Unless the law is enforced, it cannot command respect. Securing proper observance and protection of Community rights has long been recognized to be a fundamental challenge for the Community. The burden falls principally to the national courts, guided by the European Court of Justice. However, the guidance offered appears at times at variance with itself. It seems in particular that, in some instances, the obligation of result laid down in directives simply cannot be achieved. This article looks at the case law on remedies developed by the European Court, seeks to identify inconsistencies therein and suggests how they might be cured.

It is submitted in this article that transfrontier agreements (of a publiclaw character) between decentralized authorities can be considered as a kind of international administrative agreements. After investigation of the power to conclude international (administrative) agreements and their (assumed) binding legal force in public international law, the article concludes that transfrontier agreements between decentralized authorities are in principle of a national and not of an international public law character. This article is also focussed on (overall) legal bases for transfrontier cooperation between decentralized authorities. In this respect the European Outline Convention on Transfrontier Cooperation Between Territorial Communities or Authorities is important and will be discussed. The purpose of this convention, in force in several European states, is to provide a legal basis for transfrontier cooperation (of a public law character) between decentralized authorities. However in this matter states still consider additional norms necessary. In this respect two additional treaties have been concluded and will be discussed. The article concludes that these treaties not really are overall legal bases for the conclusion of transfrontier agreements between decentralized authorities.

Article 238 EEC-Treaty lays down the external communal competence to conclude association agreements with a third state, a union of states or an international organisation. Before the proclamation ofthe ‘Global Mediterranean Policy’ in 1972, the Community entered in a variety of associations and trade agreements with most states bordering the Mediterranean.The agreements concluded after 1972 with the Maghreb, the Mashrak, Israel and Yugoslavia and supplemented with Turkey, Malta and Cyprus contain corresponding provisions regarding the objectives of the agreement, trade cooperation, economical, technical and financial cooperation and -if necessary- cooperation in the field of labour. They also lay down the competentions of the institutions called into existence by the agreements. From the negotiation to the implementation of the agreements, protocols and decisions, many formal and material juridical questions can be raised.

The terminology regarding remedies in the field of international responsibility is far from uniform, either in literature, as well as in case law, diplomatic practice etc.. This state of affairs is bound to have its impact on the codification of state responsibility by the International Law Commission. Was this ‘terminology-problem’ tackled by the International Law Commission and its Special Rapporteurs?

On December 7, 1975 Indonesian forces invaded the territory of East Timor, a Portuguese colony for some four and a half centuries. Following the 1974 Portuguese revolution, East Timor, like other Portuguese non-self-governing territories had been going through a process of self determination. Portuguese authorities evacuated the territory in August 1975 during civil disorders, condoned if not fomented by the Indonesians. The Frente Revolucianaria de Timor Leste Independente (FRETILIN), a popular group which aimed at independence for the territory after a short transitional period, gained the upper hand. It declared independence on November 28, 1975, hoping this would strengthen its hand in dealing with Indonesian border incursions. A full-scale Indonesian invasion followed.

Especially as a consequence of the termination of the Cold War, the détente in the relations between East en West (Gorbachev's ‘new thinking’ in foreign policy matters) and, finally, the disappearance of the Soviet Union, the number of UN peace-keeping operations substantially increased in recent years. One could even speak of a ‘proliferation’. Until 1988 the number of operations was twelve (seven peace-keeping forces: UNEF ‘I’ and ‘II’, ONUC, UNHCYP, UNSF (West New Guinea), UNDOF AND UNIFIL; and five military observer missions: UNTSO, UNMOGIP, UNOGIL, UNYOM and UNIPOM). Now, three forces and seven observer missions can be added. The forces are MINURSO (West Sahara), UNTAC (Cambodia) and UNPROFOR (Yugoslavia); the observer groups: UNGOMAP (Afghanistan/Pakistan), UNIIMOG (Iran/Iraq), UNAVEM ‘I’ and ‘II’ (Angola), ONUCA (Central America), UNIKOM (Iraq/Kuwait) and ONUSAL (El Salvador). UNTAG (Namibia), which was established in 1978, could not become operational until 1989 as a result of the new political circumstances in the world. So, a total of twenty-three operations have been undertaken, of which almost fifty percent was established in the last five years, whereas the other half was the result of decisions taken by the United Nations in the preceding forty years (UNTSO dates back to 1949). In the meantime, some ‘classic’ operations are being continued (UNTSO, UNMOGIP, UNFICYP, UNDOF, and UNIFIL), whereas some ‘modern’ operations already have been terminated as planned (UNTAG, UNGOMAP, UNIIMOG, UNAVEM ‘I’ and ‘II’, and ONUCA). At the moment (July 1992) eleven operations are in action – the greatest number in the UN history ever.

In the notes to the articles of the Leiden Journal of International Law, Vol.5, No.l, February '92, a serious computer error has crept in. All the letters ‘B’ were erroneously changed into an ‘F’.