This article argues that human rights law – which mediates between claims about universal human nature, on the one hand, and hard-fought political battles, on the other – is in particular need of a richer exchange between jurisprudential approaches and social science theory and methods. Using the example of the Inter-American Human Rights System, the article calls for more human rights scholarship with a new realist sensibility. It demonstrates in what ways legal and social science scholarship on human rights law both stand to improve through sustained, thoughtful exchange.

One of the most controversial contests over the allocation of shared natural resources is now being waged by four former Soviet Union republics (Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Turkmenistan) and Iran over the riches of the Caspian Sea. The bilateral regime established by the former USSR and Iran governing the Caspian Sea, though technically still existing today, is inadequate to deal with the present-day complex issues of the use and allocation of natural resources. The situation is aggravated by unilateral claims of the states bordering the Sea. Although the coastal states are currently discussing how the regime of the Caspian Sea might be resolved, the issue is not yet settled and the positions of the parties remain divergent.

One of the most common features of international investment treaties is the obligation of a state to grant ‘fair and equitable treatment’ to investors and investments. Treatment giving rise to allegations of breaches of this obligation has taken many forms, namely bad faith, discrimination, denial of justice, frustration of legitimate expectations, lack of transparency, coercion and harassment, and arbitrariness or arbitrary conduct. This latter form of treatment – arbitrariness – has rarely been the focus of scholarly works and, thus, its scope and meaning are difficult to ascertain. When examined in the context of international investment disputes, however, one may conclude that, while its scope and meaning may vary, arbitrariness is indeed a legitimate basis for claim under the fair and equitable treatment standard. The thresholds for demonstrating arbitrariness, however, are decidedly and consistently high.

Together with the Security Council and the General Assembly, the International Court of Justice is one of the most important guarantors of peace, security and co-operation among states. The role of the ICJ in the enforcement of its decisions has received little attention in the existing literature. Although international courts, regional courts and national courts do not physically enforce their decisions, they have various levels of enforcement mechanism procedures. Nevertheless, it has been widely and mistakenly believed that it is not the business of the ICJ to enforce its decisions, but rather this is the business of other political bodies of the United Nations. It is argued in this paper that this proposition is not accurate and, instead, the ICJ has at its disposal various enforcement procedures and is, moreover, under statutory obligations to participate actively in policing and enforcing its decisions.

The provisions of the ICC Statute allowing victims to participate in the criminal proceedings in their own right were a novel feature in international criminal proceedings. While representing a welcomed restorative element, victim participation has been a time and resource consuming issue for the ICC to handle. After a number of decisions concerning participation in the investigation and pre-trial phases of the process, the trial chamber in the Lubanga case and the Appeals Chamber have issued the first rulings with respect to victim participation at trial. This note addresses these decisions and controversial issues therein, such as the nexus between the victim and the crime charged and the victim's right to adduce and challenge evidence. One may now ask whether victims as ‘participants’ are in fact becoming ‘parties’ to the criminal proceedings.

This article takes as its starting point the characterization of T. O. Elias as a representative of a ‘weak’ form of anti-colonial scholarship. Elias had sought to show that the ancient African kingdoms had participated in international legality with European states on an equal footing. The view has arisen in contemporary scholarship that this mode of argumentation is typical of the weak strain, evincing only a continued tendency to underestimate the imperial nature of international law itself. A related criticism is that many Third World scholars like Elias view international law's claim to universality and its ability to be inclusive as relatively unproblematic concepts. This article presents two interlocking claims. First, that while Elias was persuaded by the idea of a universal legal order derived from European thought, he never accepted the European view of universality. Vitoria and Grotius had paved the way for the idea of a universal legal order, but, as Elias was consistently aware, the extension of the European law of nations to Africa and Asia in the name of universality was unaccompanied by theoretical recognition in European legal thought that such universality cannot be unilaterally achieved on specific cultural terms. Second, that Elias did not view universality as an unproblematic concept. While he considered the legal order inherited from the European law of nations never to have been universal in its application, the post-colonial legal order could in principle approximate more closely to an ideal of democratic universality. We focus on Elias's attempt to substitute the doctrinal requirement of individual, sovereign consent with majoritarian lawmaking based on democratic theory, and his faith in the machinery of the United Nations as a ‘technology’ which post-colonial states would employ to put democratic majoritarianism into practice.

