Some states, the United States in particular, have allowed their courts to exercise universal tort jurisdiction over gross human rights violations, i.e., to hear complaints for damages by victims of such violations committed abroad. It is argued that, from a policy perspective, universal tort jurisdiction has some distinctive advantages over universal criminal jurisdiction; in particular, it may take victims more seriously. On the downside, it may possibly serve the function of morally condemning gross human rights violations less well.

From a legal perspective, concerns have been raised over the legality of exercising universal tort jurisdiction under international law. It is submitted nevertheless that the fact that only a limited number of states allow the exercise of universal tort jurisdiction is not fatal to the lawfulness of such jurisdiction under international law. These states may not provide for universal tort jurisdiction because they prefer criminal justice solutions, rather than because they consider such jurisdiction to be internationally unlawful. There is, in addition, no evidence of substantial international protest against assertions of universal tort jurisdiction. As a result, there is as of yet insufficient evidence of a customary international law norm outlawing universal tort jurisdiction having crystallized.

This contribution offers some theoretical and legal perspectives on WTO compliance. It draws on current theories of compliance with international law in determining that WTO compliance is essentially norm-driven and liberal/institutionalist in character. The two key models of compliance at work in the WTO are the management model, which employs persuasive techniques in order to induce compliance, interspersed with the enforcement model with its coercive approach towards compliance. The latter model is clearly at work in the compliance decisions of the DSB, where a complainant Member may seek authorisation to impose countermeasures in the form of suspension of concessions or other obligations. Although even here a range of techniques are employed on an individual basis by the complainant and respondent parties as well as collectively by the membership in order manage the process of compliance. Thus, a range of ‘softer’, more persuasive, managerial techniques exist alongside coercive, enforcement ones in order to encourage compliance with WTO dispute settlement decisions and to foster normative consensus among the Members. The two models of compliance work in tandem across a broad spectrum of compliance activities and are so intertwined with one another as to form a management-enforcement ladder of compliance with WTO law. However, this ladder of compliance is less successful in accounting for some of the more egregious forms of WTO non-compliance. Instead, such non-compliance is better understood on the basis of realist (or even rationalist) theories of compliance, which may include the efficient breach theory.

After 9/11 a number of governments committed their armed forces to military operations abroad and introduced far-reaching emergency restrictions of individual rights without substantial parliamentary scrutiny. In many cases, the executive branch argued that it needed considerable leeway to counter terrorist threats, and most legislatures followed suit. The article looks at the operational difficulties of parliamentary involvement from a comparative perspective, focusing on the legal situation in Germany, the United States and the Russian Federation. It identifies the purpose of parliamentary review and demonstrates that the principle of the separation of powers shall not be renounced in times of global threats or replaced by the fusion or shift of powers. On the contrary, the separation of powers as the basis of a modern constitutional democracy strengthens democratic control and enhances individual liberties, while not putting into question the executive's flexibility. The legislatures' participation in the most important decisions leads to a stable and sustainable use of executive power. However, the division of competences must observe the respective strengths and weaknesses of the branches of government. Thus, it is not the function of Parliament to regulate the operational details of military operations.

The illicit transport of WMD materials by sea combines contemporary terrorist and proliferation threats with maritime shipping realities to form unprecedented dangers. To counter this threat to international peace and security, worldwide efforts to increase capabilities and cooperation for the interdiction of vessels that are engaged in the trafficking of such materials have in recent years been on the rise. This strengthened emphasis on maritime interdiction, however, is also the subject of much international debate in which, unfortunately, the international law issues that are involved are frequently inaccurately represented. On the one side, too narrowly constructed views of the existing international legal possibilities are often set against expectations of sweeping expansion of maritime interdiction action beyond these confines. On the other side, suggestions of overly broad interdiction possibilities also repeatedly surface. As such, both sides fuel concerns that legal norms will be sacrificed for the objective of countering proliferation and terrorist threats by sea. This article addresses such suggestions by analysing the current scope of maritime interdiction possibilities in international law and considering the extent to which State practice may reflect action and policy in conformity with the international legal framework. The article concludes that the present state of affairs and the ongoing developments involving maritime interdiction of WMD reflect the international law process of constant adjustment by which the essential economic, navigational and security interests that are at stake are held in balance.

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 7000 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.

*** For the period covered updated by research associates R. Rootert and M. Simmer.

This survey is intended to provide information for international lawyers, both in the Netherlands and abroad, on literature on Dutch State practice in the field of public international law published in and outside the Netherlands mainly by Dutch authors. A few articles not meeting these criteria are also included.