Jurisdiction — Visiting forces — Civil action for damages sustained as a result of acts of members of visiting force — Plaintiff also a member of visiting force — NATO Status of Forces Agreement, 1951 — Procedure for dealing with claims in respect of damage caused by members of visiting force — Whether conferring right of action against sending State

State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — Acts of visiting forces — Effects of NATO Status of Forces Agreement, 1951 — State Immunity Act 1978 — Not applicable to acts of visiting forces — Common law principles of immunity — Distinction between acts jure imperii and acts jure gestionis — Treatment of member of United States Air Force at United States military hospital in United Kingdom — Action for negligence — Whether treatment an act jure imperii

Treaties — Effect in municipal law — NATO Status of Forces Agreement, 1951 — Whether incorporated into English law — Interpretation

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Whether treaty part of municipal law — Effect of treaty which has not been incorporated into English law — NATO Status of Forces Agreement, 1951 — The law of England

State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — Torts causing personal injury — Torture allegedly committed by foreign government on foreign territory — Whether government entitled to immunity in respect of action for injury caused by torture — Whether exception to immunity for acts in violation of international law — Exception to immunity for actions in respect of personal injury caused by acts or omissions inside the United Kingdom — State Immunity Act 1978, Sections 1 and 5 — Ex parte application for leave to serve proceedings out of the jurisdiction

Human rights — Torture — Civil action against foreign government in respect of torture — Whether government entitled to sovereign immunity — The law of England

Treaties — Effects — International Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, 1976 — Plaintiff company seeking to invoke relevant provisions — Article 2.1(a) of Convention — Applicability of Convention — Event giving rise to claim occurring before Convention entering into force in Australia — Whether Convention having retrospective application — Interpretation — Construction — Customary international law — Article 28 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims Act 1989 giving effect in Australian law to International Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, 1976 — Section 6 of 1989 Act — Relevance of date of entry into force

Sea — Sea-bed — Damaged cable — Limitation of liability for maritime claims — Municipal law — International Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, 1976 — Plaintiff company seeking to invoke relevant provisions of Convention — Applicability — The law of Australia

Jurisdiction — Territorial — Extraterritorial effect of legislation — United States Congress — Presumption against extraterritorial application of legislation — Whether presumption to be strictly applied — Evidence of clear Congressional intention needed to rebut presumption — Environmental legislation requiring United States Federal agencies to prepare environmental impact statement prior to sanctioning actions affecting the environment — Whether legislation applicable to actions of United States Army in Federal Republic of Germany and on the high seas

Environment — Hazardous waste — Transboundary transportation and disposal of hazardous waste — Obsolete chemical weapons — United States Army transporting chemical weapons from Germany to weapons disposal facility on Pacific island — Whether required to prepare comprehensive environmental impact statement covering the removal, transportation and incineration of weapons — Whether incineration of weapons subject to provisions of the London Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by the Dumping of Waste, 1972

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Conduct of foreign relations — Justiciability of foreign relations questions — President concluding international agreement requiring United States to remove chemical weapons from foreign country — Whether removal and transportation of weapons complying with United States environmental legislation — Whether justiciable question

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Effect in municipal law — Whether creating private right of action — Basle Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, 1989 — The law of the United States

State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — Action against foreign State — Commercial activity — Activities taken in connection with commercial activity — Exception to immunity for proceedings relating to commercial activity — Whether issuance of debt instruments by foreign State for purposes of stabilizing its currency a commercial activity — Whether unilateral rescheduling of debt having direct effect in the United States — Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act — The law of the United States

Jurisdiction — Territorial — Extraterritorial effect of legislation — United States Congress — Presumption against extraterritorial effect — Whether presumption to be strictly applied — Legislation regulating conduct to be performed within United States — Conduct causing effect outside United States — Environmental legislation requiring federal agencies to prepare environmental impact statement prior to sanctioning actions affecting the environment — Whether requiring federal agency to prepare impact statement prior to incinerating food waste in Antarctica — Whether presumption to be applied to legislation where United States exercising legislative but not sovereign control over territory — Allegation that requirement to prepare impact statement interfering with United States participation in international co-operation programme to improve environment in Antarctica

Environment — Antarctica — Incineration of food waste — Effect on environment — Federal agency of United States failing to prepare environmental impact statement prior to authorizing incineration in Antarctica — Whether United States environmental legislation requiring preparation of impact statement applicable to Antarctica — National Environmental Policy Act — Whether provisions conflicting with Protocol to the Antarctic Treaty

Territory — Antarctica — Sovereignty — Designation as “global common” — Whether United States having legislative control over Antarctica — Antarctic Treaty, 1959 — The law of the United States

Jurisdiction — Territorial — Extraterritorial effect of legislation — United States Congress — Presumption against extraterritorial effect — Whether presumption to be strictly applied — Evidence of clear Congressional intention needed to rebut presumption — Waiver of sovereign immunity by United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act with regard to acts and omissions occurring in a “foreign country” — Whether extending to acts and omissions committed by United States in Antarctica

Territory — Antarctica — Sovereignty — Whether Antarctica a “foreign country” for purposes of Federal Tort Claims Act — Decision turning on whether “foreign country” synonymous with sovereign State — Antarctic Treaty, 1959

State responsibility — Tort — Plaintiff killed in Antarctica while working for United States Government agency — Whether United States liable for acts and omissions occurring in Antarctica — The law of the United States

State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — Commercial activity exception — Distinction between commercial acts and sovereign acts — Distinction turning on nature rather than purpose of act — Torts exception — Recruitment of staff in United States to work in hospital in Saudi Arabia — Alleged false imprisonment and ill-treatment of member of staff by agents or employees of Saudi Government — Whether falling within commercial activity exception — Exercise of police powers — Whether operation of hospital a commercial activity — Whether action in tort based upon that activity — Whether sufficient connection with the United States — The law of the United States

