Non-international armed conflicts are more numerous, more brutal and entail more blood-shed today than international ones. The Statute of the International Criminal Court explicitly upholds the traditional distinction between international and non-international conflicts, and armed conflicts will have to be characterized accordingly. But the tendency to adapt the international humanitarian law (IHL) regime for non-international conflicts to the rules for international ones emerges. Article 7 on Crimes Against Humanity and Article 8(2)(c) and (e) on War Crimes amount to real progress in this respect. Yet, the regulation on war crimes in particular does not provide for comprehensive criminal responsibility of individual perpetrators in non-international conflicts.

On December 17, 1999 the President of the Eritrea/Yemen Arbitration Tribunal, Sir Robert Jennings, presented the representatives of those Governments with the Tribunal's Unanimous Decision (Award) determining the international maritime boundary between Eritrea and Yemen in the Red Sea. In an Award ceremony hosted by the British Foreign Office, Foreign Minister for Eritrea, Haile Weldensae and the Ambassador to London from Yemen, Dr. Hussein Abdullah El-Amri, were presented with the decision regarding the boundary.

Approximately the entire 20th century, the Panama Canal (including a strip of land bordering the canal known as the ‘canal zone’) was essentially controlled by the United States, a control which included the primary responsibility for its defence. With the onset of the new millennium, however, the canal reverted to exclusive Panamanian control. This contribution will briefly recall the legal basis of this watershed which dates from 1977 and indicate if the United States retains any residual powers as regards the Panama Canal in particular its defence.

The referendum of 30 August 1999 constituted a historic exercise of the right to self-determination by the people of East Timor. It rejected autonomy within Indonesia and chose to go forward on the path towards independence. Proponents of autonomy complained that they had been barred from participating in the process, and that Timorese staff had systematically told or forced people to vote for independence. However, there is no evidence that the referendum was corrupted through systematic bias on the part of local staff members. The outcome of the referendum, 78.5% in favour of independence, must be accepted as an accurate reflection of the will of the people of East Timor.

On 9 October 1998, an Arbitral Tribunal handed down its Award regarding the first stage of an arbitration between Eritrea and Yemen. The Award determined, firstly, the scope of the dispute between the parties and, secondly, the sovereignty of small islands, islets, rocks and low-tide elevations sprinkling in the Red Sea between the respective coast lines of the two states. Whilst closely examining concepts raised by the parties such as historic title, the Tribunal was ultimately swayed by factors of geographical appurtenance, recent demonstrations of governmental authority and functions of state, and, to a lesser extent, the area's legal history. The Award contributes to the body of law on territorial sovereignty and to an understanding of the role of arbitration in the peaceful resolution of disputes.

The Iran-United States Claims Tribunal's recent decision in Sabet and The Islamic Republic of Iran sheds new light on difficult issues concerning the dual nationality of minors. In particular, the case was the first in which the Tribunal determined minor dual national claimants to have a dominant and effective nationality different from that of either of their parents. Further, the Tribunal broke new ground in its analysis of ‘the caveat,’ an equitable doctrine that can bar the claims of dual nationals. This article applauds the Tribunal's advances in its caveat jurisprudence and develops a new approach that would further those advances.

At the outset of the conflict over Kosovo, the use of armed force by NATO member states has been justified to force the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to accept and sign the Rambouillet agreement. Later on, the use of force was justified in order to prevent a major humanitarian catastrophe. But examination of the relevant Security Council resolutions and of the circumstances surrounding the Rambouillet negotiations shed a totally different light on the legal arguments advanced by proponents of NATO's intervention. Modern international law on the use of force by states, as enshrined in the UN Charter, is still at the core of inter-state relations.

The present article describes the institutional structure and dispute settlement system within the Common Market of the South. It analyses the first arbitral award given by the first ad hoc tribunal established within the Common Market of the South and discusses the award's implications for the Common Market's law and institutions.

With the creation of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the imminent creation of a permanent International Criminal Court, as well as the proliferation of public statements by high government officials endorsing the norm of justice, many commentators are hypothesizing that the long running tension between peace and justice may be undergoing a period of reconciliation. A brief review of the efforts to incorporate the norm of justice in the Rambouillet/Paris Accords and UNSC 1244 indicates that only minimal progress has been made in the reconciliation between the quest for a negotiated peace and the norm of justice. As the most powerful nation committed to the rule of law, we have a responsibility to confront these assaults on humankind. One response mechanism is accountability, namely to help bring the perpetrators of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes to justice. If we allow them to act with impunity, then we will only be inviting a perpetuation of these crimes far into the next millennium. Our legacy must demonstrate an unyielding commitment to the pursuit of justice.David SchefferUS Ambassador for War Crimes The search for a juster peace than was obtainable at the negotiating table has inflicted hardship and havoc on innocent civilians within the former Yugoslavia and exacted a heavy price from the already weak economies of the neighboring states.David OwenCo-Chair of the International Conference for the former Yugoslavia

The surrender of Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, suspected of having committed genocide, to the Rwanda Tribunal has again been the object of litigation in the US. After his surrender had initially been denied, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has certified his surrender. This decision raised certain questions. On the one hand, it is fortunate that Ntakirutimana will stand trial before the Rwanda Tribunal. However, the assistance of the US with respect to future surrender of war criminals indicted by the Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda is by no means certain yet. A concurring and dissenting opinion attached to the decision illustrate that US Judges are still not overly convinced of the constitutionality of the US method of implementing the obligations arising out of the creation of these ad hoc Tribunals.

The international community's response to recent events in Eastern Europe might suggest that the right to self-determination is evolving in such a manner that it can be invoked by territorially cohesive, ethnic groups within States. The present analysis of whether the Kosovo Albanians have a right to internal and/or external self-determination tends to cast doubt on whether this evolution is taking place. While the international response to the Kosovo crisis may contribute to an emerging norm against the oppression of minorities it is doubtful whether it extends the right to self-determination beyond the existing beneficiaries of the right, namely, peoples organized as States and colonial peoples.

The third decision of the House of Lords in the Pinochet matter is significant, because the House of Lords upheld the majority view taken in the first decision: heads of state can, under certain circumstances, be held responsible for gross violations of human rights in the criminal courts of a foreign country. The decision is based on three main pillars. The Lords had, first, to clarify what constitutes an extradition crime under the Extradition Act 1989; second, to construct torture as an international crime; and, finally, to reject the plea of immunity of a former head of state in the context of the international crime of torture.