This essay traces the relationship between activists and academics involved in the campaign for “women's rights as human rights” as a case study of the relationship between different classes of what I call “knowledge professionals” self-consciously acting in a transnational domain. The puzzle that animates this essay is the following: how was it that at the very moment at which a critique of “rights” and a reimagination of rights as “rights talk” proved to be such fertile ground for academic scholarship did the same “rights” prove to be an equally fertile ground for activist networking and lobbying activities? The paper answers this question with respect to the work of self-reflexivity in creating a “virtual sociality of rights.”

Gunnar Lagergren has performed many notable functions in the course of the twentieth century, most of which resulted in significant contributions to international law and, in particular, to the settlement of international disputes. As an arbitrator, he handled a number of important cases, including that between India and Pakistan concerning the Rann of Kutch and the Taba boundary arbitration between Egypt and Israel. He served with distinction on a number of important tribunals, including the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg and the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal at The Hague, where he was its first President.

The application by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia for a revision of the 1996 ICJ Judgment in the Bosnia case is the latest initiative involving the Court in the Balkan crisis. Whilst the application raises interesting questions, they reflect rather upon the indeterminate nature of the Court's original Judgment than upon their own merit. It is doubtful whether the Court would regard the change in circumstances such as to justify revising its Judgment. The most perplexing issue concerns the motivation behind the application. Given the potential effect of the proceedings on other cases involving the FRY before the Court, the application may allow the Court to dispose of all such cases in one single decision, which may have certain attractions for the Court if it is to remain politically disengaged.

Recently, the ICJ appears to have been taking into account the protection of human life in its indication of provisional measures. This raises the question of how and to what extent the human life element influences the criteria for indicating provisional measures. After considering the meaning of ‘irreparability’ in the Court's jurisprudence, the author analyzes recent case law in the light of a link between irreparable harm and those rights of the parties that constitute the subject matter of the dispute in judicial proceedings. In conclusion, the author criticizes the Court's recent approach towards indicating provisional measures, as it raises some problems concerning jurisdiction, as well as the binding character and the nature of provisional measures.

The United States has repeatedly failed to notify detained foreign nationals of their rights to consular notification and access under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. In capital cases, US non-compliance with this ratified Treaty has led to litigation by foreign governments and individual lawyers in domestic courts and international tribunals. While these efforts have had mixed results in individual cases, litigation by Mexico, Germany and other actors has led to increased compliance with Article 36, and a growing recognition of the significance of US treaty obligations.

This article focuses on two key aspects of the Keraterm case before the ICTY. The first is Duško Sikirica's acquittal of the crime of genocide. The Trial Chamber's construction of the phrase “destruction in part of a group” is critically examined and compared to the reasoning of a differently constituted Trial Chamber in the Krstić case. The second key aspect of the Keraterm case is the decision by all three defendants to enter into plea agreements with the Prosecutor at a relatively late stage in the trial. This article discusses the rules governing plea agreements, general sentencing factors and the extent to which guilty pleas have resulted in a pattern of lighter sentences in the jurisprudence of the Tribunals.

Judges in international tribunals have historically been subject to political pressures which might influence the independence of their position. The Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court has created a system in which judges are selected by political representatives of state parties, without any independent screening process. Furthermore, judges will have a high degree of control over the fundamental decisions as to who should be prosecuted, an area which normally falls in the province of the Prosecutor. There are legitimate reasons to fear that this system will fail to provide the necessary safeguards to ensure that judicial independence is maintained.

The purpose of this article is not to propose yet another normative vision for Jerusalem's future. Instead, I map out the major sovereignty-related issues that have traditionally preoccupied the literature on the subject, and argue that most of these issues have become moot following the latest rounds of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. In response to this recent paradigm shift, I propose that international law scholarship should turn its attention to studying the politics of Jerusalem's private sphere, a sphere so far dismissed as “merely technical,” yet also a sphere replete with such deep distributional stakes as to make it the primary arena for playing out power-relations in the city's future. I conclude with critiquing recent proposals that privatization would play a constructive role in defusing political tensions associated with the future Jerusalem.