Increasingly the UN is ‘subcontracting’ peacekeeping and peace enforcement operations. The ECOMOG intervention in Sierra Leone is an example. Some members of ECOMOG have been accused of violating international humanitarian law. These accusations have not been adequately addressed by ECOMOG nor by the UN. The limited attention paid to this problem by the UN in ‘subcontracted’ operations contrasts with increased concern with respect for international humanitarian law by forces under UN command and control. It is argued that the UN should ensure that ‘subcontracting’ does not lead to lowering standards of international humanitarian law.

With the black letter law of the UN Charter denying states to unilaterally intervene in third states on humanitarian grounds, this article tries to project a picture of the moral controversy of humanitarian intervention as a balance for order and justice. The author argues that some post-cold war armed interventions may be taken as evidence of an emerging rule of international law outside the UN Charter system allowing the use of unilateral humanitarian intervention to keep a third state from committing large-scale human rights violations on its own territory. However, in the absence of prior authorization from the relevant UN organs, it is necessary to address concerns of possible abuse and manipulations of such an emerging rule. The article includes recommendations to this end.

To go to war for an idea, if the war is aggressive, not defensive, is as criminal as to go to war for territory or revenue; for it is as little justifiable to force our ideas on other people, as to compel them to submit to our will in any other respect. But there assuredly are cases in which it is allowable to go to war, without having been ourselves attacked, or threatened with attack; and it is very important that nations should make up their minds in time, as to what these cases are.John Stuart Mill, A Few Words on Non-Intervention (1859)

The Geneva Arbitration of 1872 was convened to settle various differences between the United States and Great Britain and, in particular, American allegations of British collusion with regard to shipbuilding for the Southern Confederacy during the American Civil War. The Arbitrators ultimately found Britain liable, and awarded $15,500,000 to the United States. This decision remains controversial to the extent that it rested on rules which were not yet accepted as principles of general international law, and which clearly favoured the case of the United States from the outset. It is thus the purpose of this article to explore the facts behind the Geneva Arbitration, and to argue that the finding of British liability in Geneva marked the beginning decline of the laws of neutrality. Neutral Countries […] may be exploited by the Great Powers both strategically and as a source of additional armies and fleets. Of central importance to the game are those Neutral Countries and provinces which are designated as “Supply Centres.” […] A player's fighting strength is directly related to the number of Supply Centres he or she controls, whilst the game is won when one player controls at least 18 Supply Centres.

The present article traces the developments with respect to questions of admissibility of claims brought before the European Commission of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights by private individuals. It would appear that over the years, the Commission and Court have dealt with an increasing number of cases, and have extended the scope of the infringement they permitted themselves to make on the domestic jurisdiction of states members to the European Convention of Human Rights.

This contribution deals with legal protection against violations of the European Convention on Human Rights at both the national as well as the international level. The conclusion is that the practice of the European Court of Human Rights is inadequate and that the protection in the Netherlands could be better. Several recommendations are made in order to improve the co-operation between Strasbourg and domestic institutions in the field of the protection of human rights.

Indonesia and Malaysia jointly seized the Court on 2 November 1998 of their dispute concerning sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan, two islands in the Celebes Sea. They did so by notifying the Court of a Special Agreement, which was signed between them on 31 May 1997 at Kuala Lumpur and entered into force on 14 May 1998. In the Special Agreement, the Parties request the Court “to determine on the basis of the treaties, agreements and any other evidence furnished by [them], whether sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan belongs to the Republic of Indonesia or to Malaysia.” They express the wish to settle their dispute “in the spirit of friendly relations existing between [them] as enunciated in the 1976 Treaty of Amity and Co-operation in Southeast Asia” and declare in advance that they will “accept the Judgment of the Court given pursuant to [the] Special Agreement as final and binding upon them.”

Litigation over the right of detained foreign nationals to be notified of their right to seek consular assistance in death penalty cases is important to the more than 80 foreign nationals currently on death row in the United States. It also raises more general questions about the role of international law and of international courts in sensitive criminal cases before national courts. International courts and litigants may enhance the likelihood of compliance in such cases by insisting on fair and deliberate procedures, on transparent and thoroughly articulated reasoning, and on prudent shaping of remedies.

A critical analysis, considering first, the legal competence and propriety of the Court in giving an opinion pursuant to the dispute settlement machinery of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of United Nations, whereby advisory jurisdiction over disputes of the UN is equated to contentious jurisdiction between consenting states; and second, the effect in municipal law of a state's obligation to respect the UN Secretary-General's certificate that a UN expert is entitled to immunity from legal process. The Court preserves resort to local courts but requires communication of the UN certificate and immunity to be dealt with expeditiously as a preliminary issue.

On 30 August 1999, by leave of the confirming Judge, the Prosecution filed an amended indictment against Dragan Kolundžija.

On 23 July 1999, an Agreement on the enforcement of sentences of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) was concluded between the United Nations and the Federal Government of Austria. The formalization of the Agreement took place during a meeting in Vienna between Judge Gabrielle Kirk McDonald, President of the ICTY, H.E. Mrs. Benita Ferrero-Waldner, State Secretary, Federal Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Austria and H.E. Mr. Nikolaus Michalek, Federal Minister for Justice of Austria. Austria is the fifth state to enter into such an Agreement.

This article reviews and analyzes the Furundžija Judgment rendered by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the first international war crimes trial in history to focus virtually exclusively on rape. The judgment addresses what acts constitute rape, whether a non-physical perpetrator can be held individually criminally responsible for rape, and whether rape can constitute torture; it also broadens the purview of Common Article 3 crimes and considers acts which may constitute outrages upon personal dignity. This article discusses how these issues impact upon both international humanitarian law generally and gender jurisprudence specifically.

In light of serious problems with the assignment of counsel to defendants before the ICTR, this article examines the freedom of choice of assigned defence counsel before both ad hoc International Criminal Tribunals. International legal instruments guarantee free legal assistance for indigent defendants but do not recognize an unrestricted free choice of such counsel. International case law, however, recognizes that an effective defence can hardly arise from a client-counsel relation that is not based on trust and confidence. Trust and confidence are therefore decisive for a proper understanding of the right to have free legal assistance. Unlike the practice of the ICTY of recognizing the importance of these factors, the Registrar of the ICTR seems to give more weight to geographical distribution of lawyers and other discriminating factors. The Appeals Chamber of the ICTR dealt with this policy in the Akayesu case and overturned the decision of the Registry to refuse the counsel of the defendant's own choosing.

In the absence of police powers, the International Criminal Court, like the Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, will depend on the co-operation of states in order to fulfil its mandate. Discussing the jurisprudence of the ad hoc Tribunals and the travaux préparatoires of the Rome treaty, the author compares the mandatory powers conferred on the respective institutions to this end. He concludes that the Security Council endowed the Tribunals with unequivocally binding powers, while under the Rome treaty regime, which resembles traditional inter-state co-operation in criminal matters, the ICC's powers are more limited and state obligations less stringent.

From time immemorial amnesty has been employed as a means of promoting a political settlement and advancing reconciliation in societies that have emerged from repression. At present there is a trend in support of prosecution of those who have committed international crimes, such as torture and crimes against humanity, which excludes the possibility of amnesty. That amnesty is no longer favored is illustrated by the failure of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court to recognize amnesty as a defence to prosecution. While there is no place for unconditional amnesty in the contemporary international legal order an intermediate solution such as a Truth and Reconciliation Commission with power to grant amnesty after investigation, of the South African kind, may contribute to the achievement of peace and justice in a society in transition more effectively than mandatory prosecution.