The Netherlands has traditionally supported a three-mile limit for the breadth of the territorial sea. Even when, especially after the Second World War, a large number of states laid claim to territorial sea limits exceeding three miles, the Netherlands continued to adhere to the position that any unilateral extension of the territorial sea to twelve miles or more was inconsistent with international law. This position, which was defended both before and during the First and Second United Nations Conferences on the Law of the Sea (1958 and 1960), was consistent with the dominant Dutch interest at that time, viz., keeping the breadth of the territorial sea to a minimum, with as few exclusive fishing rights as possible beyond this limit.

Despite almost universal recognition within the international community of the importance of international environmental law, many complex issues continue to elude an appropriate legal response. A particularly controversial issue – and one that is proving increasingly difficult to resolve – is the question of how to reconcile the principle of environmental protection with that of free trade. Moreover, despite such positive platitudes as that contained within the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, nation states are quickly discovering that the issue is not simply one of abstract interest, but is actually beginning to influence both their domestic and international regulatory behaviour. This article seeks to present a broad overview of this issue as it relates to the European Union (EU) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). In particular, the article will critically discuss some of the more recent jurisprudence on this issue arising from these two, very different, ‘groupings’ of states. As will be noted, there are important similarities and differences between each ‘grouping’ in terms of its approach. And, of course, whilst it is acknowledged that many of these differences can be resolved by reference to the different aims and objectives of the different ‘groupings’, nevertheless, this article will try to move beyond a strictly comparative approach of the issues, and place them in a broader analytical framework. This is not an attempt to show which approach is ‘best’, but rather, to highlight the tensions between environmental protection and free trade.

This Special Issue is devoted to the commemoration of the 100th anniversary of the Second Hague Peace Conference of 1907. The First Hague Peace Conference took place in 1899, upon the initiative of the Russian czar Nicolas II. Its purpose was to elaborate instruments for the peaceful settlement of future serious international disputes, for the prevention of wars and undue increases of military budgets, and for the codification of the rules of warfare. Twenty-six states participated in the 1899 Hague Peace Conference, and it resulted in three main conventions and three declarations relating to the restriction of armaments, the prohibition of the use of certain weapons, the peaceful settlement of international disputes and the laws and customs of war.

Federalism is a form of governmental organisation whose origins may be traced to antiquity. However, the establishment of the United States as a federation during the late 18th century led to renewed interest in federal government, which has continued undiminished to the present day. As a measure of the significance of federalism, in 1987 it was estimated that some 40 per cent of the world's population lived in States that are formally federal, and that another one-third lived in polities that apply federal arrangements in some way. Amongst these States are Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Germany, India,Mexico, the Russian Federation, Switzerland and the United States of America.

The development of nation States has led to a growing importance of nationality, to the expansion of the services provided by the State and to an improvement in the status of persons working in the public service. Each of these developments in the past provided grounds for the idea that only individuals possessing the nationality of the State could perform tasks in the public service.

The purpose of this lecture is to identify and investigate two things: (1) the centre of the intellectual activity described in its title as the defining and development of international law, and (2) the fundamental concept around which both defining and development revolve. The centre as indicated will be found to consist of (representatives of) what is to be called the three “legal archetypes”. The fundamental concept alluded to is the “normative concept of law”. The two notions are, of course, highly abstract as compared to the realities they are designed to help understand. They will be set forth as clearly as possible within the strict limits of this lecture, although it is realized that a truly satisfactory treatment cannot be imagined outside a full-size methodology. An apology beforehand is, therefore, in place. One particular question relating to the normative concept of law in international relations will be dealt with in some detail: it has to do with “tragedy in law” as resulting from the clash between competing normative concepts. As a final observation, the need for a maximum degree of flexibility in the international lawyer's way of thought will be stressed.

This casenote outlines and analyses the US Supreme Court's 2006 decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. In this case the Court held that suspected terrorists held in Guantánamo Bay were entitled to bring habeas corpus petitions to federal courts and to the benefits of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. The US Supreme Court eschewed the tradition of judicial deference to overturn the President's determination that military commissions could be established without congressional approval in the circumstances of the ‘War on Terrorism’. The casenote goes on to consider the aftermath of this decision, including the introduction of the Military Commissions Act 2006, and the implications of this Act for the future of Guantánamo Bay litigation.

In this article the concept of dwaling will be examined in comparison with the English doctrine of misrepresentation. Dwaling — like misrepresentation — plays a role in the formation of the contract and concerns the intention of the parties to create legal relations. The concept of dwaling under Dutch law has been developed from a traditional ‘defect of the will’, a ‘vice of consent’ where the main emphasis is on the error of the mistaken party, to a legal concept with the emphasis on the false precontractual statement of fact made by the other party or his failure to disclose information. This evolution of dwaling through the years may be traced in s. 6:228 of the new Civil Code (CC) which came into force on 1 January 1992.