The extent of destruction and appropriation of cultural property in recent armed conflicts, especially those in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, questions the adequacy of international rules aimed at the protection of cultural property in armed conflicts. This article seeks to examine that problem by analysing the basic international rules devoted to the protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict.

In 1994, the International Law Commission (ILC) adopted the Draft Articles on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses. Having been favourably reviewed by the General Assembly of the United Nations, these Articles now form the negotiating text for a global treaty on international water law. The fate of this treaty remains uncertain. But irrespective of the results of the negotiations, the text formulated by the ILC may become an authoritative source of citations for States, scholars and other actors involved in disputes over water scarcity, and is therefore likely to have a determinative influence on the development of international water law. For this reason a critical examination of the ILC Articles is imperative.

On 30 June 1995 the International Court of Justice delivered its Judgment in the East Timor case. The dispute before the Court involved proceedings instituted by Portugal against Australia in 1991 because of the conclusion of the so-called Timor Gap Treaty of 1989 between Australia and Indonesia. The Treaty concerns the joint exploitation of the continental shelf lying between the territory of East Timor and the northern coast of Australia (the so-called Timor Gap). Portugal asserted its position as the administering power of East Timor and claimed that Australia should have concluded and implemented the joint exploitation treaty with it rather than Indonesia.

When statements made before the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal (the ‘Tribunal’) have exhibited some degree of divergence from representations or conduct made at a different point in time, estoppel and associated concepts have often proved to be of considerable assistance in determining between the competing versions presented. This article will assess the application of the doctrine of estoppel and related concepts by the Tribunal and compare its jurisprudence with the position of such principles as accepted in international law.

The unprecedented expansion and growing complexity of international economic relations over the last decades have significantly affected the scope and nature of existing international law. Numerous bilateral investment trade agreements (BITs), and multilateral instruments such as the GATT, NAFTA and the 1994 Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) have added to the increasing body of international trade and investment law. From the perspective of general international law, this emerging lex mercatoria is a force to be reckoned with. It is the ‘interface of international business/commercial law with public international law has never been an easy exercise. An issue that perhaps best identifies the complexity of such an endeavour relates to the responsibility of the State for non-State actors in the area of commercial transactions. While this issue has yet to be clarified fully in international law, it is one that is of particular importance to international economic relations.