The Arctic, long neglected, has been thrust into the limelight as climate change dramatically transforms its landscape. The ice, which for centuries has acted as a powerful barrier keeping the world at bay, is melting at an alarming rate. The promise of greater accessibility to the region inevitably raises a host of important issues. Donat Pharand, an internationally renowned scholar, has dedicated his long and illustrious career to researching and understanding the legal issues pertaining to Canada's claim over the waters of the Arctic archipelago. This article chronicles the key events in his life and examines Pharand's profound contribution to the law of the sea of the Arctic.

Le Système interaméricain dispose de toute une série de normes, d’institutions et de mécanismes visant un meilleur respect des droits de la personne dans les Amériques, entre autres en matière de droits économiques, sociaux et culturels. Cet article propose d’analyser les diverses approches employées par les instances interaméricaines pour évaluer le respect de ces droits par les États, notamment quant aux personnes et aux groupes vivant dans des conditions particulières de vulnérabilité.

This article traces the evolution of the Canadian approach to private international law from Morguard Investments Ltd. v. De Savoye to Castillo v. Castillo and identifies four major flaws that have significant implications for both private international law and Canadian federalism: (1) ambiguous and inconsistent terminology that undermines the conceptual foundation of this approach while obscuring its potential impact; (2) the Court’s use of American conflict of laws jurisprudence to reinforce a deferential orientation in Canadian private international law; (3) the Court’s vision of the international order and understanding of public international law, which has begun to affect the Canadian federal system; and (4) the model of the Canadian Constitution employed in these cases, which may have broad negative consequences for provincial interests. The article argues that these flaws are remediable, that both constitutional text and recent opinions contain resources useful to this end, and that, however the Court decides to address these problems, subsequent iterations of the Canadian approach to private international law should emphasize clarity, consistency, and comprehensiveness.

In recent years, Canada and the United States have modified their model bilateral investment treaties (BITs). If NAFTA Chapter 11 cases have provided the new lens through which investment issues are considered, the solutions to problems experienced in this context have come from different sources. This article explores three influences on the model BITs: the NAFTA Free Trade Commission's interpretation and statements, World Trade Organization law and cases, and US domestic law and principles. A range of interpretation issues is raised, from the effects of changes in wording in successive treaties, to the “transferability” of law across systems (international and domestic), to the use of arbitral awards as precedent. Issues of a systemic nature are also raised, including attempts at limiting the discretion of arbitral tribunals through state interpretations, the possibility of creating an appellate mechanism, and a push for expedited preliminary procedures. The article illustrates the fast-paced evolution of international investment law and highlights the influence of the United States on this evolution.

This article argues that states should have a limited obligation — and not only a privilege — to extend diplomatic protection to their nationals when they are facing violations of their most basic human rights abroad. The author addresses the current state of international law regarding diplomatic protection, with a focus on the International Law Commission's failed attempt to impose a duty on states to exercise protection in cases of jus cogens violations. A review of domestic case law, particularly in the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, and South Africa, shows that while some courts recognize legitimate expectations to receive diplomatic protection, all are reluctant to exercise judicial review of a denial of diplomatic protection. The author nevertheless examines whether adherence to international human rights treaties could entail a positive obligation for states to exercise diplomatic protection in order to protect the human rights of their nationals that are ill-treated abroad.

A nuanced analysis of relevant decisions suggests that some investment dispute settlement tribunals have gone beyond the World Trade Organizations (WTO) largely procedural approach to non-governmental organization (NGO) participation in their proceedings and have adopted a relatively more substantive approach. This article suggests that this difference of approach stems from three characteristic differences between international trade and foreign investment — the political economy of the international trade and foreign investment orders, the substantive effects of trade and investment activities, and their dispute settlement mechanisms. However, these general differences are by themselves insufficient to justify excluding a substantive public interest approach to NGO participation at the WTO, especially in view of the fact that WTO tribunals have conceded limited participatory privileges to these non-state actors.

En 1997, la Commission du droit international (CDI) entreprenait l’étude des actes unilatéraux étatiques. Phénomène paradoxal, les actes unilatéraux des États traduisent cette ambivalence entre souveraineté et justice qui marque les fondements du droit international public et plus globalement, la société internationale contemporaine. Les travaux du rapporteur spécial Víctor Rodríguez Cedeño n’ont pas échappé à la nature équivoque du droit international. Celle-ci se reflète dans la série de trois critères développés par le rapporteur spécial qui permettent d’identifier un acte unilatéral étatique: l’imputabilité, l’intention et la notoriété. En effet, ces critères, a priori clairs et précis, se révèlent, à la lumière de la pratique internationale contemporaine, insuffisants pour guider le juge international devant lequel est portée une affaire relative à l’interprétation d’un acte unilatéral étatique. Cela crée une situation marquée par l’incertitude et l’imprévisibilité dans les rapports juridiques entre États.

