Despite almost universal recognition within the international community of the importance of international environmental law, many complex issues continue to elude an appropriate legal response. A particularly controversial issue – and one that is proving increasingly difficult to resolve – is the question of how to reconcile the principle of environmental protection with that of free trade. Moreover, despite such positive platitudes as that contained within the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, nation states are quickly discovering that the issue is not simply one of abstract interest, but is actually beginning to influence both their domestic and international regulatory behaviour. This article seeks to present a broad overview of this issue as it relates to the European Union (EU) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). In particular, the article will critically discuss some of the more recent jurisprudence on this issue arising from these two, very different, ‘groupings’ of states. As will be noted, there are important similarities and differences between each ‘grouping’ in terms of its approach. And, of course, whilst it is acknowledged that many of these differences can be resolved by reference to the different aims and objectives of the different ‘groupings’, nevertheless, this article will try to move beyond a strictly comparative approach of the issues, and place them in a broader analytical framework. This is not an attempt to show which approach is ‘best’, but rather, to highlight the tensions between environmental protection and free trade.

The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) and the pending International Criminal Court (ICC), have or will have competence to exercise their jurisdiction over individuals responsible for having committed crimes enumerated in the Statutes of the courts. From the viewpoint of the application of international law, this means that these Statutes can be applied directly to individuals without any intermediate provisions of domestic law. A person who commits crimes within the jurisdiction of the international criminal courts must account for those acts irrespective of whether the domestic law of his country or locus delicti so stipulates. Nor is it relevant to ask if the Statutes of these courts have domestic effect or are domestically enforceable whether by way of automatic incorporation or the adoption of implementing legislation.

The purpose of this article is to compare the International Criminal Court with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia from a structural and procedural perspective and to comment upon some of the content of the ICC Statute and Rules from the experience of the ICTY. The ICTY is the first tribunal established for the purpose of punishing violations of international humanitarian law since the post World War II trials and is a unique case study in the realm of international criminal justice. It is also the first criminal tribunal set up under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter (a technique utilised subsequently in setting up tribunals to deal with Rwanda and possibly Sierre Leone) and has been granted broad powers of drafting and amending its own Rules of Procedure and Evidence, which is something that sets it aside from other criminal jurisdictions, including the ICC.

Aboriginal rights have attracted much media attention, nationally and internationally, over the last thirty years. Some important issues surrounding the debate on aboriginal rights relate to land, cultural survival and identity, the right to self-government, and the interaction between collective and individual rights. These issues are often interlinked so that land is of central significance to aboriginal cultural survival and identity, and without land aboriginal peoples cannot assume effective self-governance over their communities. International law has influenced the debate through emerging norms on the rights of indigenous peoples. Indeed, Canada has been at the forefront of standard-setting activities at the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations. The Working Group drafted the Draft UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 1994, which is currently being considered by the UN Commission on Human Rights for adoption as a UN General Assembly Resolution. International law is of relevance where aboriginal peoples are prevented from pursuing domestic remedies for human rights violations, or where remedies do not exist. Domestic law is also subject to international law to the extent that a state ratifies international human rights treaties, agreeing to be bound by obligations to implement treaty provisions, and to monitor compliance through reporting and individual complaints procedures. Developments under international law may also influence domestic law.

Over recent years the recruitment of child soldiers has become a matter of increasing international concern. There appear to be two reasons for this growth of concern. First, an increase in the use of child soldiers. Second, a change in society's perception of when childhood ends.

On Friday 3 March 2000, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) delivered its judgment in the case of Tihomir Blaŝkić, a Bosnian Croat General under whose command, between May 1992 and January 1994, members of the armed forces of the Croatian Defence Unit (‘HVO’) committed serious violations of international humanitarian law against the Bosnian Muslim civilian population in the Laŝva Valley, Central Bosnia. The crimes consisted of a widespread and systematic attack on cities, towns and villages inhabited by Bosnian Muslims: killing and causing serious injury or harm to Bosnian Muslim civilians, including women, children, the elderly and the infirm; burning Muslims homes, plundering of Bosnian Muslim property including livestock, destruction of mosques and institutions dedicated to education, detention and forcible transfer of civilians, using Bosnian Muslim civilians as human shields and inhuman and cruel treatment of Bosnian Muslims civilian detainees in detention facilities.

The recent events in East Timor and Kosovo have demonstrated clearly that human brutality and wanton behaviour are not elements which are exclusive to the African continent, but rather they are manifestations of the human condition. However, it is fair to say that Africa has had more than its fair share. In particular, the African continent has recently had states which have experienced anarchy to levels where the state has either collapsed completely or has become dysfunctional.

The purpose of the present article is to examine whether judicial review, meaning the reviewing of the legality of decisions of political organs by an independent judicial organ, can be regarded as a general principle of law of civilised nations in terms of Article 38(1)(c) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (hereinafter ICJ). This question gains significance in the light of the fact that the United Nations Charter (hereinafter the Charter) is unclear on whether the ICJ has the right to review resolutions of the organisation's political organs, notably the Security Council.

An examination of public international law textbooks and articles concerning the relationship between international law and domestic law always leads one to refer to the traditional dichotomy between monist and dualist doctrines. According to the former, international and domestic legal orders are perceived as forming part of a whole structure, where international law is automatically incorporated into national law and becomes, therefore, a constituent part of the latter. By contrast, dualist theory considers that international law and municipal law are supreme in their own sphere of application, the former taking precedence over the latter, only insofar that a specific domestic norm incorporates it into that legal order.