While International Law becomes more and more specialized, a tendency towards Fragmentation becomes visible: more and more sub-regimes of International Law emerge, leading to an increased number of rules. With the creation of more sub-regimes, cases are becoming more likely in which more than one sub-regime is involved and the question arises, which sub-regime's rules take precedence. Recent examples for such collisions of regimes include the relation between Free Trade and the Protection of the Environment in the Yellowfin-Tuna Case between the United States and Mexico which was settled only in January 2002, the Tadic-Nicaragua Debate and the Swordfish Case between the European Community and Chile, including the need for some form of internal order or hierarchy within International Law.

Following the break-up of the USSR, the Ukrainian economy went into a lingering depression. In the last few years, however, its potential has been recovering: Ukraine is now one of the most successful of the former Soviet republics in attracting foreign investment. The main issue for a foreign investor is thus not whether to invest, but how best to enter the Ukrainian market.

After the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City, it was determined that some of the presumed perpetrators had lived in Germany where they had been studying technical subjects in particular. Public authorities supposed more potential assassins (so-called “sleepers”) were staying in Germany until they received an order to start their mission. In order to discover such persons, data screening was carried out in each federal state of Germany. In the course of it, all universities were obliged to hand over the data material concerning their enrolled students for data alignment by police authorities. Up until now, appeals of affected students against those measures have been successful in Hessen, Nordrhein-Westfalen and Berlin. Those events give reason for a critical reflection of the means of data screening by the police.

Almost exactly one year after the famous judgments of the Court of First Instance on the precautionary principle, the European Court of Justice (hereinafter “the Court”) has issued a preliminary ruling further exploring this concept. The ruling arose from a national dispute concerning a temporary ban on novel foods produced from genetically modified organisms (hereinafter “GMOs”). This recent Monsanto judgment is the first case in which the Court has directly invoked the precautionary principle regarding Member States’ power to adopt a provisional prohibition on the marketing of GMO-derived novel foods. Simultaneously, the Court lent an ear to the arguments of Monsanto by declaring the validity of the simplified procedure laid down in the novel foods Regulation 258/97 and based on the contentious concept of substantial equivalence. Thus, it seems to have favoured the free circulation in the Community market of novel foodstuffs notwithstanding the presence of residues of genetically modified (hereinafter “GM”) protein, on the condition that there is no risk to human health.

The European Union takes on a new look. The Constitutional Treaty, which was agreed by the heads of State or Government on 18 June 2004, will, admittedly, not reinvent Europe, but it will establish a new foundation for Europe. It is true that originally the Constitutional Treaty was only supposed to improve Europe's legal bases and to make the European idea and the institutions of the European Union more accessible to the citizens. However, through the concept of a Constitution alone, the Constitutional Treaty has created a vigorous political impulse, and has marked a new level of Europe's identity. The use of the term “Constitution,” however, also gives rise to ideas, hopes and fears that in some cases need to be corrected.

Almost 60 years after the surviving Nazi-leaders were tried in the first ever international criminal tribunal for mass atrocities during World War II in Nuremberg, criminal responsibility for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes is perceived of as somewhat normal. Even if it is not yet an everyday event that human rights abusers are tried on an international level, the reality of the possibility of such a trial is present in the minds of the attentive public. This change was achieved over the last ten years. The establishing of the Yugoslavia-tribunal in 1993 was the turning point. Since then a number of both national and international trials held against human rights criminals has given the topic high priority. Finally the International Criminal Court (ICC) was founded and after a comparatively short time actually established and put in a position to operate. Sierra Leone relies on criminal prosecution in order to rebuild its society after a distracted and bloody civil war and a trial against Saddam Hussein seems a necessity. Many expectations are connected to criminal law and the working of the ICC. The dream of a world-wide justice, i.e. to attribute “just desert” to the offenders and to do justice to the victims, seems to have become reality. At the same time the establishing of an international criminal court is understood as a signal that will deter future offenders from committing human rights atrocities. The paper of Alexandra Kemmerer gives proof of how optimistically the EU promotes the idea of international criminal justice.

