Among the major crises threatening humanity today, forcing some 20 million people to flee their countries as refugees and displacing some 30 million people within the borders of their countries, are violent internal conflicts, systematic violations of human rights, massive denials of democratic freedoms, and frustration of sustainable, environmentally sensitive development. Although mostly grounded in domestic jurisdictions, these crises often result in human rights tragedies of grave concern to the international community. In this article, the focus lies on the state's sovereignty to underscore its responsibilities and accountability to both domestic and international constituencies.

According to, e.g., some Western governments and the ICRC, existing rules of international law would provide adequate protection of the environment in times of armed conflict. However, a proper analysis of the existing rules, contained in relevant treaties and customary international law, suggests that this protection is currently far from adequate, in times of both international and non-international armed conflict. In order to ensure a better protection of the environment in times of armed conflict, a new approach is required which departs from the obvious necessity of a common recognition of the following three fundamental ideas: 1. the indivisibility of a healthy environment as an indispensable condition for the survival of present and future generations; 2. the necessity to disconnect the legal protection of the environment in times of armed conflict from its anthropocentric legal enclosure; and 3. the need to expand the protective scope of the relevant rules beyond the current level of merely prohibiting the known or expectable and the obsoleteness of the distinction between environment protection pursued by the law of peace and environment protection pursued by the law of armed conflict, as well as recognition of the environment as a common heritage (or at least a common concern) of mankind.

In this, the inaugural Manfred Lachs Memorial Lecture given at the seat of the International Court of Justice, we celebrate the judicial life and learning, and also the judicial wisdom of the longest-serving judge of the Court and its sometime President, who died on January 14th, 1993. Manfred Lachs came to the Court in February, 1967, having been elected in October, 1966, in the first elections following the Court's politically and, in some elements at least (judicial recusation, as example)legally controversial decision in South West Africa, Second Phase1 which had been rendered only two months before the UN Security Council and General Assembly regular triennial balloting on renewal or replacement of one third of the Court's membership.

This article deals with the legal aspects of the dispute between Hungary and Slovakia concerning a joint project of locks and power-stations, which had to be constructed in the Danube at Gabc ikovo and Nagymaros. Rules of treaty-law, environ-mental protection, good faith, reprisal and contributory negligence will be applied to assess whether Hungary was entitled to terminate the treaty and whether Slovakia could lawfully construct a provisional solution. Furthermore the significance of the case and its submission to the International Court of Justice is addressed.

The geographical disadvantages faced by land-locked states place them in a particularly vulnerable position: unable to compete on equal trading terms with coastal neighbours, they are highly susceptible to all forms of economic and political ‘aggression’. Such measures produce more than the usual degree of ‘inconvenience’, but can so destabilise the state as to compromise its existence. Equity and the sanctity of ‘statehood’ require the protection of such states by furnishing them transit rights.Not only must international law recognise such rights as existing in one form or another, but must also provide adequate means of securing them. A society unwilling to redress natural imbalances and prepared to perpetuate an inherently unfair system is a society committed to conflict, rather than the maintenance of peace and security.

Does contemporary international law offer sufficient and effective means to prevent any future secession by national minorities? In order to answer this question, general international instruments concerning minority-protection, as well as more recent international instruments designed specifically for the protection of minorities, will be investigated. The role that a guaranteeing of collective and, in particular, political rights to national minorities have or can have in order to prevent future secession by national minorities, will be given special consideration. It will be concluded that, in the author's view, the above-mentioned question must be answered negatively, and that an extension of political and collective rights for national minorities is needed, in order to enable a prevention of future secessionist claims by national minorities.

The expansion of the Security Council's membership is presently being seriously debated by the international community. The UN Charter is most likely to be amended if agreement is reached in negotiations now underway.At the same time, a number of other possible fundamental reforms, also requiring Charter amendments, are being discussed in various UN fora. The question arises whether the Charter could or should be amended only once during our generation or many times over a period of a few years.

