The Hague Conference of 1899 was the first to address the need for a permanent body for the settlement of differences between states. The ensuing Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes entered into force in 1900. At the second Hague Conference in 1907 the provisions of the 1899 Convention were expanded in a new convention of the same title which entered into force in 1910. These conventions established the Permanent Court of Arbitration, which in reality is neither “permanent” nor a “court” but rather a panel of persons, up to four being named by each participating state, from which arbitrators can be selected.

This article addresses the unresolved question of the international legal status, and resulting rights, of Omar Khadr — a Canadian national detained by the United States on the battlefield in Afghanistan at the age of fifteen and subsequently incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay. The article focuses primarily on Khadr’s potential status as an “unlawful combatant” and as a child soldier. Acknowledging that there has been a great deal of scholarly debate surrounding these issues, it provides an overview of this debate through the lens of Khadr’s particular case. As the author observes, international law surrounding each aspect of Khadr’s status is far from clear. However, even accepting the existence of controversy and ambiguity surrounding Khadr’s status, the author argues that the United States and Canada have, seemingly, sought to exploit this ambiguity in order to justify disregard for his rights. The article concludes by observing that this approach is, in itself, contrary to the foundational principles of international humanitarian law.

In light of the increased risks nowadays faced by much greaternumbers of peacekeepers in hostile environments, the author surveysthe legal sources for their safety and protection. The article firstdescribes the kinds of personnel that may be engaged in peacekeepingoperations before exploring the legal rights of protection thatattach to each of them. It shows that many conventions, especiallythose relating to immunities of United Nations personnel as well ashumanitarian and human rights treaties, contain general provisionsthat may be interpreted to include peacekeepers, but that none areaimed directly at thdr problems and protection. None, that is, untilthe United Nations adopted the Convention on the Safety of UnitedNations and Associated Personnel in the fall of 1994. When thatConvention comes into force, it will impose affirmative duties onstates to ensure the safety and security of peacekeepers and willapply criminal sanctions against individuals who attack them ortheir property. The article concludes that the new convention castsa wide net of protection over peacekeepers but suffers from twosignificant lacunae. It will not cover peacekeepers who arecombatants (and the criteria for that characterization are unclear)or personnel engaged in non-United Nations peacekeepingoperations.

Avec le recul du temps, douze ans à peine, nous pouvons maintenant apprécier les conséquences de l'insuccès des deux conférences des Nations Unies sur le droit de la mer, tenues à Genève en 1958 et 1960, dans leur tentative de fixer de manière uniforme l'étendue des eaux territoriales des Etats. A défaut de solution multilatérale qui eût consacré l'une ou l'autre des principales thèses en présence à l'époque — la mer territoriale de trois milles marins ou celle de douze milles — les Etats ont à tour de rôle décidé de résoudre par le moyen d'actes unilatéraux les problèmes de plus en plus aigus soulevés par la protection des eaux contigües à leurs côtes et la conservation des richesses naturelles qui s'y trouvent.

Competing Goals in Formulating a Code of Conduct on Restrictive Business Practices

For the past thirty years efforts to formulate and implement acceptable international norms to regulate restrictive business practices (R.B.P.’s) affecting international trade have largely failed. Yet, none can deny the necessity of such international norms in the face of the inability of national legal systems to cope with an economic order of international dimensions. The abortive International Trade Organization, as part of the Havana Charter of 1948, and the Draft E.C.O.S.O.C. International Agreement of 1953, which were originally initiated by the United States, were eventually rejected by it because “the various national policies, legislation, and enforcement procedures in this field were not sufficiently comparable.”

La Relation Geographique entre le Canada et les Etats-Unis est unique. Ensemble, ils occupent la majeure partie du continent nord-américain tout en s’individualisant l’un de l’autre par une frontière politique est-ouest (de l’Atlantique au Pacifique) et nord-sud (entre l’Alaska et le Yukon) qui totalise plus de 6,500 kilomètres de longueur. Les côtes canadiennes et américaines sont baignées par trois océans et les plateaux continentaux adjacents à ces côtes occupent respectivement, selon la classification mondiale, le deuxième et le troisième rang quant à leur superficie.

