Streletz, Kessler and Krenz V. Germany. App. Nos. 34044/96,35532/97, & 44801/98.49 ILM 811 (2001), available at <http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/Judgments.htm>.

K.-H. W. V. Germany. App. No. 37201/97. 49 ILM 773 (2001), available at <http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/Judgments.htm>.

European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber, March 22, 2001.

In a landmark judgment, Streletz, Kesslerand Krenz v. Germany, die European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) unanimously held that criminal prosecution of the leaders of the German Democratic Republic (GDR) for ordering to kill individuals attempting to flee the GDR is compatible with the principle nullum crimen sine lege and consequently with the prohibition on retroactive criminal laws under the European Convention on Human Rights. In a second judgment, K.-H. W. v. Germany, with three of the seventeen judges dissenting, the Court affirmed this holding as applied to the criminal responsibility of a low-ranking soldier.

Metalclad Corporation v. Mexico. ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/97/l. 40 ILM 36 (2001), available at <http://www.worldbank.org/icsid/cases/awards.htm>.

NAFTA Chapter 11 Arbitral Tribunal, August 30, 2000.

Mexico v. Metalclad Corporation. 2001 B.C.S.C. 664, available, at <http://www.courts.gov.be.ca>.

Supreme Court of British Columbia, May 2, 2001.

In 1993, Metalclad Corporation purchased the Mexican company Confinamiento Tecnico de Residuos Industriales, S.A. de C.V. (COTERIN) in order to build and operate a hazardous-waste transfer station and landfill in Guadalcazar, San Luis Potosi. Although the federal government of Mexico and the state government of San Luis Potosi had granted COTERIN permits to construct and operate the landfill, the municipality of Guadalcazar denied a municipal construction permit, and the governor of San Luis Potosi subsequently declared an area encompassing the landfill to be an ecological reserve.

Baraldini (March 28, 2001), at <http://www.cortecostituzionale.it>.

Corte costituzionale (Constitutional Court of Italy), March 22, 2001.

Following breast cancer surgery in a Rome hospital, Silvia Baraldini—an Italian national who had been transferred from the United States to Italy for the purpose of serving the remainder of her prison sentence in Italy—requested her release from prison while she received radiation treatments or chemotherapy. By order of November 24, 2000, the Tribunale di sorveglianza (Supervisory Court) of Rome for the District of Lazio, on its own motion, brought a challenge of constitutionality against the Italian statute (Transfer Implementation Law) implementing the 1983 Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons (Strasbourg Convention).

Lance Paul Larsen v. The Hawaiian Kingdom. At <http://www.pca-cpa.org>.

Permanent Court of Arbitration Tribunal, February 5, 2001.

In Larsen v. The Hawaiian Kingdom Lance Paul Larsen, a resident of the state of Hawaii, sought redress from the Hawaiian Kingdom for its failure to protect him from the United States and the State of Hawaii. The parties, who agreed to submit their dispute to arbitration by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), shared similar goals and wished the Arbitral Tribunal (Tribunal) to address the question of the international legal status of Hawaii.

The international criminal court (ICC) will serve as a permanent institution dedicated to the enforcement of international humanitarian law sixty days after the sixtieth state has deposited its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval, or accession to the Treaty of Rome with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.1 Pursuant to Article 11 of the ICC Statute, however, the ICC will have jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the treaty comes into force.2 Consequently, when faced with allegations of violations of international humanitarian law in the period prior to the establishment of the ICC, the international community has five options if criminal prosecutions are desired.3 First, additional ad hoc international tribunals, similar to those established for the former Yugoslavia (International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, ICTY) and Rwanda (International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, ICTR) could be established.4 Second, "mixed" international criminal tribunals, which would share certain attributes with the ad hoc Tribunals, could be created.5 Third, the international community could leave the prosecution of alleged offenders to national authorities, provided that the domestic courts are functioning and able to conduct such trials. Fourth, in those instances where the national infrastructure has collapsed, international resources could be made available to assist with the prosecution of the alleged offenders in domestic courts. Finally, the international community could simply do nothing in the face of alleged violations of international humanitarian law.

The population of East Timor has been subjected to severe human rights violations, in both the near and the more distant past.1 Indonesia invaded the former Portuguese colony and non-self-governing territory under Chapter XI of the United Nations Charter on December 7,1975, after a period of civil turmoil and political instability marked by parallel claims to independence and calls for integration into Indonesia.2 The Indonesian invasion brought with it massive violations of human rights and the laws of war.3 Military clashes between the independence movement FRETILIN (Frente Revolucionaria do Timor Leste Independente) and Indonesia continued on a large scale until 1979, though rebellion against Indonesian rule generally persisted for the whole period of Indonesian occupation. Beginning in January 1999, pro-Indonesian militia, supported by Indonesian security forces.

Late last year, in a letter to Congressman Tom DeLay, majority whip of the House of Representatives, twelve former high government officials expressed their support for a bill introduced by Senator Jesse Helms in June 2000, entitled "American Servicemembers' Protection Act."1 The bill, if enacted, would prohibit any agency of the U.S. government from cooperating with the international criminal court (ICC), and proscribe U.S. military assistance to any nation that becomes a party to the treaty of Rome,2 with the exception of NATO members and certain other allied countries.