For many years after the creation of the state of Israel in 1948, peace in the Middle East has been an elusive goal, despite the continuous attention given to it by the United Nations and the (mainly American)efforts to promote negotiations between the parties concerned. The affirmation by the UN Security Council “that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East” failed to break the threefold deadlock barring the way towards peace. The Arab states and the PLO refused to recognise Israel's right to exist as a sovereign state in the Middle East. Their goal of a ‘comprehensive peace’ was peace without Israel. Israel refused to recognise the existence of a Palestinian people as defined by the PLO, entitled to exercise its right of self-determination. Its goal was to conclude peace treaties with neighbouring states, without the creation of a Palestinian state, however. In the context of the global conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union (from 1945–1989) neither side could achieve peace on its own terms.

The 1995 Review and Extension Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons concluded its work last May in New York and decided that, in accordance with the provisions of Article X(2) of the Treaty, the Treaty shall continue in force indefinitely.

The history of indigenous peoples is not a fortunate one: colonization,discrimination, exploitation, dispossession, relocation, and genocide have been their lot.1 Indigenous peoples seek recognition as distinct groups in order to preserve their culture and, plainly, to survive. Their wish for recognition is coupled with various demands, ranging from political participation to autonomy, self-government and independence, often subsumed under ‘the right of self-determination’. Although, throughout this century,attempts have been made to improve the plight of indigenous peoples,these have proven inadequate so far.2 In 1994, after nine years of preparation,the UN Working Group on Indigenous Populations (hereinafter:Working Group) finalised the draft of a Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. With its adoption by the UN Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities (hereinafter:UN Sub-Commission)in August 1994, 3 the draft Declaration has commenced its course towards adoption by the General Assembly.

The purpose of the present study is to briefly introduce the final (1994) Draft Articles of the International Law Commission (hereinafter ILC) on The Law of Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses (hereinafter Draft Articles or 1994 Draft) and to analyse some of the more important and interesting provisions. It is not the intention to discuss basic theories relating to the management of international watercourses, on which numerous studies are already available. Nevertheless, the Draft Articles incorporate two fundamental principles of the law relating to watercourses, viz. the principle of equitable utilization and the no-harm rule, which will be treated at rather greater length because of their importance as well as certain ambiguities in the Draft Articles relating to them.

On 30 December 1994 in Geneva, the four major players in world trade -the United States, the European Union, Japan, andCanada - accepted the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO Agreement).The entry into force of the Agreement on 1 January 1995 brings both expanded and improved trade rules and greatly improved enforcement. We have entered a new era in international dispute settlement. This brief article discusses the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes in Annex 2 of the WTO Agreement, the negotiating process that led to it, and the implementation of the Understanding in the United States.

In order to present the Princz case1 to a reader unfamiliar with US law, some introductory comments of a general nature are considered advisable. For the reader familiar with US law, it is suggested that you jump over these comments and go directly to the presentation of the case.

Comparative advantage which motors free trade crucially depends on national differences in respect of endowment with resources – e.g. natural,human, technological – and with factors and standards of production, including standards on production processes. Yet, is it open to any GATT contracting party to unilaterally force its own standards upon others?Moreover, is it permissible for a contracting party to enforce such standards by means of ‘trade sanctions’ in the form of import prohibitions against another whose environmental standards regarding certain production processes it has judged inferior to its own? The answer is a resounding ‘yes’ from some exponents of the environmental constituency, arguing that values pertaining to global environmental welfare should prevail. Similarly, some members of the GATT constituency, particularly developing countries, emphatically reject what it they term ‘eco-imperialism’.Generally, their argument is that, in order to safeguard the welfare of world trade against disguised protectionist aberrations, governmental environmental measures must be justified under the general exceptions of GATT.

Since June 1995, the following information has been communicated to the press by the Registry of the International Court of Justice.