The Treaty of Amsterdam enshrines in Article 2 (formerly Article B) of the Treaty on European Union under the new Title I called “Common Provisions” (which contains, with some amendments, the provisions of the former Articles A to F) a new objective for the Union, namely:

“to maintain and develop the Union as an area of freedom, security and justice in which the free movement of persons is assured in conjunction with appropriate measures with respect to external border controls, asylum, immigration and the prevention and combating of crime.”

There is a question mark over the future of the nation-state in Europe. National monetary policy has been transferred to the European level in most European Union member States. Over the next ten years the EU will have a stronger role in defence and foreign policy, immigration and law enforcement. The very policies that supposedly define the concept of national sovereignty are no longer the exclusive domain of national governments.

The protection of the global environment has become one of the central objectives of the international community in recent decades. Issues such as climate change, the depletion of the ozone layer, and the loss of the biological diversity has resulted in a growing international awareness of the problems facing the planet. Moreover, there is also recognition that States will need to act more collaboratively at the international level if effective solutions are to be found to these problems. However, concurrently there is also recognition that many States have pressing socio-economic concerns of their own, and that they have neither the resources nor the capabilities with which to devote to such global issues—so called “developing” States. This article examines the response of international environmental law to these two, potentially opposing, trends, viz., the need for universalism, on the one hand, and sensitivity to the needs of developing States, on the other. In particular, the article will examine the emerging legal principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities”, as well as discussing the various means of operationalising it. Nevertheless, as will be discussed below, there is still much debate as to the conceptual basis of this principle—leading one to question its real aim. Is it to contribute to a fairer world system in which developed States recognise their historical responsibility for past environmental damage, or is it simply an expedient means of ensuring the participation of developing States in what are primarily Northern concerns?

Examples can be found from ancient times of concern for the protection of cultural artefacts and early legislation to protect monuments and works of art first appeared in Europe in the 15th century. Cultural heritage was first addressed in international law in 1907 and a body of international treaties and texts for its protection has been developed by UNESCO and other intergovernmental organisations since the 1950's. The 1954 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict of UNESCO (henceforth the “Hague Convention”) is the earliest of these modern international texts and was developed in great part in response to the destruction and looting of monuments and works of art during the Second World War. It grew out of a feeling that action to prevent their deterioration or destruction was one responsibility of the emerging international world order and an element in reconciliation and the prevention of future conflicts. International law relating to the protection of cultural heritage thus began with comparatively narrow objectives, the protection of cultural property in time of war.

There have been several cases reported over the last few years on the meaning of “habitual residence”. This comparatively new phrase is much in use not only in domestic legislation but also in various Hague Conventions on the reform of private international law and it is in widespread use by the European Commission. Habitual residence is the basis for allocating jurisdiction to that State's court, especially in relation to matrimonial causes and child custody. For example, it has been proposed by the European Commission as a replacement for domicile in the new Convention on the Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil Matters. Habitual residence is also extremely important in connection with tax matters and social security. It is additionally used in the Immigration Act 1971. Other than its purpose in allocating jurisdiction, habitual residence is beginning to be adopted as a connecting factor for choice of law, for instance the Rome Convention on Choice of Law in Contract.

Social jargon of the day embraces the philosophy that the world is now a global village. The use of this expression surprises no one, as in almost every aspect of our lives, we are somehow connected to someone or something which transcends territorial borders. It is in fact the order of the day and the proliferation of transnational issues coming before the courts bears testimony to this. The way in which business is conducted links the local tradesman, company or conglomerate to elements not within his or its jurisdictional purview; the way in which we live our private lives through employment, travel, marriage, or place of birth of our children may make for us connections with a host of other countries not previously contemplated. It is therefore no wonder that at times, serious issues affecting a person's personal rights may fall to be determined by one or another of several courts of law of one or another of several countries which may or may not be the ideal adjudicator of justice. The question obviously raised for determination is what is ideal? Throughout the passage of time, English law, which the Commonwealth Caribbean mainly inherited, has adopted a number of tests through which this ideal adjudicator may be identified. In recent times however, there has been a tendency to reject the established approach and to strike out independently in protest of the constraints imposed by judicial precedent. In Dominica, in relation to transnational causes of action, this was recently done in the form of statutory enactment entitled the Transnational Causes of Action (Product Liability) Act. It is the aim of this paper to examine whether, and if so, to what extent the Act has abolished the doctrine of forum non conveniens as a resource in private international law through which an ideal adjudicator may be located for the determination of transnational disputes, as well as to assess the effectiveness of the Act in dealing with these types of matters.

