2004 marks the tenth anniversary of both the start of the genocide in Rwanda and the establishment of the ICTR by the UN Security Council. In the past decade the ICTR has operated slowly but progressively, and it has delivered some insightful case law. Legal issues continue to arise, however, in the practice of the ICTR. This article considers some of these issues, namely the vagueness of the indictment, complicity in genocide, and the nexus requirement for war crimes. The overview shows that in various instances the ICTR has relied on pivotal case law of the ICTY. Moreover, it is demonstrated that, on occasion, the case law of the ICTR has been somewhat inconsistent. Nevertheless, the ICTR's case law is a next step in the building of a sound international criminal law system, and there will certainly be more opportunities for the ICTR to contribute. These contributions will only be worthwhile, however, if the ICTR's output continues to be of high quality.

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’.

In the Öcalan case the European Court of Human Rights found itself faced with several issues that asked for a new interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights. It had to decide on the extraterritorial scope of the Convention, on the question whether Abdullah Öcalan was arrested lawfully or illegally abducted, and on the death penalty. This article analyzes the decisions taken by the Court and puts them in a perspective of international law beyond the European Convention.

The arrest of the Chilean general Augusto Pinochet Ugarte in London in 1998, and decisions in UK, Spanish, Belgian, and other European courts supporting his extradition, opened new hope that prosecutions of international crimes in national courts under universal jurisdiction laws might prove a viable strategy for combating impunity. Complainants brought cases in a number of European countries, most notably Spain and Belgium. In Spain, the Supreme Court eventually cut back on the reach of the universal jurisdiction law by superimposing the requirement of a nationality tie to the forum, as well as modifying other prior jurisprudence. In Belgium, the courts grappled with issues of immunity and the ability to initiate proceedings in the absence of the defendant. Under US pressure the Belgian legislature eventually narrowed and weakened the law. The article traces these developments, and concludes that advocates need to be more strategic in choosing both the number and type of cases they present under theories of extraterritorial jurisdiction. The primary criterion, the author argues, should be the potential for the extraterritorial case to catalyze anti-impunity efforts in the territorial state.

The author reviews an award rendered in March 2002 by a three-member arbitral tribunal established by the government of Canada in order to determine a maritime boundary between two Canadian provinces – Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador. The tribunal's Terms of Reference required it to treat the provinces as sovereign states and to apply principles of international maritime boundary law in order to determine the boundary dividing their respective offshore entitlements as defined under domestic federal legislation. Given this reference to international law and the underlying interests at issue, the tribunal's award amounts to a classic continental shelf delimitation and makes significant contributions to the jurisprudence on international maritime boundary delimitation.

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.

This article seeks to demonstrate how the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the International Criminal Court relates to other documents of international law and thereby contributes to the independent functioning of the Court. In particular, it argues that the Agreement provides some duplication, but more importantly, the necessary extension, elaboration, and interpretation of the Rome Statute with regard to privileges and immunities. In comparison with other conventions on privileges and immunities of international organizations, the article concludes that the Agreement provides some important unprecedented provisions, but that the overwhelming part of the Agreement on Privileges and Immunities constitutes standard provisions for such agreements.

Taking Edward Said's ‘orientalist’ thesis as a starting point, this piece considers the manner in which the ‘Orient’ has been transformed by the West into a zone wherein the dictates of international law need not hold. By giving voice to a number of cases – the regime of the Suez Canal, the creation of the state of Israel, aggression during the Lebanese and two gulf wars, UN-imposed Iraqi sanctions, and states of emergency in Syria and Egypt – it becomes evident that international law has been utilized in an instrumental manner. The outcome is a region which has been treated as the underclass of the international community, wherein international law has been, in fundamental instances, interpreted arbitrarily, applied selectively, and enforced punitively.

NATO is a collective self-defence regional organization that was established at the time of the Cold War, and the end of East–West confrontation gave rise to the debate about its future role. In the 1999 Washington summit a new strategic concept was promulgated, according to which NATO was to act as a collective security organization as well. The community of interest previously represented by the Eastern bloc has not been unequivocally replaced by a new one. Hence there is room for national interest to play greater role in the decision-making by the alliance. This decision-making is based on consensus, which is incompatible with assertions of strictly national policy. The institutional crisis within NATO in early 2003 was largely due to the transfer to within NATO of the disagreement among its member states in the UN Security Council over dealing with Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction. The crisis was ultimately resolved, but it exposed the serious limitations of the NATO decision-making process. While claims about the likelihood of NATO's survival seem premature, the recent institutional crisis may be a legitimate ground for considering institutional reform.

The adoption of the 2004 budget of the International Criminal Court completed the first full budgetary process for the Court. The document sets out the framework and financial parameters that will determine how the Court will function and grow in future years and represents the first comprehensive vision of the fully operational Court. This article looks at the process of creating the document and, referring to the experiences of other international and internationalized courts, analyzes the substantive debates that occurred on ensuring the independence of the Prosecutor in the process and ensuring adequate resources for victims, outreach, and defence.

In July 2001 the Human Rights Committee of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights issued a General Comment on the possibility of member states derogating from human rights in case of emergency. Basing its analysis on the issue of limitation of fair trial rights during a state of emergency, this article suggests a critical analysis of the reasoning, rather than the conclusions, of the Committee. Expanding arguments developed by monitoring bodies of the American and European Conventions on Human Rights, the author suggests alternative reasoning according to which the right to a fair trial is inalienable. She argues in particular that this right constitutes a guarantee necessary to the effective enjoyment of all human rights, the preservation of legality in a democratic society, and the effectiveness of the principle of separation of powers.

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

Books and Articles in the Field of the Prevention and Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes (Winter 2003–4) Compiled by Ingrid KostConservator, Peace Palace Library, The Hague.

The first Telders Competition was organized in 1977 on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the Telders International Law Students' Debating Society. Student teams from the universities of Bonn, Cologne, Strasbourg, and Leiden participated. It was so successful that the competition has been held annually ever since. Nowadays it is considered to be the most prestigious and important international moot court competition in Europe. Teams from more than 40 universities compete in the national rounds, with 22 to 25 teams from as many European countries participating in the international rounds held in the Peace Palace in The Hague.

This study examines the major legal, institutional, operational, and administrative aspects of the international property-related interventions in post-conflict Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo. The establishment of international mass claims proceedings to restore or compensate for property rights lost due to ethnic discrimination and cleansing is a milestone for the protection of the rights of refugees and internally displaced persons. The case studies demonstrate that far-reaching international intervention and law enforcement do indeed effectively function if the international community engages in a sustainable and co-ordinated manner and provides sufficient funding.

Books and Articles in the Field of the Prevention and Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes (Autumn 2003) Compiled by Ingrid Kost

In March 2002 the US administration imposed protective duties to safeguard its steel manufacturing industry. The measure was subsequently found to be illegal and repealed. The widespread conception is that the measure was ill-conceived and that by declaring it illegal the WTO system of adjudication proved that it had come of age. However, closer examination of the case and the relevant law reveals that the measure was in fact not ill-advised but a clever legal and political ploy. Rather than proving that WTO adjudication was working, the opposite is shown to be the case. WTO adjudication is in need of some changes if it is to respond to political manoeuvres which abuse the dispute resolution system.