The use of the concept of an exclusive Economie zone has increased since the adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. However, the characterization of this zone varies greatly between States. This article presents an exhaustive survey of the concept of an exclusive Economie zone. The author discusses the types of jurisdiction exercised by States in their uses of an exclusive Economie zone. Disparity exists between the provisions of the Convention and State practice in some specific areas: for example, the provisions on the environment and on scientific research. Despite these exceptions, the author maintains that the basic tenets of the Convention are respected in State practice. State declarations as well as arbitral and judicial decisions show that the Convention and State practice are together evolving to reinforce the basic principles of the concept of an exclusive Economie zone.

The 1995 Agreement on the Regime for Straddling and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks completes one aspect of the work of the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea. This article presents a summary of the provisions of the 1995 Agreement and their relationship to the 1982 Convention. The author offers insights into the possible effectiveness of several articles and concludes that the 1995 Agreement offers states the possibility of a stable and predictable dispute resolution mechanism. Whether states will take advantage of this regime is another question.

In July 1995, the United States requested the establishment of the first Panel under Chapter 20 procedures of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and challenged Canada's duties on its “supply-managed” dairy, poultry, egg, barley, and margarine products. These industries had grown and prospered under supply management – a system intended to establish stability in a domestic market afflicted by unpredictable production cycles. The import restrictions were designed in conformity with the international trade rules as set out in the General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade (GATT). These rules changed in 1995 as a result of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture under which Canada and WTO members replaced quantitative import restrictions with tariffs and tariff-rate quotas. The United States claimed that the duties contravened the basic NAFTA obligation to not rahe tariffs. Canada countered that the new tariff rates were justified under the new WTO Agreement on Agriculture that had been negotiated in Geneva after NAFTA. The resulting decision in favour of Canada was both praised for its consideration of the case in the context of the complex interplay of relevant trade obligations and criticized for finding “an implied bargain among negotiators … that was never struck.” The Panel assumed that if tariff eqivalents could not be applied – which in effed would render the WTO Agreement on Agriculture inoperative – the result would be that the parties would be entitled to apply Article XI restrictions as if the Uruguay Round had never happened. The logic was impeccable – the NAFTA was “not to be read in clinical isolation from public international law.”

The basic fact of Québec as a coastal entity creates interesting questions when considering the implications of its independence. A historical survey of its maritime boundaries further confirms the importance of maritime boundaries for an independent Québec. The author examines Québec's possible claims in the light of recent international law cases and conventions. He also explores the application of various methods of maritime boundary delimitation on (Québec and Canada. Finally, the author explores the possibility of joint sovereignty in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the application of the condominium concept to Canada and Québec.

Nineteen ninety-seven was marked by several important developments at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. A series of arrests and voluntary surrenders have increased the Tribunal's workload and credibility. The landmark Tadic judgment has clarified international humanitarian law, particularly with respect to crimes against humanity. The Erdemovic decision considered the defence of duress with respect to the murder of civilians and the use ofguilty pleas in international criminal law. Finally, the Blaskic decision has considered the use of subpoenas in international law.

The International Law Commission wrestled for over a decade with the relationship between the principle of equitable utilization and the no harm principle in its work on the law of the non-navigational uses of international watercourses. In its final Report to the UN General Assembly on this topic in 1994, the Commission presented a set of Draft Articles couched in obscure language that reflected the sharp differences of opinion on the matter and the compromises that had been made. This division of opinion about the relationship between these two principles persisted in the Working Group of the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly to which the Draft Articles were referred. Again, compromises were reached and the language of the substantive articles (in particular Articles 5, 7, 20, and 21) of the Watercourses Convention, adopted by the General Assembly on May 21, 1997, continues to be obscure and its meaning debatable.

It is argued here that in this Convention the principle of equitable utilization, which prescribes the reasonable and equitable sharing of the beneficial uses of the waters of an international watercourse, is made the primary substantive rule of international water law; harm caused by a utilization of these waters is, of course, an important factor to be taken into account in determining whether, in a particular case, the utilization is reasonable and equitable and, therefore, lawful. This interpretation of the Watercourses Convention brings it into harmony with customary international water law. It is an interpretation that finds support in the recent decision of the International Court of fustice in the Gabákovo case.

The great international interest for the WTO is evidenced by the importance of its membership and the long list of countries that have applied for accession. This note examines the new accession procedures under the WTO Agreement and discusses the rights and obligations of countries requesting such accession.

Recently, there has been a proliferation of international agreements imposing minimum standards on states in respect of their treatment of foreign investors and allowing investors to initiate dispute settlement proceedings where a state violates these standards. Of greatest significance to Canada is Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement, which provides both standards for state behaviour and the right to initiate binding arbitration. Since 1996, four cases have been brought under Chapter 11. This note describes the Chapter 11 process and suggests some of the issues that may arise as it is increasingly resorted to by investors.

The Free Trade Agreement between Canada and Israel bases its dispute settlement mechanism on Chapter 20 of NAFTA. There are accordingly many similarities between the two regimes. In certain areas, however, such as consultations and Panel composition, the Canada-Israel dispute settlement regime was clearly intended to differ from the NAFTA regime.

Le processus d'ouverture des frontières a franchi de nouveaux sommets au cours des années 1995 et 1996. Que ce soit au sein de l'Accord de libre-échange nord-américain (ci-après ALÉNA), de l'Organisation mondiale du commerce (ci-après OMC) ou de la zone de libre-échange des Amériques envisagée d'ici l'an 2005, le Canada a grandement contribué à ce processus, tel que nous le verrons dans les paragraphes qui suivent.

La globalisation des Marchés financiers oblige des pays comme le Canada à repenser l'exercice de leur souveraineté. Elle met en évidence l'interdépendance entre pays industriels et économies émergentes ainsi que l'importance d'une action concertée au niveau international.

En 1996, le Canada a poursuivi, avec ses partenaires du Groupe des Sept, la mise en oeuvre des recommandations formulées au Sommet de Halifax l'année précédente. Celles-ci visaient à favoriser la stabilité du système financier international. Pour ce faire, le Canada a encouragé le renforcement des institutions financières internationales (I) et l'action des organismes de surveillance des institutions financières (II).

Du 18 au 19 novembre 1996, l'Organe d'examen des politiques commerciales de l'Organisation mondiale du commerce (OMC) a examiné pour la quatrième fois, mais pour la première fois sous l'égide de l'OMC, la politique et les pratiques commerciales du Canada. Dans le cadre de cet examen, la discussion a porté notamment sur la politique du Canada en matière d'investissement. Les participants ont en outre soumis un certain nombre de questions par écrit portant sur cette matière, et le représentant du Canada a communiqué, au cours de la réunion, des réponses complètes par écrit et s'est engagé à donner d'autres précisions le cas échéant.