In recent years various new international courts and tribunals have been set up and several systems of compulsory jurisdiction established. As a result, litigation, which used to be quite rare in international affairs, is now increasingly common, prompting questions about both the relation between adjudication and more traditional methods of handling disputes, and the interrelation of different courts and tribunals. Using the evidence provided by recent cases, this article examines legal disputes and the current role of adjudication. Three specific matters are considered: the relation between adjudication and negotiation; situations of overlapping and competing jurisdiction and their consequences; and how adjudication relates to the work of political organisations.

The author's conclusion is that to ask whether the present assortment of dispute settlement procedures should be thought of as complementary or contradictory is to oversimplify the question. Diplomatic and legal processes sometimes work in harmony and sometimes in opposition and the same is true of different judicial institutions. If international law continues to develop and eventually becomes an integrated legal system, many of these uncertainties will disappear. Until then, however, the mosaic of dispute settlement procedures will keep their contrarious character.

After decades of virtual inactivity, the PCA's workload has significantly increased since the early eighties. In particular, the last view years have seen significant development. The nature of the PCA's work is diverse. In its capacity as designating authority under the UNCITRAL Rules, it deals with cases of a commercial and sometimes of a mixed state/non-state nature. Where it acts as Registry, the PCA's cases are usually of a mixed nature, and include several investment arbitrations. For the future, additional responsibilities on the basis of the revised UNCITRAL Rules would be a welcome development. A focus on specific niches, such as mass claims, would set the PCA apart from alternative institutes, which would further ensure a continuing role over the next decades.

Introductory Note

The question concerning the manner in which to combat international terrorism poses many challenges to international law. Some strategies are based on existing principles and rules, others require exploring new avenues. The report, ‘Counter-terrorism Strategies, Human Rights and International Law: Meeting the Challenges’, reproduced below, is the result of a meeting of a panel of experts, convened by the Grotius Centre for International Legal Studies of Leiden University and Campus The Hague, in April 2007, with the full support of the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The purpose of the seminar was to further the international dialogue concerning the most adequate ways to address the threat of international terrorism, and to tackle specific legal questions regarding the applicability of human rights law, international humanitarian law, the law on the use of force in self-defence against terrorist acts and the possible ways to address failing states harbouring terrorists