From March 1997 until 5 June 2003, the Frankfurt Stock Exchange (Frankfurter Wertpapierbörse, FWB) maintained the “Neuer Markt“ as a segment of the over-the-counter-market for new economy/technology companies. The 50 “biggest” companies were admitted to the Neuer Markt Index (NEMAX50®) of Deutsche Börse AG, which is now only formally being continued, after termination of the Neuer Markt, until the end of 2004, and is already succeeded by the smaller TecDAX30®. Initially a success after rising some 500% from March 1997 to mid 2000, the Index dropped from over 9000 points to below 1000 points in March 2002, a loss of 90% or 200 billion Euros. The reasons for this development are manifold and not primarily to be found in the illegal behavior of the issuers or their officials. Still, legal proceedings concerning companies like Meta@box, EM.TV, Comroad, Biodata and Refugium uncovered that in many cases wrongful acts did occur, especially in the form of incorrect balance sheets and wrong or even fraudulent communication to the market. The three parallel cases the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH) had to consider, concerned one of these failing – and now insolvent -companies, Infomatec AG. In criminal proceedings the two executives (CEO and his deputy) of this company against whom the civil lawsuits had been filed, were convicted of insider trading and market manipulation. One criminal case is still on appeal. The findings of the criminal proceedings, however, were not relevant to the civil proceedings.

The doctrine of legitimate expectation was authoritatively accepted as part of South African administrative law in the landmark case of Administrator, Transvaal v Traub in 1989. In that case Chief Justice Corbett extended the scope of application of the rules of natural justice, specifically the audi principle, beyond the traditional “liberty, property and existing rights” formula to cases where something less than an existing right, a legitimate expectation, required a fair procedure to be followed. This acceptance followed the trend in other Commonwealth jurisdictions to extend the application of the rules of natural justice and hence afford greater procedural protection to individuals affected by administrative decisions. Although Chief Justice Corbett expressly stated that the content of the expectation may be substantive or procedural in nature, the protection of that expectation, if found to be legitimate, was exclusively procedural. Since the Traub decision, the doctrine of legitimate expectation has been deeply entrenched in South African administrative law to extend the scope of procedural rights afforded individuals affected by administrative action. It is now an established principle of South African administrative law that a person, who has a legitimate expectation, flowing from an express promise by an administrator or a regular administrative practice, has a right to be heard before administrative action affecting that expectation is taken. The doctrine, has however, by and large, remained one that provides procedural protection in South Africa. In a number of recent decisions by South African courts, ranging from the High Court to the Supreme Court of Appeal and the Constitutional Court, there have been increasing calls for the application of legitimate expectations beyond procedural claims.

I have read in the newspapers that foreign citizens, when travelling to the United States on a Visa, will undergo a data registration and have their fingerprints taken. Not willing to submit myself to this treatment, I decided therefore to cancel my guest lectures at New York University for March 2004. At this time, I would like to provide reasons for my decision – a decision that I find necessary and unavoidable in spite of my sympathies for American students and professors with whom I have for many years felt connected both in friendship and professional life. This is a decision that I would hope to be adopted also by other European Intellectuals and Teachers.

The outbreak of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (hereinafter BSE) in Europe has brought about serious tensions and fears – not only among consumers, but also among the national and European authorities responsible for risk management. Faced with the incapacity of the existing system to control the situation, on the one hand, and the need to restore consumers’ confidence on the other, the EU and national regulators felt obliged to repair the weaknesses as soon as possible. However, remedial actions undertaken at the time of the BSE crisis were not always the product of thorough consultations and they were often not well coordinated. Thus, they became a source of disagreement among the various actors in play. The case Commission v. France, which I will examine more closely in this paper, illustrates such a conflict among the national and European scientific authorities. The judgment was delivered in 2001, but the problem of the successful integration of science into the regulatory decision-making process of the EU still remains unsettled. In this paper I will present suggestions as to how the situation could be influenced by the outcomes of recent reforms of European food safety law and the establishment of the European Food Safety Authority.