Three Korean women won $75,000 in damages in a libel action against the American-owned Newsweek, Inc. in Seoul for publication of a defamatory photo and a caption in the Pacific edition of Newsweek. A Singapore judge awarded former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore and two others a §678,000 damage award against the International Herald Tribune, owned by the New York Times Co. and the Washington Post Co., for libel relating to an editorial-page column about the “dynastic politics” in the island nation.

A fundamental clash of values, which could affect the very foundations of the Brussels Convention, was revealed in the recent judgment of the Court of Appeal in Turner v. Grovit.

Within the field of competition law the question of jurisdiction is able to ignite an extremely heated debate. For example, when the American company Boeing decided to acquire the American company McDonnel Douglas both the US and the EU competition authorities engaged in an investigation of the transaction. The fact that the Community commenced an investigation, and even appeared to consider a prohibition, of the merger caused an uproar amongst some American politicians. These politicians claimed that the merger was a purely American matter and that the Community's competition authorities had no jurisdiction over the merging parties.

With China's resumption of sovereignty over Macau on 20th December 1999, another step was taken towards the reunification of Greater China. The reunification of Macau as of Hong Kong is based on the principle of “one country, two systems’, under which the socialist systems of the People's Republic of China are not applied in these territories. Instead most constituents of their previous economic, legal and social systems are preserved. In either case China negotiated what are called Joint Declarations for the resumption of sovereignty with the colonial power, under which the terms of “one country, two systems’ were spelled out. China undertook to give effect to the Declarations in Basic Laws, passed by its National People's Congress. Except for defence and foreign affairs, most matters are vested in the new entities, called Special Administrative Regions. The Basic Laws describe the constitutional system established for the regions as being characterised by a “high degree of autonomy’. As such they are an interesting addition to autonomy systems which are increasingly being applied as solutions to problems of divided societies. But the institutional support for the autonomy is particularly weak, and a closer examination of the articulation of the regions with the central authorities suggests that the primary concern in establishing the special administrative regions is less the automony for the people of Hong Kong or Macau as finding a framework for managing different economic systems from those on the mainland (I have developed these arguments in Ghai 1999).

In October 1998, at the height of the Monicagate scandal, the publication by the French publisher Plon of a novel which recounts the adulterous relationship in the 1960s between a politician bearing a marked resemblance to Francois Mitterrand, and a journalist, provided an interesting comparison between the attitudes of the French and of the Americans to the romantic dalliances of their respective leaders. For Jeanne Dautun's work of fiction Un ami d'autrefois is most certainly no Monica's Story, and French reactions to their President's lengthy extra-marital relationship with Anne Pingeot have been at the very least understanding, if not even compassionate. In France, the small gathering of graveside mourners amongst whom Mitterrand's mistress and illegitimate daughter Mazarine took their places shocked no-one, although many an eyebrow was raised in the United States. In truth, Mitterrand manipulated the release of information about his private life all along the line, “coming clean” only progressively with his approaching death. Although the general public knew nothing of his double life, journalists had been very much aware of the existence of this second family for a great many years, but had revealed nothing. The respect of his privacy in this relationship and the reactions of fellow French politicians to his unashamed infidelity contrast sharply with the fate reserved for Bill Clinton, the indiscretions of his private life exposed in the nation's press for all to enjoy. We may ask ourselves if French journalists are perhaps more gentlemanly, less cut-throat than their Anglo-Saxon counterparts. Or are the cliches which describe latins as inveterate romantics and lovers true after all? Or are these irrational judgments supported by powerful French legislation protecting the individual's right to privacy? This article aims to examine the main texts relating to infringements of privacy in France, highlighting in particular those committed by the press against public figures and celebrities.

Since the last note on Current Developments in this area, the Amsterdam Treaty has entered into force on 1 May 1999, leading to a number of important developments in the legal system governing EU Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) law. In addition, the Court of Justice has clarified several aspects of the relationship between the first and third pillars.

The period under review (Spring 1998—Autumn 1999) is one in which the prohibition of cartels under Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty figured prominently, the Court of Justice clearing up a backlog of unfinished business relating back, in some cases, over a decade. The 1986 Polypropylene cartel decision was finally put to bed with the Court of Justice dismissing a number of appeals raised on the sole ground of the non-existence of the decision. It also dismissed an appeal involving the 1989 Welded Steel Mesh cartel decision except that, in an important development, for the first time the Court expressly applied Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides a right to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time before an impartial tribunal, and reduced a Commission fine (marginally, knocking 50,000 ECUs off a 3 million ECU fine) as “reasonable satisfaction” for the excessive duration of proceedings (five-and-a-half years) before the Court of First Instance. The Court of First Instance itself upheld on review the 1994 Commission decision in the Cartonboard cartel, leaving of major cartel cases only review of the Cement decision still outstanding.

One of the major activities of the European Community for achieving its objectives is to establish an internal market characterised by the abolition, as between member States, of obstacles to the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital.1