In many countries, including our own, the question whether there should be a right to strike, and, if so, to what extent, and with what restrictions, has been and still is hotly debated. There remain few countries where strikes are absolutely prohibited. On the other hand there are also few countries where the right to strike is an inalienable right vested in the constitution. The legislator can adopt various attitudes towards the strike by making a strike a criminal offence, by granting the liberty to strike or the right to strike. In most countries the second attitude prevails; strikes are considered a fairly normal phenomenon though not guaranteed as a right. The method of assesment of the possible illegality of strikes, and the sanctions imposed on workers or trade unions, vary greatly.

The current transformation process of the American conflict of laws system from a traditional “hard-and-fast” body of jurisdiction-selecting rules to a modern method of functional analysis has raised a widespread wave of interested, diverse and, more often than not, critical reactions. Criticism to the new approach is particularly strong outside the United States and especially in the civil law countries where a certain number of established scholars tend to reject the functional methods as a rudely disguised way of always applying the forum law. Be that as it may –and a closer first hand examination of its doctrinal and jurisprudential sources may discover that the functional analysis is indeed an intelligent and sophisticated method of dealing with choice of laws problems—the fact is that American courts are increasingly applying the language and the substance of the new approach to solve both interstate and international conflicts. The following selective examination of some of these latter cases permits us to illustrate how the functional analysis actually works in practice and to evaluate to what extent this new approach might also be operative as a method of solving international conflict of laws.

The doctrine of forum non conveniens may profoundly affect the determination of jurisdiction. This doctrine can be defined as a general discretionary power for a court to decline jurisdiction on the basis that the appropriate forum for trial is abroad or that the local forum is inappropriate. It thus allows a court to dismiss a case although personal jurisdiction and venue are proper. It is alleged to be one of the effective approaches to thwart forum shopping and a broadly gauged anti-forum shopping device.

The author selects three capita selecta with regard to the Insolvency Regulation. He claims that the lex concursus governs the question of whether a third party who claims to have purchased a movable unregistered asset or an asset gratuitously from a person who was subjected to an insolvency proceeding is in fact protected. Furthermore, he reaches the conclusion that the Dutch cooling-off period can have effects in other Member States, provided that some conditions are met. Finally, the author comments on the German Graphic case, in which the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ruled that an action based on a reservation of title against the purchaser who is insolvent is an action in the field of civil and commercial law and is not excluded from the scope of the Brussels I Regulation, and that Article 7(1) of the Insolvency Regulation does not alter this conclusion.

This casenote outlines and analyses the US Supreme Court's 2006 decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. In this case the Court held that suspected terrorists held in Guantánamo Bay were entitled to bring habeas corpus petitions to federal courts and to the benefits of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. The US Supreme Court eschewed the tradition of judicial deference to overturn the President's determination that military commissions could be established without congressional approval in the circumstances of the ‘War on Terrorism’. The casenote goes on to consider the aftermath of this decision, including the introduction of the Military Commissions Act 2006, and the implications of this Act for the future of Guantánamo Bay litigation.

On April 1999, the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (hereinafter: the Vienna Convention, CISG or the Convention)2 celebrated its 19th anniversary. The Convention has been praised throughout the world as a skillful and effective tool for governing international sales transactions. Hence, after more than fifty years of arduous work, the efforts undertaken to unify the law for international sales at a global scale seem, at last, to have reached success. As frequet referrals to former efforts undertaken will be made, it seems appropriate to set forth, at least summarily, the history of the Vienna Convention.

It is sometimes argued that States who do not want to see the legal regime concerning nuclear weapons altered, will have, for precisely that reason, serious difficulties in ratifying the 1977 Protocol additional to the Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949, especially Protocol I relating to the protection of victims of international armed conflicts.

a) On p. 250, third line: ‘De Nederlandse exterritorialiteit in Siam’.

b) The UN Convention of Vienna of 24 April 1963 on Consular Relations: Official Records of UN Conference on Consular Relations, vol. I (Summary Records of Plenary Meetings and of Meetings of First and Second Committees): A/CONF. 25/16; vol. II (Annexes, Final Act, Convention, Optional Protocols, Resolutions): A/CONF.25/16 Add. 1.

c) Case law, p. 253, to be added:

President of the District Court of The Hague, 19 February 1988, Kort Geding 1988 No. 123; NIPR 1988 No. 407:

The Republic of Zaire had been declared bankrupt. In summary proceedings, the State of the Netherlands requested some injunctions to be given to the ‘curator’ (the trustee in bankruptcy). President Wijnholt, when giving the judgment as requested, considered the following: It is presumed that the State, in being a participant to the diplomatic intercourse has an interest of its own that the requested measures be taken. This can be inferred from statutory provisions of Dutch National law, such as Article 479a of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 13, para. 4 of the Regulation for Bailiffs (deurwaarders).

d) See for consular marriages, among others, Kosters, J., Dubbink, C.W., Algemeen Deel van het Nederlandse Internationaal Privaatrecht, ch. XXV, pp. 874–895.

e) The present Supreme Court decision was published in Nederlandse Jurisprudentie 1997 No. 469, with a comment by Th.M. de Boer.

f) The Dutch Government filed a bill on 28 October 1997 (Parliamentary Documents No. 25703) in order to have the Act on the Conflict of Laws in the field of Marriage (Wet conflictenrecht huwelijk) modified. As from the date of entering into force of the proposed statutory provisions, a Dutch national, regardless of other nationalities which he or she may have, can enter into a contract of marriage in the Netherlands before the registrar only. This is in line with the policy the government adhered to before the Supreme Court's decision.

This article focuses on a number of recent decisions of English courts addressing issues of international law. The starting point is the House of Lords decision in Kuwait Airways v. Iraqi Airways (2002) that effect would not be given in English law to a decree of the Iraqi state which breached international law. Subsequent decisions exploring the role of international law in the context of the justiciability of UK state action have failed to follow Kuwait Airways' lead unless required to apply international law by statute, usually the Human Rights Act 1998. Cases involving terrorism and human rights and attacks on the UK's stance and involvement in Iraq have revealed further questions about the role of international law in English courts and elsewhere. The article examines how subtle movement is taking place in the approach taken by English judges to matters of international law particularly in the context of human rights but that executive action in foreign affairs remains largely immune from judicial scrutiny.

L'affaire de la Société néerlandaise pour l'exploitation de réclame (Reklame Exploitatie Maatschappij R.E.M.) laquelle, en érigeant une installation fixe en haute mer devant la côte néerlandaise à la limite de la mer territoriale, envisageait de réaliser des émissions de télévision destinées à être reçues sur le territoire néerlandais, a suscité l'intérêt dans les milieux néerlandais les plus divers. C'est notamment à l'intention de nos lecteurs à l'étranger que nous nous proposons de relater dans le présent article les faits tels qu'ils se sont produits. Nous allons faire suivre cet exposé d'un commentaire qui exposera quelques aspects du droit international relatifs à cette affaire. Nous avons fondé nos observations en grande partie sur le rapport de la Commission consultative néerlandaise en matière de droit international, rapport qui a reçu l'approbation unanime de ses membres et dont quelques extraits seront reproduits textuellement dans l'exposé qui va suivre. Le texte intégral de ce rapport est publié ci-après dans la section « Documents ».

The first three paragraphs of article 13 of the Benelux Uniform Law on Conflicts of Law, as revised in 1969, read as follows.

1. In respect both of compulsory and not compulsory legal provisions, contracts shall be governed by the law as chosen by the parties.

2. As far as the contract is clearly localized in a given country, the choice of the parties cannot overrule such legal provisions of the said country as, in virtue of their particular character and purport, exclude the application of any different law.

3. Failing a choice by the parties, either explicit, or implicit but certain, the contract shall be governed by the law of the country with which it shows the narrowest points of contact.

The criticism to these paragraphs as offered in the foregoing paper, does not bear on the principles, as set out above, but on the wording thereof.

Seldom has the international community shown such a rapid and prompt reaction to an international wrongful act as in the case of hijacking of aircraft. States, international organizations—governmental or non-governmental—came together to advise and take strict and immediate measures to cope with this situation. The modern phenomenon of hijacking of aircraft, like abductions of statesmen, diplomats and other civil servants, and attacks on diplomatic and consular missions, which are intended to draw attention to a certain political cause, are only some of the forms of violence which international society witnesses today. Of all these instances of sheer violence, the abduction of aircraft and persons on board has made the greatest impact. At the same time it has brought about an immediate and strong reaction of world opinion against these unprecedented acts.