Carl Schmitt was an intellectual who made the discipline of international law grapple with the major issues of his time. His work as an international lawyer remains largely untranslated. It is riddled with racism and anti-Semitism. However, an interest of his work is that it reflects the ‘shadow side’ of contemporary international law, forgotten because the moral defeat of Germany in 1945 was so total. Schmitt argues for an inherent tendency to violence and demonization in Western liberal international law theory and practice. He argues for the acceptance of difference as against homogeneity in world society as the only way to limit this violence. Finally, he argues that the liberal tradition is fundamentally compromised by its own colonialist heritage. Its objections to Nazi Germany translating this colonialist imperialism onto Eastern Europe are incoherent. Schmitt's avowed racism and anti-Semitism remain shocking. The article does not try to downplay this aspect of his work. However, it is worth noting that his Nazi bosses, for the most part, thought his racism insincere. If any negative spirit imbues the actual technical detail of Schmitt's work it is his aversion to the West. This probably had its roots in the envy which the Kaiserreich had of the British, French, and American Empires while Schmitt was growing to maturity.

This article discusses the possibility of the International Criminal Court's taking domestic investigations and prosecutions of crimes within its jurisdiction where states are unwilling genuinely to investigate or prosecute such crimes. In particular sustaining the admissibility of a case on the basis of the lack of impartiality or independence of national proceedings is subject to analysis. Whereas the lack of this due process guarantee is expressly considered in the Rome Statute as a ground for admissibility where it is meant to shield a person from criminal responsibility, it is not equally clear that a case can be declared admissible where domestic proceedings are or were unfairly conducted to the prejudice of the person concerned. On an analysis of the wording of the Statute, its object and purpose, and its ‘preparatory works’, the possibility of the Court's taking on domestic proceedings on the basis of their being intentionally unfair to the prejudice of a suspect or accused does not appear to have a strong legal basis. However, recent developments at the ICTY and the ICTR show the importance of such a possibility to the fulfilment of the mission entrusted to the ad hoc tribunals. This circumstance brings about crucial questions about the role of the International Criminal Court in the enforcement of international justice and its contribution to international peace and security.

Both the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) have struggled to combine vertical and horizontal modes of liability. At the ICTY, the question has primarily arisen within the context of ‘leadership-level’ joint criminal enterprises (JCEs) and how to express their relationship with the relevant physical perpetrators (RPPs) of the crimes. The ICC addressed the issue by combining indirect perpetration with co-perpetration to form a new mode of liability known as indirect co-perpetration. The following article argues that these novel combinations – vertical and horizontal modes of liability – cannot be simply asserted; they must be defended at the level of criminal-law theory. Unfortunately, courts that have applied indirect co-perpetration have generally failed to offer this defence and have simply assumed that modes of liability can be combined at will. In an attempt to offer the needed justification, this article starts with the premise that modes of liability are ‘linking principles’ that link defendants with particular actions, and that combining these underlying linking principles requires a second-order linking principle. The most plausible candidate is the personality principle – a basic principle that recognizes the inherently collective nature of leadership-level groups dedicated to committing international crimes. Like Roxin's theories describing the collective organizations that can be used as a form of indirect perpetration, the personality principle treats the horizontal leadership group as an organization or group agent whose collective nature potentially justifies the attribution of vertical modes of liability to all members of the horizontal group. Although this article does not defend the doctrine of indirect co-perpetration, it does conclude that combined vertical and horizontal modes of liability, whether at the ICTY or ICC, implicitly or covertly rely on something like the personality principle in order to justify collective attribution to the horizontal collective.

With a number of sentencing judgments expected in cases pending before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the enforcement of sentences has become an important concern. The author discusses theoretical and practical issues raised in this regard, including the juridical basis for enforcement as well as the Model Agreement regarding modalities of enforcement. On the basis of this Model Agreement, a number of agreements has been concluded with individual states. The author concludes that the nature of the Tribunal has necessitated the development of novel and sometimes artificial measures for the enforcement of sentences.

Recent developments in legal scholarship evidence that the orthodoxy on the law on the use of force has dramatically switched from a restrictivist to an expansionist perspective. This article seeks to analyse this recent shift, especially with respect to the law of self-defence, from an expansionist point of view. Its purpose is to examine the argumentative landscape which currently exists on the expansionists’ side about that law. It observes that such argumentative landscape has significantly changed, as expansionists tend to pay less attention to the traditional arguments based on state practice and increasingly rely on policy considerations in order to strengthen and to go deeper in their wide conception of the law of self-defence. It calls into question such increasing recourse to policy oriented arguments and argues that those arguments cannot justify alone any evolution of the law of self-defence, while emphasizing that state practice remains central in that respect and explaining the different ways through which this practice may play such a role.

The Haiti cholera claims are focused upon the UN's violation of the rights of individuals affected by the cholera outbreak to access a remedy. The UN's absolute immunity from jurisdiction of national courts is counterbalanced by its duty to provide alternative dispute resolution mechanisms for private law claims. The UN has not only failed to provide those alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, but has repeatedly stated that no claims are receivable in these circumstances. Here we set out that even if the UN is able to shield itself from private law claims by using the cloak of absolute immunity, the UN might be held responsible for human rights violations arising from the cholera outbreak in Haiti. This article is concerned with the broader issue of whether the UN has violated and continues to violate individuals' right to health in Haiti.

