Establishing an effective environmental regime is not an easy task in most parts of the world. The risk of collective action failure is significantly increased in embattled regions that are characterized by mistrust and enmity among the former belligerents. Still, interdependence is the underlying factor in numerous transnational environmental systems, including those in strife-ridden areas. This essential characteristic constitutes the rational foundation upon which national decision-makers operate in order to maintain or improve the quality and quantity of essential environmental resources available to their peoples. Various cooperative strategies often provide a means to attain this goal.

The 1957 Treaty of Rome and its successor treaties have developed a Community legal system distinct from that of its constituent states, but ‘nevertheless intimately and organically tied to it in such a way that the mutual and constant respect for the respective jurisdictions of the Community and national bodies’ is essential for the proper attainment of Community aims. Although this sui generis Community structure has limited the sovereign rights of the Member States in ever-widening fields, it operates as severable yet dependant upon a backdrop of autonomous, self-contained and functionally independent civil codes of national private law. Because the integration envisaged by the original Treaty structure relies on market forces and is powered by economic drive, the ‘four freedoms’ guaranteed by this structure – namely, the free trans-border movement of goods, services, people and capital – remain attainable without the complete substantive uniformity of national laws. Still, with further integration encouraging increased interstate transactions, and few substantive matters falling exclusively within the generaljurisdiction of the Community, legal dilemmas referencing diverse national laws hinder the operation of the internal market. Rather than eroding the sensitive national bulwark of substantive private law, however, the Community has often chosen to enact common rules on the conflicts of law to determine the reach of Community measures and their intersection with national substantive laws.

It may be commonplace to state that the world will never be the same as it was before 11 September 2001. Yet, it is obvious that the magnitude and audacity of the horrifying events of that day have presented international terrorism in an unprecedented way, namely as a real and potentially catastrophic threat to human security and international peace. This raises the question with regards to the role of international law, and to what extent current public international law provides an adequate framework for combating international terrorism. Are further development and adaptation of principles and rules of international law necessary to deal more effectively with the threat of terrorist attacks and with those who do not play by these rules? These issues will be addressed in section 2 of this article.

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 Republic of Rwanda is part of the African Great Lakes Region. The region straddles the east-central part of Africa. A chain of lakes is found in the region, ranging from Lakes Victoria, Albert, Edward, Kivu and Tanganyika; hence the name African Great Lakes Region. It covers the countries of Burundi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda. The region's relief is moderate and influenced by tectonic and volcanic activity. Parts of the region are heavily forested, as is the case with the Congo-basin, while the others in the east are grassland savannahs. The volcanic soil in parts of the region makes it ideal for agriculture and therefore conducive to human habitation. Indeed parts of the region, particularly Burundi and Rwanda, have high population densities and a concomitant problem of land shortage. Besides the rich arable soil the countries of this region are also well endowed with a variety of precious mineral resources, such as gold, diamonds, uranium, copper, emeralds and cobalt.

These days, a century after the famous Paris convention on comparative law, comparative legal research is booming. A large percentage of legal research – at least in the Netherlands – currently is conducted on a comparative basis. However, whereas the interest in conducting comparative legal research is growing, the interest i n how to carry out this type of research is diminishing. Applied comparative legal research is supposed to be ‘good’; discussions on how to carry out this type of research are considered a waste of time. I would agree wholeheartedly with the latter statement if there were a clear, crystallized and accepted theory, or if there were no need for a method at all. In my opinion, the latter statement thus must be rejected. Although, as is often said, ‘a lot’ has been written about the methods of comparative law, there is still no consensus on a theory of comparative law. Ideas on methodology are elaborated from different points of view and no unequivocal concepts are used. The idea that there is no need for a method denies both the academic character of comparative legal research and the fact that nowadays a great deal of comparative legal research is carried out by relatively young and – in the field of comparative legal research – inexperienced PhD students who would welcome some clear guidelines. As methods are simply lessons learned by people who have done something by trial and error, why shouldn’t one benefit from the lessons learned by others?

The decisions rendered by the House of Lords in ex parte Pinochet have not only held the attention of the general public, but also have been broadly considered in academic writing. Most of the public international lawyers1y’ comments concentrate on analysing the judgments, which is absolutely necessary as, owing to the particularities of procedure, twelve Law Lords – thus twelve distinguished lawyers of a court held in highest regard throughout the world – have given lengthy opinions on very intricate questions of international and domestic law. Consequently, the present article intends to refrain as far as possible from further comment and critique on what was decided by the House of Lords. Instead, it will undertake a closer look at the aftermath of the Pinochet decision. The main question is whether the decisions in ex parte Pinochet have resulted in a change in the relevant public international law rules concerning heads of state immunity. The ‘classic’ content of these rules shall be provided, together with the uncertainties and inconsistencies which existed well before ex parte Pinochet, and the new trends and developments that are calling them into question (infra section 3). The whole analysis is based on the assumption that the issues touched upon in the House of Lords' decisions are at the heart of the fundamental changes which international legal scholarship is currently undergoing, particularly since the 1990s. We are thus not only facing a possible change of legal rules, but must also reflect on the potential modification of basic concepts in the areas of statehood, sources of law and the position of the individual (infra section 4).

In 1918, Belgian magistrates working under German occupation during the First World War, were presented with the dilemma of the coexistence on their territory of both Belgian and German legislation. In regard to such situation, Articles 43 and 23(h) of the 18 October 1907 Hague Convention hold: while it is possible for the occupant to take measures considered necessary to achieve legitimate purposes – including the creation of their own courts – national law should nevertheless be maintained and respected. Belgian magistrates – and in particular Mr R. de Rickère, judge at the Tribunal de première instance in Brussels – gave those rules their own interpretation: their constitutional duty excluded any collaboration, or contribution, to the enforcement of the occupant's laws; any deviation, even under duress, would engage their personal responsibility. In other words, they would resist to the point of bringing justice to a halt. This is in fact what happened in February 1918 following the proclamation, by the German inspired ‘Conseil des Flandres’ of a new Flemish State, on 21 January 1918. On 7 February, in compliance with Brussels Courd'appel's injunction that all members of the self-defined ‘Conseil’ should be prosecuted for violation of the constitutional guarantee of the equality of all Belgians citizens, two Flemish activists were held: German authorities responded by arresting four magistrates. On 11 February, all magistrates ceased their activities and were joined on that same day by lawyers. The ‘grève des magistrals’, as it became known, was largely followed all over the country. Several among the strikers were deported. It ended on 25 November 1918.

Without question, countries from Sub-Saharan Africa are very minimally involved in the Dispute Settlement Process (DSP) of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Out of the 275 panel and Appellate Body decisions that have been rendered within the WTO DSP since 1995, only three have involved disputants from Sub-Saharan Africa. The region plays a minimal role in the global economy generally and in the WTO specifically, a fact that has generated much discussion lately. The highest levels of the WTO leadership recognize that ‘smaller developing countries’ need to be more integrated and resourced to enable them to participate fully in the global economy.

There is no doubt that case-law plays an important role in developing the law of maritime delimitation. In fact, since the 1969 North Sea Continental Shelf cases, ten international decisions relating to maritime delimitation have been rendered. Hence, it may be said that the accumulation of jurisdictional practice in this field makes it possible to speak of ‘case-law’. The Eritrea/Yemen arbitration (second phase), which will be examined below, is the ninth judgment in the field of maritime delimitation.