According to Article 1 ECHR, States Parties are under the obligation to guarantee the Convention rights and freedoms to persons ‘within their jurisdiction’. In the famous Banković decision the European Court of Human Rights interpreted the notion of jurisdiction restrictively, considering it as an essentially territorial concept and its extraterritorial exercise as strictly exceptional. The decision has thus imposed a strong presumption against the applicability of the Convention to extraterritorial state conduct. This article explores the subject of extraterritorial application of the ECHR in view of the Court’s recent case law on Article 1. It shows that unlike in the case law of the European Court, jurisdiction in public international law is a flexible concept, the meaning of which is not necessarily restricted to territoriality. The article demonstrates that in the context of human rights treaties it is possible to devise a more suitable concept of jurisdiction; a concept that would be compatible with the general international law of jurisdiction and at the same time would make it possible to respond to the challenges posed by the globalization of state conduct affecting human rights.

In the long-lasting debate about reforming the United Nations, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan appeared to want to make a difference. On the basis of a report prepared by a high level panel of experts he presented his own reform proposals in March 2005. At the beginning of 2005 a voluminous report on the development issue, the so-called Millennium Project Report (or ‘Sachs-Report’), was presented. On the basis of these documents an intense discussion set in. Despite the fact that the immediate result of this debate, the so-called 2005 World Summit Outcome of September 2005 was rather disappointing, the world community has now at their disposal an array of detailed studies and reports on some of the most topical issues in international law. As reform of the United Nations seems to be imperative the relative discussion will continue. This article aims at examining the strengths and faults of the documents mentioned and highlighting the extent to which the positions to be found therein are corresponding to the main structural elements of the international order presently in force. Finally, the article also considers whether these proposals are opening suitable avenues for a further development of UN law.

The current litigation in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) over European restrictions on the importation, marketing and sale of genetically modified organisms gives rise to questions about the procedures through which international courts and tribunals may receive expert evidence from social science experts. The WTO Panel considering the EC – Biotech case received an amicus curiae brief from five social science experts who are highly qualified in precisely those fields of sociological research within which the most problematic aspects of the Biotech dispute are situated. The authors of the five-person brief themselves suggest that panels dealing with the subject of risk should contemplate formally appointing experts to assist them from disciplines additional to the natural sciences, and this suggestion merits serious broader consideration. International courts and tribunals’ handling of certain cases, such as those concerning risks to human health and the environment from new and modern technology, may stand to be improved through better access to state-of-the-art expertise on all aspects of risk and risk assessment.

The mastery of outer space as the basis of integrated battleground platforms is fast becoming a reality. As the two Gulf Wars and the Kosovo military campaign made clear, space assets are decisive in battle planning and execution. The contemporary move towards weaponization of space and its intersection with international law forms the basis of this article. This article analyses the militarization and weaponization of space. It is premised on the fact that the active move to militarization and weaponization of outer space that exposes the deficit of the international law space law regime. The article highlights the fact that the international space law legal regime now has a new game in the making for which it is in many ways ill equipped to handle.