from the Rumaila Oilfield and that Kuwait had built military installations on Iraqi territory. The President of Egypt, Mubarak, then stated that Iraq and Kuwait would negotiate in Jeddah about the Iraqi claim. At the OPEC conference in Geneva on July 26, the minimum reference price was raised to $21.0/b. This despite Iraq's pressure to raise it to $25.0/b. Iraq then warned Kuwait that it had legitimate and historical rights in respect of the Rumaila Oilfield and two islands in the Persian Gulf. On August 1 it turned out that the negotiations in Jeddah had failed. Kuwait stated that it had refused to cede territory. On August 2 Iraqi troops invaded Kuwait. Because of the small capacity of the Kuwaiti army to offer resistance, Kuwait was occupied by Iraq in a very short time.

The case put before the teams this year, entitled the ‘International Immunities Case’, combines problems of general international law, such as interim measures and reparation, with legal problems related to jurisdictional immunities. Especially this year the writer of the case succeeded in designing a very up to date assignment, intended to test the students' knowledge, creativity and powers of persuasion.