This article appraises the impact of the Advisory Opinion of 7 July 2004 on the development of self-determination as a legal principle. The plight of the Palestinians being widely understood as a textbook self-determination struggle, the Court had to address the issue in its examination of the case at hand. Self-determination left an indelible mark upon the Opinion, from the decision to allow Palestine to participate, through the use of the principle as applicable law, to the elucidation of the violations and the erga omnes character of the obligations breached. The article examines the Court's positions, which, however sparsely elaborated, may have serious repercussions on the understanding of the principle and on its handling in future judicial proceedings.

The United States has entered into a fairly large number of bilateral agreements with states parties to the Rome Statute in order to prevent the exposure of US nationals to the jurisdiction of the ICC. Article 98 of the Rome Statute allows for such agreements and provides that the Court should yield to obligations which emerge from those agreements. The author, however, argues that the current scope of these agreements, covering all US nationals, is too wide. They should rather take as a point of departure the status of forces agreements, which envisage primary jurisdiction for the sending state, in case of military service personnel and personnel of peacekeeping operations. In their present form, the bilateral agreements compel states parties to act in contravention of the object and purpose of the Statute.

The recent decision of the Appeals Chamber of the Special Court for Sierra Leone in Prosecutor v. Samuel Hinga Norman not only addresses the status of child recruitment as a war crime, but also provides an insight into how international criminal tribunals determine what conduct is criminal in international law. However, the authority of the decision is weakened by the unconvincing evidence relied upon by the Appeal Chamber in coming to its conclusions and by a strong dissent from Justice Robertson. The decision's faults, however, merely reflect problems in the process whereby violations of international humanitarian law are criminalized.

The chamber of the ICJ entrusted with solving the Benin–Niger dispute based its judgment on the colonial heritage left to the two countries at the time of their independence, as prescribed by the uti possidetis juris principle. The dispute actually stemmed from that heritage: the chamber's role was to interpret and clarify it. But while the uti possidetis juris principle underlines border stability, features such as river boundaries, because of their intrinsic movable nature, can put this stability under intense strain. The judgment lends itself to further reflections on this dichotomy, since the disputed areas revolved around two rivers.

On 31 May 2004, the Appeals Chamber of the Special Court for Sierra Leone ruled in a sweeping but brief decision that the Court had jurisdiction over Charles Ghankay Taylor, President of Liberia at the time of his indictment. The judges reached this conclusion finding that the accused could not invoke immunities ratione personae before this institution, an international criminal court. As this article demonstrates, the Chamber's argumentation lacks specificity and displays confusion over certain issues related to UN law, the law of international institutions and international immunities. The factual outcome is a welcome one, facilitating the prosecution of international crimes. Yet, the Appeals Chamber's approach is regrettable, especially if one considers that the same result could have been reached through less controversial avenues, without endangering the credibility of the Court and thereby the idea of international criminal justice through internationalized criminal courts.

This article offers an analytical overview of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the establishment of an African human rights court, which entered into force in January 2004. The article seeks to answer the questions of whether and, if so, to what extent the Protocol strengthens the African human rights protection system.

Commonly accepted distinctions between state and individual responsibility have created a conceptual chasm between the two sets of legal rules, which is in turn reinforced by different underlying theoretical conceptions of the international system. As a result of this conceptual chasm, current understandings of responsibility fail to describe adequately either the sources of harm to individuals or groups within states, or the changing relationships between individuals, non-state groups, and states. The doctrine of superior responsibility, however, offers the possibility for reconciliation of state and individual responsibility rules, by providing a theoretical basis and a practical method of developing understandings of liability for breaches of fundamental norms that more accurately reflect the channels of responsibility in contemporary conflict situations.

In its judgment issued on 17 January 2005, in Prosecutor v. Vidoje Blagojević and Dragan Jokić, Trial Chamber I, Section A, found that genocide had been committed against the Bosnian Muslim population following the fall of the Srebrenica ‘safe area’ in July 1995. The Trial Chamber's findings that forcible transfer, when combined with other acts, can constitute an underlying act of genocide (namely, causing serious mental harm to members of a group) contributes to a growing body of jurisprudence on genocide. The Trial Chamber found the accused guilty of such serious crimes as complicity in genocide, extermination, persecutions and murder. It determined that the appropriate mode of liability for each was aiding and abetting rather than committing through participation in a joint criminal enterprise, Accordingly the Trial Chamber sentenced Vidoje Blagojević to 18 years' imprisonment and Dragan Jokić to nine years' imprisonment.

