The United Nations and African Union agreed, late 2006, on conducting a hybrid operation in Darfur, in a remarkable turnaround from the UN's quest to deploy an autonomous force, which, it was anticipated, would take over the African Mission in Sudan (AMIS). This agreement was formalised by Resolution 1769 adopted on 31 July 2007, establishing the United Nations African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID). In addition to discussing the various implications of the proposed hybrid operation on the law of peacekeeping and collective security law, this article examines the individual response of the AU and UN to the crisis. It investigates the factors that dictated the AMIS's tepid mandate, and argues that the UN's quest for the Sudan's consent, as a precondition for deploying UNAMID was unnecessary, and that the United Nations Mission in Sudan (UNMIS)'s original mandate provides a solid legal basis for enforcing the will of the international community in Darfur.

While the overwhelming majority of states do not practice anticipatory self-defence, believing that it would create a dangerous precedent, it is ironic that many scholars in the area support the idea of it. After September 11, the legality of anticipatory self-defence is attracting increasing support. What makes the matter worst is the pronouncement of a preventive style of self-defence in the National Security Strategy of the US, which goes far beyond the traditional concept of ‘anticipatory’ self-defence. The old doctrinal debate has resurfaced with stronger vigour. The present article is an attempt to re-appraise the debate and test the legality of anticipatory self-defence. The article objectively interprets Article 51 of the Charter in light of canons of treaty interpretation and explores customary international law of the time. It re-examines the Caroline formula and affirms that it had not been established as customary international law before September 11, owing to the lack of widespread and consistent state practice and opinio juris. The article concludes that although state practice after September 11 tends to condone the use of force against imminent terrorists attacks, Article 51 of the UN Charter is still a good law that can cope with the normal inter-state use of force. Despite the flaws of the United Nations, the Charter-based system of world order can very well serve the international community even in the context of the 21st century world order.

The US Supreme Court has recently decided the case of Sinochem Int'l Corp. Ltd v. Malaysia Int'l Shipping Corp. This is another landmark case regarding the doctrine of forum non conveniens, which resolved a long-term split among the circuit courts. A federal court will now be able to decline a case by the doctrine of forum non conveniens without conclusively determining the issue of personal jurisdiction or subject matter jurisdiction. The decision of the US Supreme Court is laudable in terms of procedural economy and judicial efficiency. However, to reach the decision, the Court adopted a pragmatic approach. The decision does not entirely conform to the nature and definition of the doctrine. Furthermore, the Court avoided the important question regarding conditional dismissal. It is a fair reading of the Court's decision that there is no mandatory order between jurisdiction and forum non conveniens and, in the future, a federal court can dismiss a case either by lack of jurisdiction or by forum non conveniens, whichever is easier to be determined. This case may also have impact outside the area of forum non conveniens.

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.

Introductory Note

The question concerning the manner in which to combat international terrorism poses many challenges to international law. Some strategies are based on existing principles and rules, others require exploring new avenues. The report, ‘Counter-terrorism Strategies, Human Rights and International Law: Meeting the Challenges’, reproduced below, is the result of a meeting of a panel of experts, convened by the Grotius Centre for International Legal Studies of Leiden University and Campus The Hague, in April 2007, with the full support of the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The purpose of the seminar was to further the international dialogue concerning the most adequate ways to address the threat of international terrorism, and to tackle specific legal questions regarding the applicability of human rights law, international humanitarian law, the law on the use of force in self-defence against terrorist acts and the possible ways to address failing states harbouring terrorists