The ‘rule of law’ is a concept at the very heart of the United Nations (UN) mission declared its Secretary-General, Kofi Annan. What does the concept mean internationally? The paper considers its role in international adjudication; in the UN more generally; in terms of the acceptances of the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ); the difference between thick and thin definitions of the concept; equality before the law; the requirement of clarity and certainty by reference to interpretation of treaties and maritime delimitation; compliance by Governments with international law; and the peaceful settlement of international disputes; and concludes with the importance of personal qualities and professional qualities.

The powers accorded the prosecutor by the Rome Statute have been the subject of much recent debate. Critics contend that the ex officio powers for triggering jurisdiction allow for abuse. This however ignores the rigorous requirements of the Statute for the appointment of the Prosecutor. Moreover the limited danger posed is far outweighed by the need to provide for an independent, credible Prosecutor. The Prosecutor's power to forego investigation and prosecution where this serves the interests of justice has also been widely critiqued for inadequately accommodating amnesties in democratic transitions. It is argued that amnesties which adhere to internationally accepted guidelines are consistent with the interests of justice and that the prosecutor may therefore defer to domestically enacted amnesty processes.

This article proceeds from two basic assumptions: that international criminal courts are engaged in writing history, and that this may influence the legal framework in which they operate. Against this background, the article takes a closer look at the Statute of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon in order to investigate allegations that the Tribunal has been tailor-made to further a certain view of recent Lebanese history.

The future of international law is uncertain. The long-hoped-for revitalization of international law and its institutional structures following the end of the Cold War now seems at risk from an increasing deformalization of, and neo-liberal disregard for, international law. Meanwhile European international lawyers are responding by reasserting a Kantian project for a global constitution under an international rule of law. In this article I attempt to position these recent claims that the international legal order is undergoing a process of constitutional transformation in the context of a long-standing connection, since at least the post-revolutionary nineteenth century, between the idea of a positive international law and the emerging structures of the European constitutional nation-state. If one can trace a cosmopolitan or constitutional project to the influence of domestic public law from this time, one can also trace the inherent tension between international law's promise of a substantive ‘good life’, or sense of justice, and its purported legitimacy in a commitment to a voluntarist, or contractarian, form of obligation. These simultaneous commitments seem incompatible, but are inseparable from international law's embedded liberalism, which requires interplay between them to make sense of progress in the absence of any explicit underlying philosophy. In tracing similarities in concerns from the nineteenth century to the twenty-first, as well as repetitions in legal arguments, I suggest that the alternatives of American empire and a (European) vision of global constitutionalism are merely necessary oppositions, reflecting this broader tension underlying the discipline. Because lawyers avoid clarity on what is taken for granted in a leap from (selective) empirical realism towards assertive normative ambition, I argue that it is a mainstream, liberal-juridical consciousness – rather than any explicit legal theory – which continues to sustain shared assumptions about international law's past, as well as a promise of a future liberal world order. The apparently opposing visions of future world order are merely different sides of the same coin: each reflecting back, but each ultimately sustained by the other.

Article 8(2)(b)(iv), second alternative, of the Statute of the International Criminal Court lists as a war crime the launching of an attack that may cause excessive damage to the natural environment. The incorporation of this offence into the ICC Statute appears to be a great achievement, as it is the first time that such conduct has expressly been declared to entail individual criminal responsibility under an international treaty. It is, however, submitted that Article 8(2)(b)(iv), second alternative, of the ICC Statute, suffers from a serious lack of definition. In addition, the provision depends on an extremely high damage threshold which further complicates its application in practice.

This article seeks to examine whether the International Court of Justicehas developed jurisprudence on international humanitarian law and whether this has exerted any influence on the decisions adopted by other international courts and tribunals. In so doing, it revisits the issue of the value ofjudicial decisions under international law. Finally, it reveals that despite the non-operation of the rule of stare decisis in international law, the Court's jurisprudence on international humanitarian law has been a persuasive precedent for other international courts and tribunals.

This article explores the League of Nations' role in state formation in Third World or peripheral states and its legacy for contemporary understandings of Third World sovereignty. It examines Iraq under British Mandate, and UN and Coalition of the Willing interventions. This research was prompted by the international-law community's outrage when the Coalition invaded Iraq in March 2003. While the invasion was seen by many as an affront to international law, there was also something faintly familiar about the Coalition's reasoning for the invasion. This feeling of déjà vu escalated once regime change was followed by lengthy nation-building. The idea of recreating Iraq was not a new one. The British were tasked with something similar under the League of Nations Mandate System. UN interventions into failed states also attempt comparable transformations. Indeed, the more one contemplates international law's interventions in Iraq, the less shocking the Coalition's invasion becomes. It starts seeming foreseeable and even inevitable.

S. Zappalà, Human Rights in International Criminal Proceedings, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. ISBN 0199258910, 308 pp., £67.50.