This article discusses the possibility of the International Criminal Court's taking domestic investigations and prosecutions of crimes within its jurisdiction where states are unwilling genuinely to investigate or prosecute such crimes. In particular sustaining the admissibility of a case on the basis of the lack of impartiality or independence of national proceedings is subject to analysis. Whereas the lack of this due process guarantee is expressly considered in the Rome Statute as a ground for admissibility where it is meant to shield a person from criminal responsibility, it is not equally clear that a case can be declared admissible where domestic proceedings are or were unfairly conducted to the prejudice of the person concerned. On an analysis of the wording of the Statute, its object and purpose, and its ‘preparatory works’, the possibility of the Court's taking on domestic proceedings on the basis of their being intentionally unfair to the prejudice of a suspect or accused does not appear to have a strong legal basis. However, recent developments at the ICTY and the ICTR show the importance of such a possibility to the fulfilment of the mission entrusted to the ad hoc tribunals. This circumstance brings about crucial questions about the role of the International Criminal Court in the enforcement of international justice and its contribution to international peace and security.

Books and Articles in the Field of the Prevention and Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes (Winter 2004–05) Compiled by Ingrid Kost exclusively from materials available in the Peace Palace Library, The Hague

In seeking to define torture in international humanitarian law, the ICTY and ICTR have turned to the definition of torture contained in the UN Convention against Torture for guidance. The Convention definition contains a requirement that the actor be a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. The ad hoc tribunals have put forward various views as to whether this is an element of the definition of torture in international humanitarian law. This article examines these views. Potentially more significant are the pronouncements of the tribunals on the actor element of the definition of torture in international human rights law. This article also explores these pronouncements. It compares them with the drafting history of the Convention against Torture and with the jurisprudence of the Committee against Torture, the European Court of Human Rights and the UN Human Rights Committee. It questions whether the approach of the ad hoc tribunals is part of a trend towards a wider reading of ‘the actor’ in international human rights law.

The first Telders Competition was organized in 1977 on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the Telders International Law Students' Debating Society. Student teams from the universities of Bonn, Cologne, Strasbourg, and Leiden participated. It was so successful that the competition has been held annually ever since. Nowadays it is considered to be the most prestigious and important international moot court competition in Europe. Teams from more than 40 universities compete in the national rounds, with 22 to 25 teams from as many European countries participating in the international rounds held in the Peace Palace in The Hague.

This article asserts the emergence of multi-level global governance through an analysis of the relationship between the International Criminal Court and the Democratic Republic of Congo. The article suggests a far deeper set of influences than previously anticipated, presenting research on how the ICC is directly influencing Congolese domestic politics and how some actors within the Congo are seeking to manipulate the Court for their own political benefit. Further, the article considers the self-referral by the Congolese government, the early impact of complementarity, and efforts at judicial reform in the Congo. In the process the article develops a set of criteria to evaluate the ‘total or substantial collapse’ provisions of the complementarity regime.

Books and Articles in the Field of the Prevention and Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes (Autumn 2004) Compiled exclusively from materials available in the Peace Palace Libray, the Hague, by Ingrid KostConservator, Peace Palace Library, the Hague.

The report of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur, set up pursuant to a UN Security Council resolution, is an important contribution to the evolving law of genocide. The Commission concluded that genocide had not been committed, but that the case should be referred to the International Criminal Court for prosecution as crimes against humanity and war crimes. The Commission did not find significant evidence of genocidal intent. It looked essentially for a plan or policy of the Sudanese state and, in its absence, concluded that genocide was not being committed. The Commission endorsed the ‘stable and permanent groups’ approach taken by one trial chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). On this point, it exaggerated the acceptance of this interpretation, which has been ignored by other trial chambers of the international tribunals. However, the Commission found that the better approach to determination of the groups covered by the Convention is subjective, and that the targeted tribes in Darfur meet this criterion.

Faced with increasing expectations and demands on the new International Criminal Court, the process of preparing its budget for 2005 presented significant challenges to the Court, the Committee on Budget and Finance and the Assembly of States Parties. This article focuses on the major challenges and examines the decisions taken by the Assembly. In particular, it looks at budgetary matters relating to the independence of the Prosecutor and decisions that could undermine it. Furthermore, with planned progress towards the first trials it focuses on key areas of the Court's work, including outreach, victim protection and field presence, that are in danger of being compromised through under-investment.

In early 2005 a Consultative Board presented a report (the Sutherland Report) on the functioning of the WTO and means to improve its efficiency. The author summarizes the Board's key findings and reflects on its main recommendations. The Board discusses sovereignty and globalization in the context of the world trading system. In addition it finds that the WTO needs to reconsider its institutional framework and some concepts underlying the organization. The Board particularly urges the WTO to address the erosion of the most-favoured-nation treatment through the proliferation of the preferential trade agreements. Transparency and civil society, dispute settlement, decision-making, efficiency, and the role of the Director-General and the secretariat are also discussed. The author concludes that the Board focuses on economic consequences of trade liberalization but fails to address the harmful effects of globalization. He agrees with the Board that institutional reform is required, but concludes that it would have been helpful if the Board had offered clearer direction on how to improve the decision-making process.