The Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, agreed in Brussels on 27 September 1968 (and generally referred to as the Brussels Convention), has been part of English law since the coming into force of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982.1 The Convention now dominates the law of jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters as well as the law governing the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.

The Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) has become one of the better-known environmental treaties, partly as a result of the considerable attention it received in connection with the restrictions it imposed on the ivory trade. Despite its successes, however, the text of the treaty has not kept pace with developments since it was first approved in 1973. It remains, for instance, an environmental treaty with some of the characteristics of a trade treaty, drafted as if it were to operate in a hostile world of non-parties. Instead, in contrast, it has been signed by 128 parties1 and functions at a time when public and political concern about the environment has never been greater.

Dusko Tadić is a Bosnian Serb. He is the first defendant of whom the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia (the “Tribunal”) obtained custody, following his transfer to the Tribunal at its request from Germany. Tadić had been arrested there and investigations had begun into his involvement in offences in Yugoslavia. These enquiries were discontinued at the request of the Tribunal.1

In 1976 the United Kingdom ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and extended it to Hong Kong. Under the Covenant the United Kingdom assumed an obligation to submit periodic reports to the Human Rights Committee on the measures it has adopted to give effect to the rights recognised by the Covenant and on the progress made in the enjoyment of these rights.1 The United Kingdom has submitted four periodic reports on Hong Kong, in 1978,2 1988,3 19914 and 1995.5

The Security Council established the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (the Tribunal) by Resolution 827.1 It “determined” that the widespread and flagrant violations of international humanitarian law in the territory of the former Yugoslavia constituted a threat to international peace and security. Resolution 827 is a Chapter VII resolution. The Council “decided” that all States shall co-operate fully with the Tribunal and its organs and that they shall “take any measures necessary under their domestic law” to give effect to the resolution and obligations which arose under the Statute of the Tribunal.

Human rights violations committed against women have become an increasingly high priority on the international agenda.1 Rape, “honour killings.”, bride-burning, genital mutilation, forced sterilisation, forced abortion, domestic violence are all acts of violence regularly committed against women. What makes women the target of such acts is primarily if not exclusively their sex. Membership of the female sex is what creates the risk. Women have been afforded minimal redress in international fora and this has been particularly true within the context of refugee determination. Women and children make up the majority of the world's refugee population2 yet, because of their comparative lack of mobility, the refugee jurisprudence which has evolved has been based primarily on the experiences of men. However, women often fear persecution for reasons different from men, and when they do fear persecution for the same reason as men they often experience the persecution differently. There is evidence that contemporary refugee law is becoming gender sensitive. In March 1993 the Guidelines on Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution were issued by the Chairperson of the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board.3 The Guidelines were novel in that their promulgation made Canada the first country to recognise formally that cognisance should be given to claims by refugee applicants of alleged genderrelated persecution. This short article will identify the raison d'être of the Guidelines, articulate their principal characteristics and assess their impact both within Canada and beyond.

In the negotiations for the Treaty on European Union,1 “subsidiarity” assumed central importance. This was the first time that the term was expressly incorporated with general effect into the Treaty.2 The principal provision3 is Article 3b, which reads:

The Community shall act within the limits of the powers conferred upon it by this Treaty and of the objectives assigned to it therein.

In areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Community shall take action, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, only4 if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved by the Community.

Any action by the Community shall not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives of this Treaty.

The European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement signed in May 1992 between the European Free Trade Area (EFTA) States, the European Community (EC) and the EC member States' seeks to establish “a dynamic and homogeneous” area by extending provisions which apply within the European Community to the EEA.2 The first decision of the EFTA Court,3 interpreting the EEA Agreement to determine its application within the legal orders of the EFTA States, concerned the Finnish alcohol monopoly. The Restamark decision was awaited with great interest to know to what extent the EFTA Court would follow the European Court of Justice's interpretation of the EC Treaty in order to achieve the aims of the EEA Agreement.

The object of this short note is to draw attention to a decision of the Special Commissioners of Inland Revenue (the Commissioners) which deals with the liability for income tax of officials of an unrecognised State.1 Section 321 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (the Taxes Act) provides exemption from liability for income tax for foreign consuls in the United Kingdom and for “an official agent in the United Kingdom for any foreign state, not being … a Commonwealth citizen”. An “official agent” is a person, other than a consul, “who is employed on the staff of any consulate, official department or agency of a foreign state”.

The conclusion of the Uruguay Round and the establishment of the World Trade Organisation raised one of the most touchy issues of the European architecture, notably the division of powers between the Community and the member States in the field of international economic relations. The dispute was settled by the European Court of Justice in Opinion 1/94, which was delivered on 15 November 1994.1 Although more than a year has passed since its publication, there are still a number of good reasons to explore the findings of the Court in Opinion 1/94 from the point of view of the Community constitution.

The European Court's efforts to locate the outer limits of Article 30's control of national measures have been discussed before in these surveys of current developments in EC law.1 The Court was tempted to use Article 30 to catch a wide range of measures that affected trade even where the rules applied in an even-handed manner to all traders. The most notable example of this expansionist trend was found in the so-called Sunday trading cases, in which Article 30 was exploited to challenge rules restricting commercial activity in England and Wales even though the rules did not put cross-border strategies at any particular disadvantage. The Court pursued an erratic course before finally ruling the laws compatible with Article 30.2 Academic comment, though nuanced in its detailed appreciation of the Court's stance, was largely convinced that Article 30 had been extended beyond both its intent and necessary function in the process of market integration.3

On 4 August 1995 the UN Conference on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, at its sixth session, adopted without a vote the text of the Agreement for the Implementation of the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks.1 The title is often shortened to “the Straddling Stocks Agreement”. To date, the Agreement has been signed by 29 States.2 It marks a significant clarification and development in the rules of international law relating to fishing on the high seas, within the framework of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

The arrival of Neil Kinnock, in January 1995, as the new Commissioner in charge of the transport portfolio, has led to particular emphasis on three objectives: improvement of the quality of the European transport system; integration of the transport policy into the single market; and negotiations with non-Community countries.1 During the last 18 months, the main legal developments continue to be concerned primarily with infrastructure, safety, negotiations with non-Community countries and improving the competitiveness of the industry by adopting liberalising measures and enforcing the EC competition rules.

The enlargement of the European Union from 1 January 1995 by the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden inevitably necessitated amendments to much Community legislation.1

The government's decision, announced on 22 October 1993, to ratify the 1977 Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 as soon as amendments to the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 could be made led to a race to pass the bill through all its stages in both Houses before 4 December 1995.1 This was the date of the International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent held in Geneva and it was argued in the House of Lords that the British Red Cross should be able to attend the conference and to say that the necessary domestic legislation had been passed to enable ratification to take place. The bill had started its life in the House of Lords and had received its second reading only on 25 May 1995. It was, in fact, given the royal assent on 19 July 1995.

In the period covered by this note (early 1994 to the middle of 1995) some signifi cant and interesting judgments have been handed down by the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance on both substantive and procedural issues of competition law, in particular that of the Court of Justice in the Magill case, which deals with the relationship between Article 86 and intellectual property rights. In the legislative field there is now a group exemption on the operation of liner transport services. As regards general problems of enforcement, the Commission's 1993 Notice on Co-operation between National Courts and the Commission1 has provoked a good deal of discussion and a number of commentators and also the Commission itself are now advocating sharing responsibility for enforcement with national competition authorities rather than relying on the direct effect of Articles 85(1) and 86 being invoked before national courts.2