In the United Kingdom the law pertaining to domicile has the rather dubious distinction that, although subjected to concerted criticism from commentators and law reformers alike for over half a century, it has largely remained unchanged.1 Common law jurisdictions around the world have succeeded in passing legislation which, to varying degrees, has modernized the concept,2 yet in Britain a series of initiatives have either failed to complete the legislative process or not even made it to Parliament.3 The reason in each instance was less the substance of the proposals, but rather political expediency in the face of pressure from the overseas business community resident in the United Kingdom, who feared extended fiscal liability if the connecting factors were attributed with a less legalistic interpretation.4

On 19 May 2006, France, Ireland, Spain and the United Kingdom deposited a joint submission with the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (the Commission) concerning the continental shelf extending beyond 200 nautical miles out into the Bay of Biscay and the Celtic Sea. The Commission was established under Annex II of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). This was the sixth submission received by the Commission, but the first such joint submission made by a group of coastal States.1 The Commission's task is to make recommendations on the outer limits of the continental shelf, not to delimit the boundaries of the continental shelf among the four coastal States. That will be done by the four States themselves through consultation and negotiation after the Commission has made its recommendations. The Commission began consideration of the joint submission at its 18th session which began on 21 August 2006 at the UN Headquarters in New York. The Sub-Commission that it appointed to examine the joint submission in detail has held a number of hearings with the four delegations—in August 2006, and January and March 2007. It is not expected to transmit its recommendations to the full Commission until the 20th session beginning in August 2007.

The judgment in the Case Concerning the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (‘Genocide case’) was handed down on 26 February 2007.1 Broadcast live across Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia and making front-page news,2 it is a landmark opinion of considerable substance that contains a whole host of interesting international legal issues. The judgment and individual opinions attached thereto contain many important points on evidence, the law on genocide and state responsibility. This comment will touch upon only some of the many issues raised. In order to do so, though, it is first necessary to recall the history of the case.

1. Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia)

On 2 July 1993, in pursuance of a Special Agreement of 7 April 1993, Hungary and Slovakia requested the Court to determine certain issues arising out of the implementation and termination of a 1977 Agreement on the construction and operation of the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros barrage system. In its judgment of 25 September 199790 the Court found both States to be in breach of their obligations and called on them to negotiate a settlement in good faith.91 On 3 September 1998 Slovakia filed a request for an additional judgment, arguing that Hungary was unwilling to implement the judgment92 and it was subsequently agreed that Hungary would file a written statement of its position regarding this request by 7 December 1998.93

2. Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v Democratic Republic of the Congo) Guinea instituted proceedings against the Democratic Republic of Congo on 28 December 1998 alleging grave breaches of international law perpetrated upon a national of Guinea. By an order of 25 November 199994 the following time limits were set for the submission of written pleadings: Republic of Guinea, memorial, 11 September 2000; Democratic Republic of the Congo, counter-memorial, 11 September 2001. By an order of 8 September 200095 these were extended to: Republic of Guinea, memorial, 23 March 2001; Democratic Republic of the Congo, counter-memorial, 4 October 2002. On 3 October 2002 the Democratic Republic of the Congo filed preliminary objections to the admissibility of the Application and in an order of 7 November 200296 the Court fixed 7 July 2003 as the time limit for submission of written observations by the Republic of Guinea. On 18 July 2006, the Court set 27 November 2006 as the date for the opening of public hearings on preliminary objections in relation to the case.97 The public hearings concluded on 1 December 2006 at which time the Court commenced its deliberations.98 The Court gave its decision in the case on 24 May 2007.99

On 8 February 2007 the Court re-elected Mr. Philippe Couvreur as Registrar of the International Court of Justice for a term of seven years.

On 29 January 2007, Pre-Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court (the ICC) handed down its decision confirming the charges brought against Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, the first defendant to appear before the Court. In this and earlier decisions in the case, the Chamber has said a number of interesting things about the admissibility of cases before the Court, the elements of the war crime of child recruitment and the modes of liability under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (the Rome Statute).140 More generally, however, the Chamber's actions also say much about the role the judges of the ICC see themselves as undertaking in the Court's proceedings.

Thomas Lubanga is a national of the Democratic Republic of Congo (the DRC). He describes himself as a politician. It is alleged that from its foundation in 2000 he has been the leader of the Union des patriots congolais (the UPC) and commander-in-chief of its military wing, the Forces patriotiques pour la liberation du Congo (the FPLC). From mid-2002 to the end of 2003, the FPLC was engaged in fighting in the region of Ituri in the DRC. During the conflict, the UPC/FPLC is alleged to have committed numerous atrocities, including the widespread recruitment of children into its ranks.141

The DRC had become a party to the Rome Statute on 11 April 2002 and, accordingly, the Statute entered into force for it on 1 July 2002, the date of the Court's establishment. Following strong hints from the Prosecutor,142 on 19 April 2004 the President of the DRC referrred to the Court ‘the situation of crimes within the juris- diction of the Court allegedly committed anywhere in the territory of the DRC since the entry into force of the Rome Statute’.143 On 23 June 2004, the Prosecutor opened an investigation into the situation, the ICC's first.144 On 19 March 2005, Lubanga was arrested and detained by the DRC authorities, and charged with genocide, crimes against humanity, murder, illegal detention and torture in relation to crimes alleged committed between May 2003 and February 2005. On 17 March 2006, Lubanga was transferred from Congolese custody to that of the ICC.