With Milošević on trial, the work of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (hereinafter: ICTY) continues as does the need to solve insufficiently answered questions of international law. As most of the accused used to hold positions of high authority in the military or in the civil sphere, the doctrine of superior responsibility has been considered in several of the cases decided by the Tribunal. These cases, together with cases decided by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (hereinafter: ICTR), have led to a discussion of whether also civilian superiors can incur responsibility under the doctrine of superior responsibility. Namely, the doctrine used to be applied more in the military sphere to commanders that were part of the hierarchical command structure, and was as such of less importance to considerations of responsibility of non-military leaders.

Modern communications and transportation have brought about not only interdependency between all regions of the world but also an increase in offences committed by or against foreigners or their States. Different States handle this problem in different ways. Among other means, one might mention in this context the enactment of rules of municipal and international law which regulate substantive as well as procedural relationships between authorities of a given State and the perpetrator of an offence with a foreign element'. Such an element exists, for example, if an offence has been committed by a foreigner; if an offence has been committed against a foreigner; if a particular State is to pass judgment on an offence committed abroad; if an offence has been committed in a place where no legal system claims jurisdiction; if a judgment is to be rendered on an offence which has already been the subject of a foreign judgment; if a person is sought for extradition; or if judicial authorities have to take measures in the course of criminal proceedings in the territory of a foreign State, and so on.

Combating piracy at sea and apprehending pirates have been a long-standing problem for the global community. Increasing acts of piracy off the coast of Somalia have prompted the UN Security Council to intervene in the matter. The Council, through several resolutions, has authorised states to take action against Somali pirates in the territorial waters and land territory of Somalia and recently adopted a resolution urging all states to fully implement relevant international conventions in their domestic legal systems. However, despite the Security Council's intervention in the matter most states are still reluctant to prosecute Somali pirates in their domestic courts. Considering the most recent Security Council resolution and existing international law, this article examines whether there is an international obligation to criminalise piracy under domestic legal frameworks and to prosecute pirates in domestic courts. It submits that existing international law arguably imposes an obligation to prosecute pirates, at least in certain circumstances, and the recently adopted Security Council resolution reinforces this obligation.

In Sweden, private international law started to develop as an area of law in the late nineteenth century. The Hague Conference on Private International Law played a decisive role in this development. As late as in the 1960s, most Swedish private international law legislation, with the exception of rules originating in the inter-Nordic co-operation in this field, was based on Hague Conventions ratified by Sweden.

On March 12, 1996, President Clinton signed the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Act of 1996 also known by the names of its principal sponsors, Senator Helms (R-NC) and Representative Burton (R-IN), as the Helms-Burton Act. The United States thereby enacted a Bill that ‘internationalizes’ an essentially bilateral conflict with Cuba, which can be traced back to the Cuban Revolution, 37 years ago. The Act strengthens economic sanctions against Cuba, intending to protect property rights of Americans, eventually improve the human rights situation, cause the removal of the Castro regime3 and lead to the establishment of a democratically elected government.

Supreme Court, 13 April 2012, Mothers of Srebrenica Foundation v. the State of the Netherlands and the United Nations

The doctrine of immunity of States has always had the interest of Bert Voskuil. The question whether a foreign State may be summoned before a national court has been raised and answered by him in numerous essays. Therefore, a study of the question how to summon a foreign State before the national judiciary is not out of place in a collection of essays on international procedural law, dedicated to Bert Voskuil.

The impact of armed conflict on women is the subject of three recent international studies, two under the auspices of the United Nations and one undertaken by the International Committee of the Red Cross. These studies make a significant contribution to increasing knowledge of the ways in which women experience armed conflict and, moreover, propose strategies to address the problems they identify. There is virtual consensus, however, that the existing legal regime protecting women in times of armed conflict is adequate and that there is no place for progressive development of the law. This article challenges this conclusion. After examining the approach of the studies to the regime protecting women in times of armed conflict, the author argues that there is a need for a comprehensive initiative to consider whether in fact the law is adequate to deal with their situation of women in armed conflict.

Most textbooks on private international law, when dealing with public policy, refer to its relativity. “Public policy is not absolute but relative”. This relativity rule appears to have three different functions. The first is merely to stress that it is always the result in the concrete case that counts. Here “relativity” is a misleading description.

There are two ways to study positivism in international law. Firstly, one may describe doctrinal utterances and judicial pronouncements in which a positivist attitude towards international law is revealed. Secondly, one may offer one's own view of law generally, and of international law in particular, and, on that basis, try to define to what extent, if any, international law appears to be founded in man's sovereign will.

Multinational Enterprises (MNE's) are confronted with a growing number of Codes of Conduct. So far these Codes are all of a so-called voluntary character and not legally binding. Nevertheless the MNE's – also referred to as transnational corporations (TNC's) – are increasingly confronted with the rules of conduct expressed in these Codes. It is a subject area which is still in its early stage and developing constantly.

Regulation of maritime transport is, in many countries a common phenomenon. The following three categories of regulation can be distinguished:

– rules of competition in the field of maritime transport, often referred to as conference or anti-conference legislation,

– flag preference provisions, e.g., cargo reservation provisions,

– retortion provisions or retaliatory provisions.

Provisions in these three categories all have in common that they are aimed to influence the market conditions under which maritime transport takes place. I have outlined the various national provisions regulating maritime transport in a 1979 report for the Dutch section of the ILA. Part III of that report analyses the question to what extent national provisions are compatible with international public law. The present article is a summary of that analysis.

28. The government has made it clear that both in general and in particular situations the provisions of the Convention are binding on the administrative authorities when exercising their functions. The direct influence of the Convention on the administration therefore arises mainly through the continuous interpretation of the provisions of the Convention by the public authorities when carrying out their duties. The influence of the Convention becomes apparent whenever there is a difference of opinion as to such interpretation between the administrative authorities and political bodies, such as the States-General, or between the administrative authorities and the private citizen. This may occasion discussion in the States-General or a decision by the courts.