It is unlikely that anyone would seriously reject the notion that the prohibition on torture has reached the status of a jus cogens norm in international law. On the contrary, the weight of authority in favour of this status is overwhelming. However, the effect in international law of a jus cogens norm, and of the norm which prohibits torture in particular, has yet to be fully worked out. The differences between the majority and minority judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom are urgent reminders of the uncertainty of litigation in areas of human rights law whose norms are the subject of seemingly overwhelming moral imperatives.

On 31 May 2002, the EC Regulation on insolvency proceedings entered into force. As from that date, insolvency proceedings that are opened in any of the Member States of the European Union will in principle qualify for recognition in the other Member States, with the exception of the Kingdom of Denmark. On the whole, the Regulation contains the same provisions as the European Convention on Insolvency Proceedings that was ready for signature in 1995, but which never entered into force. Like the 1995 Convention, the present Regulation mainly contains provisions pertaining to the conflict of laws and only a few rules of uniform law. Moreover, the Regulation contains the same plurality of insolvency proceedings as the 1995 Convention: in addition to main insolvency proceedings that are recognised in the other Member States, territorial insolvency proceedings may be opened in the Member States where the debtor has an establishment.

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.