“Peaceful Coexistence,” a basic premise for minimum world public order during the Cold War, has re-emerged as a possible paradigm-model for world order in the present era of clashing or colliding civilizations. When the idea of codifying the general principles of peaceful coexistence was first advanced in the still-continuing Cold War, it was rejected by specialist legal bodies like the United Nations' International Law Commission and also the Institut de droit international as too “political” and thus incapable of being reduced to a scientific-legal foundation. The resulting intellectual-legal gap was promptly filled, however, by the non-governmental International Law Association (ILA), which established its own expert committee. Long-range fruits of this ILA initiative — apart from the all-important opening of a direct East-West legal dialogue — were the celebrated UN General Assembly Resolution 2625 of October 1970 and the acceptance of the pragmatic, empirical, problem-solving, step-by-step approach to resolving East-West conflicts in concrete cases — the ultimate road to détente on a deliberately nonideological case-by-case basis. The Canadian Branch of the ILA, with the support of the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs' Legal Division, was a leader in the ILA's decision to take up that project and participated fully until its successful completion.

This comment takes a critical look at the method used by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in its study of customary humanitarian law. It argues that the ICRC study reduces the concept of international custom to its definition under Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. It also argues that the study overlooks some of the problems raised by the application of Article 38. It contends that the positions taken by the ICRC to identify customary rules of humanitarian law are somewhat ambiguous and even slanted. Finally, this comment suggests that, beyond questioning the ICRC study, it is the role of custom as a source of international law that is in question.

This comment revisits the debate on the reasons for compliance, or lack thereof, with the regulations and administrative rules that govern the current international trade regime. The research on which it is based is the first part of the five-year project on Cross-Cultural Dispute Resolution funded by the Major Collaborative Research Initiative program of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. It focuses on the cultural components of non-compliance based on analysis of the legislative internalization of World Trade Organization norms and case law in China, Canada, and Japan on the one hand and on individual perceptions of the international trade environment on the other. The main hypotheses are that the sharing of international practice rules does not necessarily indicate consensus on the normative order underlying those rules and that the behaviour of those who are involved in the interpretation and application of international rules is informed by (1) their perception of the purpose, content, and effect of nonlocal rules and their underlying norms; (2) those rules' and norms' complementarity with local rules and norms; and (3) the degree of legitimacy accorded by local communities to the processes of interpretation and application.

Ronald St. John Macdonald, one of the founders of this Yearbook and of the Canadian Council on International Law, teacher, scholar, judge, and a tireless promoter of international law around the world, died on 7 September 2006. His contribution is immeasurable and his mark on the Canadian international legal landscape is indelible. As a tribute, the Yearbook publishes this testament by Christian Wiktor, a long-time colleague, to Macdonald's contribution to international legal scholarship.

En 2005, l’Organisation mondiale du commerce (OMC) fêtait son dixième anniversaire. Mais cet anniversaire n’était pas porteur que de bonnes nouvelles pour le Canada à l’OMC. L’abrogation de l’Accord sur les textiles et les vêtements, le premier jour du 121e mois après la prise d’effet de l’Accord sur l’OMC, a heurté de plein fouet une industrie textile canadienne visiblement incapable de trouver son créneau face à la concurrence asiatique et a rapidement entraîné, au début de 2005, des milliers de pertes d’emplois au Canada.

Le blanchiment d’argent et la gouvernance en matière financière ont constitué sans surprise des préoccupations essentielles de la communauté internationale en 2005. Néanmoins, la communauté internationale s’est aussi penchée sur la question du développement durable et la réforme des institutions de Bretton Woods. Les travaux de la communauté internationale ont été menés de concert par: (1) le Groupe des vingt; (2) les institutions financières internationales; (3) les organismes de contrôle des établissements financiers; (4) le Groupe d’action financière; (5) le Joint Forum; (6) le Forum sur la stabilité financière. Le Canada y a joué un rôle de premier plan.

Une date importante pour le droit international de l’investissement a marqué l’année 2005, avec le 40e anniversaire de la signature de la Convention pour le règlement des différends relatifs aux investissements entre États et ressortissants d’autres États (Convention CIRDI). Paradoxalement, le Canada n’a toujours pas adhéré à ce traité majeur, lui qui est pourtant à l’avant-plan du développement de ce droit, avec entre autres le chapitre 11 de l’Accord de libre-échange nord-américain (ALÉNA) ou encore son nouveau traité-type sur l’investissement.

Aucun nouveau traité sur l’investissement n’a été conclu par le Canada au cours de l’année. Si les négociations multilatérales sur l’investissement sont maintenant totalement arrêtées, les efforts les plus porteurs du Canada à cet égard se sont déployés sur le plan bilatéral. Le Centre international pour le règlement des différends liés aux investissements (CIRDI) à quant à lui intensifié ses travaux de réflexion sur l’amélioration de ses règles de procédures en publiant un document de travail sur des propositions de modifications.