The Judicial Reports/Recueils judiciaires of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) comprise (in English and French) all Judgments by both Trial Chambers and the Appeals Chamber as well as their most significant Decisions and Orders issued in a given year. The publication is aimed at giving lawyers, scholars, students and the general public convenient access to the historic work of the ICTY, which was established pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 827 in 1993 to try individuals accused of serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1991. The Judicial Reports are organized chronologically by case. Within each case, one will find the selected materials, including separate and/or dissenting opinions that may accompany a given Trial Chamber or Appeals Chamber ruling. The Judicial Reports will contribute to a greater knowledge of the judicial activities of the ICTY. Various annexes, such as various tables of cases and a table of references will facilitate the use of these volumes. Judicial Reports 1999 is still forthcoming.

Contains summaries of the Commission's work on various topics and any resulting treaty texts, with notes.

With articles by Maarit Jänterä-Jareborg, Petar Sarcevic, Hans Ulrich Jessurun d'Oliveira, Paul Volken, national reports from Venezuela, Switzerland, China, Hungaria and Germany and news from The Hague as well as texts, materials and recent developments.

Contains summaries of the Commission's work on various topics and any resulting treaty texts, with notes.

The International Law Commission, when drafting articles on nationality of persons in situations of State succession, omitted cases of unlawful territorial changes. These do not result in State succession; they may be dealt with under the rubric of State continuity. The Baltic – Russian cases show the particularly complex nature of these situations, both as concerns agreement on continuity and decisions on nationality. The author examines in detail the Citizenship Laws of the Baltic States and Russia, as well as relevant constitutional and international statements about the international legal status of the States and responses of the international community thereto. The main question addressed in the book is about solutions which States have to adopt concerning nationality of individuals in situations of State continuity, especially where States re-emerge after long years of occupation. Although the book is specific in its origin, it is of general importance because it draws conclusions concerning developments in law and practice which are relevant for a better understanding and regulation of nationality and statehood in international law.

This book analyzes how the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) deal with general international law. In light of the concerns of various authors about the fragmentation of international law and the "human rightist" aspirations of human rights law, the question arises whether these human rights courts put the unity of general international law into danger. The main idea of this study is that the ECtHR and the IACtHR may, in principle, only "elaborate" and not "depart" from or "contradict" general international law. A departure is only acceptable if a clear lex specialis has been established for human rights law. The author researches whether or not the sometimes different case law of both human rights courts fits into this assumption. Almost all topics of general international law that have been dealt with by the ECtHR and IACtHR are analyzed, including: reservations * application of treaties * ratione temporis, ratione loci, and r

The accountability of armed non-state actors is a neglected field of international law, overtaken by the regimes of state responsibility and individual criminal accountability as well as fears of legitimacy. Yet armed non-state actors are important players in the international arena and their activities have significant repercussions. This book focuses on their obligations and accountability when they do not function as state agents, regardless of the existence or extent of accountability of their individual members. The author claims that their distinct features lead to their classification into three different types: de facto entities, armed non-state actors in control of territory, and common article 3 armed non-state actors. The mechanisms that trigger the applicability of humanitarian and human rights law regimes are examined in detail as well as the framework of obligations. In both cases, the author argues that armed non-state actors should not be treated as entering international law and process exclusively through the state. The study concludes by focussing on their accountability in international humanitarian and human rights law and, more specifically, to the rules of attribution, remedies and reparations for violations of their primary obligations.

Investment protection treaties generally provide for the obligation to treat investments fairly and equitably, even if the wording of the rule and its relationship with the customary international standard may differ. The open-textured nature of the rule, the ambiguous relationship between the vague treaty and equally vague customary rules, and States' interpretations of the content and relationship of both rules (not to mention the frequency of successful invocation by investors) make this issue one of the most controversial aspect of investment protection law. This monograph engages in a comprehensive analysis of the relationship between the international minimum standard and fair and equitable treatment. It provides an original argument about the historical development of the international standard, a normative rationale for reading it into the treaty rules of fair and equitable treatment, and a coherent methodology for establishing the content of this standard. The first part of this book untangles the history of both the international minimum standard and fair and equitable treatment. The second part addresses the normative framework within which the contemporary debate takes place. After an exhaustive review of all relevant sources, it is argued that the most persuasive reading of fair and equitable treatment is that it always makes a reference to customary law. The third part of the book builds on the historical analysis and the normative framework, explaining the content of the contemporary standard by careful comparative human rights analysis.

In recent decades there has been a considerable growth in the activities of international tribunals and the establishment of new tribunals. Furthermore, supervisory bodies established to control compliance with treaty obligations have adopted decisions in an increasing number of cases. National courts further add to the practice of adjudication of claims based on international law. While this increasing practice of courts and supervisory bodies strengthens the adjudicatory process in international law, it also poses challenges to the unity of international law. Most of these courts operate within their own special regime (functional, regional, or national) and will primarily interpret and apply international law within the framework of that particular regime. The role of domestic courts poses special challenges, as the powers of such courts to give effect to international law, as well as their actual practice in applying such law, largely will be determined by national law. At the same time, both international and national courts have recognised that they do not operate in isolation from the larger international legal system, and have found various ways to counteract the process of fragmentation that may result from their jurisdictional limitations. This book explores how international and national courts can, and do, mitigate fragmentation of international law. It contains case studies from international regimes (including the WTO, the IMF, investment arbitration and the ECtHR) and from various national jurisdictions (including Japan, Norway, Switzerland and the UK), providing a basis for conclusions to be drawn in the final chapter.

A. The Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (herein- ter the “Convention”) marks the beginning of a new era in the law of 1 the sea. The negotiations for this treaty at the Third United Nations Conference for the Law of the Sea (hereinafter “UNCLOS III”), lasted for nine years, from 1973 to 1982. The Convention regulates the principal aspects of international oceans affairs. It establishes and fixes the limits of maritime zones, provides for the rights and duties of states in these zones, establishes the law app- cable in the international seabed area on the basis of the principle of common heritage of mankind, imposes obligations on states to protect the marine environment, and provides for the means of dispute sett- ment. One of the most contentious and divisive issues at UNCLOS III were the outer limits of the continental shelf. Previously, in the 1958 Con- 2 vention on the Continental Shelf (hereinafter the “1958 Convention”), no limits were established for the continental shelf. States were allowed to claim areas of continental shelves based on their capacity to exploit the mineral resources of the shelf. The legal framework in the 1958 Convention would obviously conflict with the principle of the common heritage of mankind. Delegates realized that limits have to be est- lished, but up to where and on the basis of which principles, was a c- tentious question.