One year after the invasion of Iraq, what lessons are to be drawn about the role of the Security Council in peace and security? This article looks at the issue by considering the nature of the Security Council in its dual functions as a forum for diplomacy and a corporate body for executive action. The idea of the Security Council's possessing a separate will in its executive function is developed. The article stresses the importance for the authority of the Council of that organ expressing its will within the legal parameters of the Charter and international law. It is argued that similar legal parameters are also applicable to the permanent members in exercising their power of veto and in interpreting resolutions. Further, when interpreting resolutions member states should not misconstrue the will of the Council. The Iraq crisis of 2003 raised all these issues and, further, necessitated a reappraisal of the rules of international law governing the use of force. This article considers the relationship between diminution in Council authority and erosion of the rules of the UN Charter governing the threat or use of force in international relations.

This article analyzes the provisional measures order of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in Avena and Other Mexican Nationals, the first provisional measures order issued by the ICJ after its decision in LaGrand holding that such orders have binding effect. After reviewing the background to Mexico's action, the article focuses on Avena's place in the Court's provisional measures jurisprudence, its international legal significance, its potential effects, if any, on the ICJ's perceived institutional legitimacy and authority, and its legal and political consequences for the United States. In particular, the article examines the domestic legal implications of the Court's order for the United States in the context of developing international norms on capital punishment and the due process standards governing its implementation in states that continue to practise it.

The recent judgement on the merits in the Oil Platforms case has brought a long-standing dispute before the International Court of Justice to a close. This article critically analyzes some of the most interesting topics raised in this judgement, not least the fact that it was harshly criticized by a very high number of judges in their individual opinions. The issues discussed – such as the role of self-defence law within the confines of an ‘FCN treaty’ or the notion of ‘freedom of commerce’ – merely point to higher-level problems of a theoretical nature which cause our confusion as to substantive law.

The International Court of Justice rendered its judgement on the merits in the case concerning Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) on 6 November 2003. This article reviews the judgement, focusing on the Court's substantive legal determinations on the scope of ‘armed attack’ under the right of self-defence. The review further considers the implications of the judgement as regards the role of the Court in the judicial settlement of disputes. It concludes by considering the impact of the judgement on the legal framework for international peace and security as applied in the maritime context.

On 16 June 2004 Trial Chamber III of the ICTY issued a judgement on a motion for dismissal of charges in the Milošević case. Brought forward by the amici curiae appointed by the trial chamber, the motion for acquittal achieved limited success. While some allegations were dismissed, particularly with respect to the Bosnia Indictment, overall, the trial chamber found that the prosecution had led sufficient evidence to support each of the counts challenged in the three indictments against the accused. This article highlights some of the significant developments in the trial's first two years and the issues raised in the motion for acquittal, as well as the trial chamber's determination.

International criminal procedure (ICP) has fluctuated uncertainly between common- and civil-law procedural principles. Consensus on the principles underlying ICP is needed to ensure consistent standards of justice. The article begins by comparing criminal procedure in common- and civil-law systems, and describes the theories underlying the trial and judicial role in these systems. It then compares ICP to civil- and common-law criminal procedure. This comparison establishes the scope of judicial powers that can be exercised by international criminal judges. These powers differ from those exercised by both common- and civil-law judges. The article concludes by arguing that ICP is based on a new theory of the trial: the theory of ‘tempered adversariality’.

The MOX Plant award, rendered on 3 July 2003, contributes to elucidation of the right of access to environmental information under the OSPAR Convention. However, the ‘self-contained’ vision of the OSPAR Convention embraced by the majority on the panel – rejecting in effect the relevance of competing international environmental regimes and dispute settlement procedures – deserves criticism. First of all, it leads to the establishment of a more limited right of access to environmental information under the OSPAR Convention than is recognized under other arrangements. It also represents an approach which might exacerbate the fragmentation of an increasingly complex body of international law.

Books and Articles in the Field of the Prevention and Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes (Summer 2004) Compiled by Ingrid L. Kost and Mae Statius Muller exclusively from materials available in the Peace Palace Library, The Hague