A number of recent decisions issued by the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), which address jurisdictional interactions between national and international proceedings, have sparked renewed interest in the possibility of identifying jurisdictional overlaps between the two groups of judicial bodies. Arguably, these ICSID cases are indicative of a broader tendency to reassess the relationship between national and international courts, which also takes place in other areas of international law, such as human rights law, criminal law and law of the sea. The article explores whether the jurisdictional relations between national and international courts can conceivably qualify as ‘competing’ or ‘overlapping jurisdictions’ – i.e., jurisdictions that have the potential of addressing, in parallel, the same disputes (involving the same parties and the same issues), under the existing definitions of jurisdictional competition or overlap and posits that such jurisdictional relations could theoretically be conceptualized in situations where the two sets of judicial institutions operate in a non-hierarchical context. Furthermore, the article seeks to examine what jurisdiction-regulating rules and principles, if any, could be applied to such a putative set of jurisdictional relations. It suggests that given the considerable theoretical difficulties which the introduction of traditional jurisdiction-regulating rules, such as res judicata or lis alibi pendens entails, resort to more flexible legal doctrines such as judicial comity and the prohibition against abuse of right could be more useful.

The focus of the article is on the activities of the European Union and the United Nations in the fields of peace and security, human rights and democracy. These represent not only crucial issues uniting both the EU and the UN in their external actions, but are also founded upon, or at least affected by, fundamental principles of international law. It is argued that a coherent strategy for achieving long term peace and stability in regional and international relations must be based on respect for these fundamental principles as well as rules of international law derived from these principles. Such principles are not just abstract legal constructs but are a reflection of the values that international actors – states, organisations and others – have held since the UN Charter ushered in a new world order in 1945. Situating both organisations within the international legal order should enhance the legitimacy and arguably the effectiveness of the two organisations whether they act singly or together. Increasingly, the activities of the EU and the UN overlap in matters of peace, security, human rights and democracy. This overlap has the potential to result in confrontation, as well as what would normally be aspired to – co-operation. It is therefore essential to identify the underlying principles and rules governing the organisations and their activities. It is argued that these principles and rules should be recognised and reinforced if we are to have organisational activity that is more than discretionary or arbitrary.

The core document so far in the field of the protection of victims' rights is the “Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power”, adopted in 1985 by the UN General Assembly. Starting from the notion that this is a declaration ‘only’, it was suggested by some to develop a victims' rights convention, aiming to improve the legal status of the rights concerned. Following that suggestion, the initiative was taken by independent experts to draft the “UN Convention on Justice and Support for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power”.

This article firstly discusses the legal status of the 1985 Declaration, including the question what parts might have reached the status of international customary law. This analysis is followed by the question of what can be learned from today's academic discussions on characterising international legal standards – hard alongside soft law, etc. – and from recent debates on lawmaking in the international legal field (inter alia, communicative lawmaking and co-regulation). The article addresses some major risks, when embarking on the route of a possible victims' rights convention, including experiences to be drawn from other policy areas. Having done this, it comes up with the instrument of a framework convention, combining the benefits of legal bindingness with the flexibility and ‘stepping-stone character’ of successful soft law documents. It is seen as a way out of the problems discussed in the article. After having presented some further thoughts on monitoring procedures, the article finally takes a careful look at the previously mentioned Draft Convention.

The United Nations General Assembly is faced with a draft declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples, the product of a quarter of a century of international negotiations where indigenous peoples played an important but informal role through the Working Group on Indigenous Peoples of the UN Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities. After more than a decade of haggling in the UN Commission on Human Rights, the new Human Rights Council adopted the draft Declaration in June 2006 and forwarded it to the General Assembly for final approval. Unexpectedly, the Third Committee of the Assembly deferred its adoption. The future of the declaration is now in some doubt.

This article presents and discusses these developments, which started around 1980 and culminated with the adoption of the draft at the level of the Human Rights Council in 2006. It examines the standard-setting efforts and international jurisprudence during that period, noting that the growing awareness of the situation of indigenous peoples has led to significant legal developments at the national and international level, but that the implementation of the new legal standards is lagging seriously behind. Next, the article examines in depth the content and the controversial issues of the draft declaration, followed by an examination of the intended or potential institutional and procedural safeguards for these rights. It also examines a draft Nordic Saami convention which may become a model for the future. The concluding remarks review the achievements made over the last quarter of a century, and the prospects for amendments that may be required to achieve the final adoption of the Declaration by the General Assembly.

Although this sets out to be an annual survey, it may also include material which dates from a different parliamentary year from that given in the heading. This has proved to be inevitable in those cases when texts do not become available to the editor until long after their original date of drafting; written submissions to international organizations made by the Netherlands representatives frequently fall into this category.

Most of the information is derived from the Reports of Parliament which are available in Dutch on <www.overheid.nl/op/index.html>. The Yearbook surveys are also available in a consolidated way in a database on <www.asser.nl/pil/index.htm>.

This survey covers the treaties, international agreements, and other international instruments mentioned in the ‘Tractatenblad van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden’ – Treaty Series of the Kingdom of the Netherlands (abbr.: Trb.). Its purpose is to record the legal consequences of such agreements and instruments for the Netherlands, and Netherlands State acts in respect of them, such as signature, parliamentary approval, ratification, entry into force, provisional application, extension or limitation of territorial application, termination and abrogation. Signature by the Netherlands, however, is mentioned separately only if, in the case of multilateral treaties, such signature has taken place on a date different from the official date of conclusion of the treaty.

This survey covers municipal regulations relevant to international law that could not be dealt with adequately in the State Practice section. Translations of all or part of the text are usually given, together with descriptive or analytical notes where appropriate.

The information is derived from the Staatsblad and Staatscourant which are available in Dutch on <www.overheid.nl/op/index.html>. The Yearbook surveys are also available in a consolidated way in a database on <www.asser.nl/pil/index.htm>.

The decisions in this survey are taken from the documentation system of the Public International Law Department of the T.M.C. Asser Instituut, which now contains abstracts from approximately 6400 decisions dating from 1839 to the present day. Most of the texts are taken from various Reports and Journals, but the Institute also receives the texts of decisions involving questions of public international law directly from the Courts concerned by special agreement between the Institute, the Ministry of Justice, and the Courts. If the decision has not (yet) been published elsewhere, the source of the text is given as ‘Institute's Collection’ followed by the administrative sequence number.

This survey is intended to provide information for international lawyers and law students, both in the Netherlands and abroad, on materials concerning international law published in and outside the Netherlands by Dutch authors. A few articles not meeting these criteria are also included. Furthermore, ‘international law’ has been interpreted widely, so as to include related matters, if the work in question deals with international law considerations. Fiscal law, polemology and specific regulations under European law are generally not included. The survey lists books, articles, inaugural lectures, dissertations and reports.