The adoption of the Statute of an International Criminal Court in July 1998 is widely regarded as a major step forward in international criminal law. The United States, however, does not share this point of view in all respects. It particularly fears that the Statute will allow prosecution of American peacekeepers for political instead of legal reasons. This article examines the provisions of the Statute in the light of that fear. It concludes that not only is such a fear unjustified, the United States position may have disastrous consequences for efforts in peacekeeping.

This article considers the idea that the professional and intellectual disciplines which have developed in the United States to advance insight into international affairs also have characteristic blind spots and biases which leave professionals and intellectuals working within them more sanguine about the status quo than they might otherwise be. I am particularly interested in blind spots and bias which emerge from interactions among the disciplines of public international law, international economic law, comparative law, and international relations. Although internationalists in the United states working in these disciplines have broadly divergent methodologies and political ideologies, they share a sensibility which narrows the range of concerns and the scope of political possibilities which seem plausible to professionals and intellectuals concerned with international law and policy.

The GATT 1994 and the GATS contain separate multilateral rules on trade in goods and services. The question arises as to whether the GATT 1994 and the GATS are therefore mutually exclusive. This paper argues that the GATT 1994 and the GATS should be mutually exclusive in the application of their respective obligations to the specific aspects of any given measure. The paper offers a test, based on a similar test applied under EC law, to determine which of the agreements should apply to the specific aspects of any given measure where it appears to affect both trade in goods and services.

Central to this article is the evolution of the nature of the principle of self-determination. The main focus will be on the examination of a recent instance of state practice — the Northern Ireland Peace Agreement. In particular, the way in which the Northern Ireland Peace Agreement has given effect to the primary elements of self-determination, including democratic self-government, the protection of human rights, and the protection of minority rights will be discussed.

The Rundu – Grootfontein Project, a project by which Namibia wants to divert waters of the Okavango river, may significantly affect the flow of that river through Botswana. The present paper discusses and tests rules of global and regional international watercourse law as to their applicability to the problems posed by the project. In this respect the UN Framework Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses, as well as the Southern African Development Community Protocol on Shared Watercourses form the main focal point.

On 8 July 1991, Qatar filed an application instituting proceedings against Bahrain in respect of certain disputes between the two states relating to sovereignty over the Hawar Islands, sovereign rights over the shoals of Dibal and Qit'at Jaradah, and the delimitation of the maritime areas of the two states.

The provisions of the ICJ Rules of Court concerning counter-claims have fallen to be applied in two recent cases, in circumstances such the Court has had to examine the nature of a counter-claim and the conditions for its admission as such, and in particular the nature of the ‘direct connection’ with the subject-matter of the application, required by the Rules. In each case the counter-claim was admitted, over the dissent of some judges: these decisions are probably justified, even though some aspects of the reasoning may be criticised.

In the Preliminary Objections phase of this case the Court followed its previous jurisprudence based on the Right of Passage Over Indian Territory case (1957) concerning the operation of Article 36(2) of its Statute. It is argued here that there were compelling reasons why the Court should have reassessed this jurisprudence. The implications of the Right of Passage doctrine for the operation of Article 36(2) and the role of the Court in international affairs are also discussed.

By decision of the Judges at the Nineteenth plenary session of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) one new rule was adopted and 16 rules of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence were amended. The new rule concerns affidavit evidence. The rule regarding amendments of the rules was changed so that an amendment shall enter into force seven days after the day of issue of an official Tribunal document containing the amendment, instead of immediately after the issuance. The rules on contempt of the Tribunal and false testimony under solemn declaration were made stricter as they were both amended to allow for a Chamber to impose substantially longer terms of imprisonment on persons who have been found guilty of such offences.

Dražen Erdemović was one of the first people to appear in proceedings before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, as a potential witness in the Rule 61 proceedings against Radovan Karadžić and Ratko Mladić. The proceedings involving his own actions have now been completed. The case of Dražen Erdemović opened a Pandora's box of complex legal and moral issues. In this article, the ground-breaking case is examined in its entirety, with an emphasis on the novel issues that arose at each stage. It provides an overview of the procedural and substantive issues, and considers the implications that the case has had upon the development of international law and the proceedings at the International Tribunal. Finally, this article considers the case of Dražen Erdemović in the context of the International Tribunal's mandate to bring peace and reconciliation to the former Yugoslavia.