Recalling its resolution 49/60 of 9 December 1994, by which it adopted the Declaration on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism, and its resolution 51/210 of 17 December 1996,

Having considered the text of the draft convention for the suppression of terrorist bombings prepared by the Ad Hoc Committee established by General Assembly resolution 51/210 of 17 December 1996 1/ and the Working Group of the Sixth Committee, 2/

Delgamuukw v. B.C. is a pivotal decision in the evolution of Canadian law on Aboriginal rights.Numerous meetings, round-tables, workshops and conferences have been held to discuss its potential impact on litigation and negotiation.1 Delgamuukw has also served as a vehicle for discussion of more fundamental issues such as the appropriateness of selecting the judicial forum to resolve Aboriginal title claims and the role of legal reasoning in furthering the process of colonization.2 Given the influence of British colonial law on the development of Aboriginal rights jurisprudence in former British colonies and the restrictions placed by evidentiary presumptions originating in English courts, Delgamuukw may also have persuasive precedential value outside of Canada. In particular, the Supreme Court's elaboration of the concept of Aboriginal rights and its discussion of the weight to be given to oral histories may influence other commonwealth courts which face the demanding task of accommodating the rights of colonized peoples within a contemporary political and legal rights regime.3

Our consideration of these questions of dominion and authority has its genesis in a personal tragedy. On January 14, 1986, Christine Gilham was fatally injured when the car in which she was a passenger struck a permanently anchored highway sign at the intersection of U.S. Highways 2 and 89 within the external boundaries of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation, located in the State of Montana. Toni Gilham (“Gilham”), Christine's mother, brought an action against the driver of the car, who was intoxicated at the time of the accident, and the State of Montana (“Montana”) in the Blackfeet Tribal Court. She alleged that Montana was negligent in its design, construction, and maintenance of the intersection.

[The highest Greek court ruled that the Greece Catholic Church (church) has no legal personality to bring legal proceedings to protect its property rights; the European Court of Human Rights (Court) concludes that such denial of access to a court violates the Convention and that the church has claimed reasonable damages resulting from its inability to bring proceedings concerning the rebuilding of a surrounding wall]

[Proceedings were instituted by an agent of the St. Vincent and the Grenadines on 13 November 1997; the dispute concerns the prompt release of the M/V “Saiga” and its crew; written submissions; hearings were held on 26 & 27 November 1997; names of,representatives and witnesses]

Pending before the Court is a request by the United States (the Government) for this Court to authorize the surrender of Elizaphan Ntakirutimana (the Extraditee) to the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsiblefor Genocide and Other Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of Rwanda and Rwandan Citizens Responsible for Genocide or Other Such Violations Committed in the Territory of Neighboring States (the Tribunal).For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES this request and ORDERS the immediate release of the Extradit

Weaknesses in the banking system of a country, whether developing or developed, can threaten financial stability both within that country and internationally. The need to improve the strength of financial systems hasattracted growing international concern. The Communique issued at the close of the Lyon G-7 Summit in June 1996 called for action in this domain. Several official bodies, including the Basle Committee on Banking Supervision, the Bank for International Settlements, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, have recently been examining ways to strengthen financial stability throughout the world.

[Deciding to reinforce the protection of human rights; calling for the universal abolition of the death penalty; citing special concern in the areas of torture, racism, xenophobia,antisemitism, intolerance, the representation of women in all sectors of society; national minorities, common legal standards throughout Europe, social cohesion, refugees and asylum seekers, victims of conflicts, migrant workers, terrorism, drug trafficking, children, violence against women, the quality of life in disadvantaged areas, culture and education, European cultural and natural heritage, right to information, respect for private life, and social integration]

State responsibility has been on the agenda of the International Law Commission since its earliest days. Nearly fifty years ago, in 1949, the Commission identified state responsibility as one of fourteen topics in international law ready for codification. Only in 1956, however, did the Commission, with F.V. Garcia Amador as special rapporteur, begin in earnest its state responsibility codification project. Garcia Amador, whose work focused on the responsibility of states toward aliens on their territory, submitted a number of reports through 1961, but limited discussion was devoted to the topic. A review of the early history of the Commission's state responsibility project, as well as other efforts at codification of this area of law, may be found in the ILC's 1969 Yearbook

The United States agrees with the Commission that a statement of the law of state responsibility must provide guidance to states with respect to the following questions:When does an act of a state entail international responsibility? What actions are attributable to the state? What consequences flow from a state'sviolation of its international responsibility? Customary international law provides answers to these questions, but the Commission has in many instances not codified such norms but rather proposed new substantive rules. In particular, the sections on countermeasures, crimes, dispute settlement, and state injury contain provisions that are not supported by customary international law.

[Promulgating the annexed Code of Conduct]

[Done in English and French, the English being authoritative]

[Dated 12 June 1997 at The Hague]

Considering Rules 44 to 46 of the Rules of Procedure of Evidence (“the Rules”) concerning Counsel, which confer on the Registrar the responsibility for ensuring that only Counsel who are qualified to do so appear before the Tribunal,