“Those with a taste for fairy tales seem to have thought that in some Aladdin's cave there is hidden the Community law in its splendour and that on a judge's appointment there descends on him knowledge of the magic words Open Sesame. Bad decisions are given when the judge has muddled the password and the wrong door opens. But we do not believe in fairy tales any more.”

This year we celebrate a United States Supreme Court decision that marks the beginning of modern jurisdiction over constitutional questions: Marbury v. Madison. This is all the more remarkable since, when it was decided two hundred years ago in 1803, it was controversial and many still maintain it was wrongly decided. Chief Justice Marshall ruled on a dispute which he had earlier had a hand in causing, since the alleged legal error – the untimely delivery of a commission to Justice of the Peace Marbury – fell within his area of responsibility as Secretary of State. He dismissed the petition because the incorrect legal procedure had been chosen. However, he did not examine this question at the outset but – contrary to the accepted procedural rules of his time – at the end. This left room for a wide-ranging discussion of the right of judicial review, which was not required by law, and was, therefore, obiter dicta. Thomas Jefferson later referred to this discussion as the Chief Justice's “obiter dissertation.” Of course, Adams himself contended that the case turned on the judicial right of review, since this was a component of his argument that the petition should be dismissed.

The global effort to establish an effective system of international justice is at an important phase in its history. After close to 50 years of relative stagnation following the Nuremberg trials at the end of World War II, the field of international criminal law has been revitalised. The establishment of the International Criminal Court, the ad hoc tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda, “hybrid” or “internationalised” processes such as the Special Court in Sierra Leone, and national criminal justice systems exercising universal jurisdiction, have all lent substance and credibility to the assertion that the most grievous human rights crimes are subject to international scrutiny and legal action.

Germany was the first country to open trial against a person who has allegedly participated in the 9/11 terror attack in the US. Shortly after September 2001 intelligence services in- and outside Germany concentrated on Hamburg as one of the places where the pilots and their supporters planned the attack. The Maroccan national Mounir El Motassadeq was the first who was arrested and charged by the General Federal Prosecutor with (1) abbeting murder in 3066 cases and (2) with being a member of a terrorist organisation . The trial took place before the Oberlandesgericht (Upper Regional Court – OLG) in Hamburg, where the accused resided at that time. He was sentenced by this Court in first instance to 15 years imprisonment – the first conviction for the 9/11 attack. The accused nevertheless appealed to the Bundesgerichtshof – BGH, Federal Court of Justice, and his conviction was quashed and a re-trial ordered at the Court in Hamburg. In reaction to the BGH's decision Motassadeq was released from detention pending trial on 8 April 2004. The accused now awaits his re-trial on conditional bail.

In the early Nineties the Hague Conference on International Private Law on initiative of the United States started negotiations on a Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (the “Hague Convention“). In October 1999 the Special Commission on duty presented a preliminary text, which was drafted quite closely to the European Convention on Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (the “Brussels Convention“). The latter was concluded between the then 6 Member States of the EEC in Brussels in 1968 and amended several times on occasion of the entry of new Member States. In 2000, after the Treaty of Amsterdam altered the legal basis for judicial co-operation in civil matters in Europe, it was transformed into an EC Regulation (the “Brussels I Regulation”).

In April 2003 I commented on the European Commission's Action Plan on a More Coherent European Contract Law [COM(2003) 68 final] and the Green Paper on the Modernisation of the 1980 Rome Convention [COM(2002) 654 final]. While the main argument of that paper, i.e. the common neglect of the inherent interrelation between both the further harmonisation of substantive contract law by directives or through an optional European Civil Code on the one hand and the modernisation of conflict rules for consumer contracts in Art. 5 Rome Convention on the other hand, remain pressing issues, and as the German Law Journal continues its efforts in offering timely and critical analysis on consumer law issues, there is a variety of recent developments worth noting.

I have had the privilege of serving as part of the team from Debevoise & Plimpton LLP headed by Donald Francis Donovan.1 The Debevoise team worked in close collaboration with the Director of the Mexican Capital Legal Assistance Program, Sandra L. Babcock, and Mexican Ambassador Juan Manuel Gámez-Robledo and his foreign ministry staff to represent Mexico before the International Court of Justice.