Jurisdiction — Territorial — Extraterritorial effect of legislation — United States Congress — Whether Congress possessing the authority to enforce its laws outside United States — Presumption against extraterritorial effect — Whether presumption to be strictly applied — Evidence of clear Congressional intention needed to rebut presumption — Antitrust legislation — Whether applicable to acts performed by non-United States nationals abroad — Requirement that acts having substantial effect in United States — Whether substantial effects test sole consideration in determining jurisdiction — Principles of international comity — Relevance in determining whether courts should assert extraterritorial jurisdiction

Comity — Jurisdictional conflict — Duty of court to balance United States and foreign interests — United States antitrust laws — Extraterritorial application — Whether comity requiring United States courts to construe antitrust laws so as not to have extraterritorial effect — Whether principles of comity only applicable when foreign and United States laws in direct conflict

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Interpretation of legislation — Presumption that Congress did not intend to legislate in a manner contrary to international law — Antitrust legislation — Whether in conformity with principles of international comity

Economics, trade and finance — United States antitrust legislation — Whether applicable to acts performed outside the United States by non-United States nationals — Substantial effects test — Principles of international comity — Relevance — The law of the United States

Extradition — Jurisdiction of requesting State — Vatican City Institute of Religious Works — Whether jurisdictional immunity precluding extradition of officials of Institute to Italy — Lateran Treaty, 1929, Article 11

State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — Foreign States — Entities of foreign States — Vatican City Institute for Religious Works — Scope of entitlement of Institute and its officials to jurisdictional immunity — Criminal proceedings

States — Holy See — Vatican City — Status under international law — Lateran Treaty, 1929, Article 11 — Central institutions of Catholic Church — Right to non-interference from Italian State — The law of the State of the Vatican City

Extradition — Jurisdiction of requesting State — Place of commission of offence — European Convention on Extradition, 1957, Article 7 — Interpretation — Cheque fraud — Offences committed partly in requested State and partly in requesting State — Right of requested State to refuse extradition in such circumstances — Whether a discretionary matter for executive

Extradition — Procedure — Role of judge examining extradition request — Whether empowered to examine culpability of person whose extradition is sought or appropriateness of extradition — The law of Luxembourg

Extradition — Political offences — Definition — Participation in providing logistical support for terrorist crimes — Whether constituting a political offence — Belgian Extradition Laws of 1874 and 1985 — European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism, 1977, Article 1 — Reservation by Belgium to Convention — Whether extradition of accused would lead to prosecution in requesting State for his political opinions

Extradition — Jurisdiction of requesting State — Place of commission of offence — Alleged participation outside requesting State in bomb-making in preparation for terrorist offences committed within requesting State — Whether constituting offence in requesting State

Extradition — Procedure — Role of judge examining extradition request — Whether empowered to examine legal procedure in requesting State — The law of Belgium

Human rights — Inhuman or degrading punishment — Death penalty — Prolonged delay between sentence and execution — Appropriateness of appeal procedures — Lack of culpability of condemned prisoners in causing inordinate delays — “Death row phenomenon” — Section 15(1) of Constitution of Zimbabwe protecting fundamental rights of individual — Whether prolonged delay amounting to inhuman treatment — Whether proposed execution would contravene Section 15(1) of Constitution — The law of Zimbabwe

Extradition — Capital offences — Offence carrying death penalty in requesting State but not in requested State — Switzerland-Belgium Extradition Treaty, 1874 — Whether requested State required to seek assurance that death penalty will not be imposed — Rule of domestic law requiring such assurance to be obtained — Whether conflicting Treaty taking precedence — European Convention on Extradition, 1957, Article 11 — Whether having any effect upon requesting State prior to ratification by that State — Whether any binding rule of international public policy concerning death penalty — Effect of Article 2(1) of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

Extradition — Concurrent requests for extradition — European Convention on Extradition, 1957, Article 17 — Principles applicable in deciding which request should take priority — Requesting States not both bound by treaty containing rule similar to Article 17 — Exercise of discretion by authorities in requested State — Relevant factors — Relative gravity of different offences committed in the requesting States — Whether re-extradition would be possible

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Application by municipal courts — Conflict between treaty and municipal legislation — Whether treaty prevails — The law of Switzerland

Extradition — Capital offences — Offence carrying death penalty in requesting State but not in requested State — Protocol VI to the European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Effect — Whether application of death penalty to extradited persons now contrary to French public policy — Obligation of requested State to seek assurance that death penalty will not be imposed or carried out — Whether unilateral condition laid down by requested State in granting extradition is sufficient — The law of France

Extradition — Capital offences — Offence carrying death penalty in requesting State but not in requested State — Protocol VI to European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Effect — Whether application of death penalty to extradited persons now contrary to public policy — Obligation of requested State to seek assurance that death penalty will not be imposed or carried out — Nature of assurances required — Duty of courts to ascertain that guarantees will be adequate in practice — Extradition to United States of America — France-United States Extradition Treaty, 1909

Human rights — Inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment — Death penalty — Whether constituting inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Article 3 — Protocol VI to the Convention — Threat of imposition of death sentence — Delay in execution and “death row” phenomenon — Whether constituting violations of Convention

Human rights — Scope of human rights treaty — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Applicability to extradition proceedings — Whether requested State responsible under Convention for treatment of fugitive in requesting State — Threat of death sentence in requesting State — Whether constituting a violation of Article 3 of Convention — Whether right to fair trial under Article 6 of Convention applicable to extradition proceedings