This article proposes a new model for the engagement of sub-state units with the international legal order. “Trialogical subsidiarity” acknowledges that some areas are best regulated locally, but it also argues that international law has an increasing say in areas traditionally reserved for local law. The implementation of an international cultural heritage treaty by constituent units (CUs) in federal states, despite objections of the federal authorities, is a case study for the possibilities and implications of the use of international law by CUs without the filtering of the central state. This use enhances the legitimacy of international law and can lead to better outcomes for local populations, moving international law closer to its promise of being a law of peoples rather than of states.

Ce commentaire traite des principes connexes de prolongement naturel et de non-empiètement et de leurs conséquences sur une future délimitation de la frontière maritime entre le Canada et les États-Unis dans la Mer de Beaufort. L'auteur décrit l'évolution du principe du prolongement naturel, qui reposait d'abord sur la géologie et la morphologie du plateau continental pour se définir maintenant en grande partie par les concepts de distance et de proximité. L'auteur constate aussi que, même si le non-empiètement n'est pas une règle de délimitation mécanique et contraignante, il est devenu un principe équitable qui est rarement ou pour ainsi dire jamais supplanté par des principes équitables concurrents. Par conséquent, la direction de la projection côtière est devenue un aspect capital de toute délimitation. L'auteur discute ensuite de l'impact de ces conclusions sur la délimitation de la Mer de Beaufort.

This article examines whether the characterization of a regulatory measure as expropriatory depends upon the objective intent of the state in enacting that measure. The issue of regulatory expropriation is of particular importance, given the fact that a number of recent multilateral investment treaties, including the North American Free Trade Agreement, grant investors a right of direct action against a foreign state for losses arising out of measures that are “tantamount” to expropriation.

This article will first consider the respective approaches of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal and the United States to regulatory expropriation. These approaches will be then briefly contrasted with the unique jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights. Next, the role of intent in municipal law as a means of categorization will be addressed and a case made as to why this approach is equally viable on the international plane. In conclusion, reasons will be given as to why a test based on intent is to be preferred over other theories.

In 1945, H. J. Hilton, Jr., published an excellent article in the Department of State Bulletin entitled “Commercial Arbitration in the Treaties and Agreements of the U.S.S.R.” which assessed the Soviet record in this area up to the end of the Second World War. The purpose of the present study is to carry the inquiry forward to the present, concentrating, however, exclusively on the problem of execution of foreign commercial arbitral awards in Soviet bilateral treaty practice during this period.

Before proceeding though, a quick review of the salient points of Mr. Hilton’s survey will furnish useful background information.

First, in analyzing the corpus of Soviet treaties and agreements that feature statements concerning arbitration of commercial disputes, the author found that, while the relevant provisions ranged in detail from a single phrase to comprehensive conventions containing as many as 15 articles, the data did not reveal a pattern of historic evolution in the type of formulas regarding arbitration. In other words, although the Soviet regime passed through several phases of development between 1921, when such a reference initially appeared in a treaty signed by the R.S.F.S.R., and 1945, this did not entail technical changes reflecting specific policy shifts; the various approaches used recur throughout the span of observation without any determinable regularity and no correlation could be fixed between the choice of a particular solution and the prevailing conditions at home or abroad at a given juncture. The conclusion here, then, was that “the provisions referring to arbitration included in the treaties and agreements of the U.S.S.R. vary considerably in content; however, these variations cannot be established precisely by periods of time.”

At its seventeenth session held in February-March 1970, the Legal Committee of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) adopted the final text of new draft rules governing the liability of the air carrier in respect of the international carriage of passengers by air. Since 1965, ICAO has been working on the preparation of these draft rules which, when ultimately adopted by a diplomatic conference, signed and ratified, will constitute a farreaching revision of the provisions of the widely accepted Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules relating to International Carriage by Air (Warsaw 1929) as amended by the Hague Protocol of 1955. In previous notes in this Yearbook the writer summarized discussions on the Warsaw rules in the international aviation community from late 1965, when the United States of America filed its notification of denunciation of the Warsaw Convention, until early 1968, when the ICAO Council decided to hand over the task of revision to the ICAO Legal Committee. The latter body having finished its work on revision early in March 1970, the ICAO Council lost no time in convening a diplomatic conference for February-March 1971. This conference will have the task of preparing and adopting the definitive instrument revising the Warsaw Convention as amended by the Hague Protocol.