March 2006 has been a black month for the UN tribunal authorities in The Hague. Not only has the nationalist Serb war criminal Milan Babić committed suicide in his prison cell, but the man against whom Babić testified in 2002, Slobodan Milošević – the first head of state to be indicted for war crimes – has also died. Milošević's trial was being seen as a crucial test of international law.

Judge Philippe Kirsch (Canada) is president of the International Criminal Court in The Hague and is assigned to its Appeals Division. He is a member of the bar of the province of Quebec and was appointed Queen's Counsel in 1988. In 1998, Judge Kirsch served as chairman of the Committee of the Whole of the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court (the Rome Conference). He was also chairman of the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court (1999–2002). Judge Kirsch has extensive experience in the development of international criminal law, with particular regard to issues related to terrorism. His experience in international humanitarian law includes serving as chairman of the Drafting Committee of the International Conference on the Protection of War Victims (1993), the Drafting Committee at the 26th and 27th International Conferences of the Red Cross and Red Crescent (1995, 1999) and related meetings. He also chaired the Canadian National Committee on Humanitarian Law (1998–9) and was a member of the Group of International Advisers to the International Committee of the Red Cross (2000–3).

Truth commissions, international criminal tribunals, reparations, public apologies and other mechanisms of transitional justice are the new mantras of the post-cold-war era. Their purpose is to foster reconciliation in societies that have experienced widespread human-rights violations and to promote reform and democracy, the ultimate aim being to defuse tension. But to what degree are these mechanisms, which are financially and politically supported by the international community and NGOs, truly effective? Very little, in fact, is known about their impact. By examining the underlying hypotheses and workings of transitional justice and proposing a series of indicators to evaluate its results, this article helps to fill the gap.

The proliferation of judicial bodies is of particular prevalence in the field of international criminal law, where, despite the creation of an operational International Criminal Court, the political or factual exigencies of different situations have led to the establishment of specific criminal justice systems. The object of this synopsis is to study their variety and to sketch out the differences and similarities between existing international and internationalized criminal tribunals. The complexity and the sheer illimitable amount of information necessitated a condensed and synthesized visualization.

International humanitarian law is the branch of customary and treaty-based international positive law whose purposes are to limit the methods and means of warfare and to protect the victims of armed conflicts. Grave breaches of its rules constitute war crimes for which individuals may be held directly accountable and which it is up to sovereign states to prosecute. However, should a state not wish to, or not be in a position to, prosecute, the crimes can be tried by international criminal tribunals instituted by treaty or by binding decision of the United Nations Security Council. This brief description of the current legal and political situation reflects the state of the law at the dawn of the twenty-first century. It does not, however, describe the work of a single day or the fruit of a single endeavour. Quite the contrary, it is the outcome of the international community's growing awareness, in the face of the horrors of war and the indescribable suffering inflicted on humanity throughout the ages, that there must be limits to violence and that those limits must be established by the law and those responsible punished so as to discourage future perpetrators from exceeding them.

Before the International Criminal Court (ICC) came into being, world public attention was focused on issues such as the significance of the Court's establishment, the importance of implementing international criminal justice and the time when the Rome Statute could enter into force. Once the Court was established, attention naturally turned to practical issues, such as whether it would be able to operate normally and perform its historic mission. The question of whether the ICC can operate effectively and perform its mission largely depends on the scope and degree of co-operation provided to it by states. This co-operation concerns not only states party to the ICC but also non-party states. This article offers to explore the obligation of non-party states to co-operate under international law, the prospects of their co-operation and the legal consequences of non-co-operation. The author suggests that beyond the general principle of the law of treaties according to which treaties are binding only on states parties, when viewed in the light of other general principles of international law, co-operation with the ICC is no longer voluntary in nature, but is instead obligatory in the sense of customary international law. Therefore, while a state may not have acceded to the ICC, it may still be subject to an obligation to co-operate with it in certain cases.

Whilst the African continent has been beset with many of the modern- day conflicts, and with them violations of international humanitarian law, through the work of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, the Special Court for Sierra Leone and the International Criminal Court, African states have demonstrated their intent to hold accountable the perpetrators of the gravest international crimes. By the end of 2005, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda celebrated its eleventh year, the Special Court for Sierra Leone will have completed its fourth year and the International Criminal Court will be more than three and a half years old. As the present review of their activities shows, the delivery of justice through international jurisdictions is a complex and often time-consuming process.

Although much has been said and written about the creation of the international criminal tribunals and their contribution to the development of international humanitarian law, there have been very few studies of the international prosecutor per se. In this article the author briefly surveys recent developments in the international criminal justice institutions, focusing particularly on the limits recently imposed on the discretionary powers of international prosecutors.

This article analyses problems with which the Republic of Croatia, as a country in transition, has to contend during war crimes proceedings. A major characteristic of the recent wars waged on the territory of the former Yugoslavia is that war crimes were committed, though on a different scale, by all parties involved, irrespective of the political and other motives that prompted them to engage in armed conflict. Political unwillingness is the principal reason why national courts, including those in the Republic of Croatia, did not prosecute war crimes in accordance with internationally acceptable standards. The international community responded by setting up the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the main objectives of which are to establish justice, render justice to victims and determine the historical truth. Implicitly, despite political and other opposition to its work, the ICTY is helping to define legal and ethical standards appropriate for a democratic society in the countries established on the territory of the former Yugoslavia. This is particularly important for the reason that all these countries aspire to membership of the European Union. The work of the ICTY, as well as proceedings before domestic courts, is therefore an important legal, political and moral catalyst on their way towards accession to the European Union. This is fully confirmed by the example of the Republic of Croatia.

This article looks at the role of humanitarian organizations in the context of judicial procedures in a global environment which was modified by the establishment of international criminal courts. It shows the struggles and tensions that humanitarian organizations face when, on the one hand, they bring assistance and protection to victims of armed conflicts and other situations of violence and, on the other hand, they contribute to the fight against impunity in cases of grave violations of international humanitarian law. The author suggests some elements of an operational framework which should contribute to the achievement of these difficult-to-reconcile objectives.

On 12 and 13 September 2005, Switzerland opened informal consultations on the holding of a diplomatic conference necessary for the adoption of a Third Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions on the Emblem in which all States party to the Geneva Conventions were invited to take part.

A. Legislation

Afghanistan

A. Legislation. Afghanistan. The Order of the Minister of National Defence on the Establishment of a Board of Curriculum on [the integration of] the International Law of Armed Conflict into the Educational and Training Institutions of the National Armed Forces, as well as National Army Units was adopted in July 2005. The Order nominates the members of the Board and defines a number of duties and actions to be undertaken for the training and education of national armed forces in the law of armed conflict. These activities include in particular the preparation of teaching materials, the appointment of instructors, and the proposed establishment of a legal department within the education and training institutions of the Ministry of Defence.