The main parts of the new patrimonial law in the new Civil Code (referred to below as NBW) entered into force in the Netherlands with effect from 1 January 1992. Owing to the system designed for the transitional law, the provisions of most importance in practice (e.g., those concerning general conditions and the sale of goods) did not enter into force fully until 1 January 1993. It seemed to the editors of this journal to be a good idea to provide foreign readers with a survey of the main points of the NBW, since the ‘new’ law is now also being applied both in the courts and in legal practice, albeit sometimes rather uncertainly. I was kindly asked to provide this survey and am now pleased to accede to the request.

On June 14, 1993, just one year after an arbitral tribunal fixed the maritime boundary around the small French islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon, off Canada's Newfoundland, the International Court of Justice rendered its judgment on a closely analogous case concerning anew a relatively small insular feature lying opposite a much lengthier continental coast. A marked disparity in coastal fronts once more controlled the geographical context, so that proportionality was elevated by one of the parties to a dominant legal presumption. Yet again, equidistance crossed swords with equity, but hopefully suffered little from the Court's familiar ‘shadowboxing’ against Article 6 of the 1958 Continental Shelf Convention. One of the root causes of the dispute, the capelin fishing ground (capelin is a migratory species abundant in the areas between Jan Mayen, Iceland and Greenland), was shared out in equal halves, the judgment sending strong echoes of distributive justice in this respect. As for the boundary line, the Court evinced afresh its inventiveness with a view to equally apportioning satisfaction. The judgment marks a most-welcome rapprochement of Article 6 and equitable principles discourse, an affirmed restoration of equidistance, and a victory for often victimized small islands. Proportionality, as a test of the equitability of the solution, was ignored and seems now to have completed its life cycle. The Court's decision also amounted to what may be termed a premiere. Indeed, this is the first maritime delimitation case heard by the Court on the basis of a unilateral application relying on declarations under Article 36 paragraph 2 of the Statute.

The Federal Republic of Germany, due to its geopolitical situation but also to its limited sovereignty, has never been seriously confronted with an official request to engage in military activities outside NATO, i.e., ‘out of area’. When during the Iraq-Kuwait conflict (1990/91) German armed forces were deployed in Turkey, serious concerns were raised as to their possible involvement in military activities — even though Germany would have been obliged to conform with its NATO obligations in case of an Iraqi attack on Turkish territory. Until recently, German Federal Governments always excluded a military engagement ‘out of area’ by pointing at the Federal Republic's Constitution — the Basic Law (‘Grundgesetz’). They took the view that the armed forces could only be used for defensive purposes. That is to say, either for the defence of the territory of the Federal Republic or of a NATO ally. Other uses, be they for the defence of a non-NATO member State, be they authorized by the UN Security Council, including peace-keeping operations, were considered prohibited by the Basic Law because it lacked an explicit permission to that effect. Nevertheless, in the aftermath of the Iran-Iraq conflict (1980–88) units of the Federal Navy were deployed in the Persian Gulf in order to sweep mines laid by the former belligerents off the coasts of the Gulf's riparian States. Of course, during the Iraq-Kuwait conflict, the Federal Republic of Germany took a very reserved stance and confined itself to a – considerable – financial contribution to the Allies' efforts to liberate Kuwait.

Today, Machiavelli's words have lost none of their accuracy. Population transfer still serves as an effective means to secure the fruits of conquest or aggression to the detriment of the civilian population. With nationalist sentiments rising alarmingly, population transfer is bound to be one of the issues figuring high on the international agenda in the decade to come.

The Liberian conflict was a violent response to the tyranny and misrule of the then President, Samuel Doe. Doe had come to power after staging a coup d'état in 1980. After five years of military dictatorship, and due to pressure for political reform, Doe's military junta agreed to a programme of democratization which culminated in Doe being elected, allegedly fraudulently, as the first president of the new republic. Notwithstanding its professed commitment to constitutionalism and the rule of law, the violation of human rights continued under the new civilian regime. These human rights abuses, coupled with a growing economic crisis, led to the outbreak of the conflict.

The Third Amendment to the Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund (‘the Fund’) became effective on 11 November 1992. The amendment concerns a modification of Article XXVI of the Articles of Agreement of the Fund (‘the Articles of Agreement’ or ‘the Fund Agreement’) so as to confer the Fund with the power to suspend the voting rights of a member failing to fulfil ‘any of its obligations’ under the Fund Agreement. It is a known fact that this move was motivated by the problem of persistent overdue financial obligations to the Fund. Indeed, the first application of this new power involved the suspension of Sudan's voting rights on account of this country's failure to meet its financial obligations to the Fund (August 1993). Sudan had been in arrears as regards its financial obligations to the Fund since July 1984.