Issues of State complicity arise ever more frequently in international relations. Rules which deal with the responsibility of States for aiding or assisting in the commission of internationally wrongful acts by other States are, however, not yet fully developed. States frequently support each other's actions without necessarily considering the potential implications of the rules on complicity in international law. This leads to another problem: is support given to another State automatically to be seen as relevant practice for the development of new customary rules or the interpretation of treaties through subsequent practice? Or is it possible for complicit States to play two different roles: to assist in some conduct while not endorsing the legal claim associated with it? This contribution aims to untangle the various facets of complicit State behaviour. It will argue that in some cases, States can indeed play two different roles. States should, however, be careful in considering the long-term implications of such behaviour.

An eventual sustained democratic transition process in Zimbabwe may include a ‘truth and reconciliation’ commission. The need for—and possible form of—any such institution is situated in a number of discussions: the balance of principle and pragmatism that peace deals sometimes require; comparative experiences in other societies and the promise and limits of institutional modelling; the dynamic between global expectations or prescriptions and ground-level exigencies; the interface of international criminal law and institutions with national-level justice processes; the content of the State's international legal duty to afford a remedy. In considering the extent of an international normative framework limiting the justice options of transitional States, a certain margin of appreciation may be appropriate or necessary to enable a society to reconcile with its violent past on its own terms.

The British Government's nationalization of the shares of Northern Rock plc and Bradford & Bingley plc in 2008 raises important issues about the standard of protection owed to the banks' non-UK investors and the manner in which compensation should be calculated. The United Kingdom is party to numerous bilateral investment treaties as well as the European Convention on Human Rights, which adopt an international standard of protection for foreign investors and require the payment of ‘market value’ compensation for the property taken. As the analysis in this article shows, the compensation scheme established by the British Government appears to fall short of these obligations.