The second of February 1992 marked the 21 st anniversary of the adoption of the 1971 Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, especially as Waterfowl Habitat, commonly known as the Ramsar Convention after the town in Iran where it was concluded. For those more familiar with modern concepts of majority, 21 December 1993 constituted the 18th anniversary of its entry into force. The period between these two dates witnessed a significant endeavour by the international community, through the signature at the Rio Earth Summit of the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity, to establish a basic conceptual framework to underpin the various conservation initiatives embodied in the now substantial number of international treaties for the protection of wildlife. This framework, which was arguably already emerging in customary international law, emphasises a broad, threefold obligation regarding the conservation of ecosystems, of species and of genetic diversity within species. As each species, and indeed each individual member of that species, exists not in isolation but as a functioning unit within a wider ecosystem, it is axiomatic that the protection of natural habitats must continue to play a particularly crucial role in the global conservation effort.

Institution-building in international law is an architecture of compromise. The United Nations, poised to make one of its most ambitious institutional and theoretical leaps since the creation of the human rights system in Geneva, again finds itself caught between the impulse towards universalism and the hesitancies of statism. The institution in question is the proposed International Criminal Court.

On 7 July 1989 the European Court of Human Rights reached a landmark decision in the case of Jens Soering. In the case of a pending extradition, the requested State, a party to the European Convention on Human Rights, violated Article 3 of the Convention if the fugitive, after surrender, faced the real risk of being subjected to ‘inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1948, is the first UN human rights document to include civil and political rights as well as economic, social and cultural rights. However, since that time a dichotomy between civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights has characterized UN human rights activities. In 1966 the General Assembly adopted two separate human rights documents: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Two separate covenants were drafted as a result of western pressure. Western countries stressed the alleged difference in character of both categories of rights: civil and political rights could be implemented immediately while most economic, social and cultural rights could be implemented only progressively. In the Vienna Declaration, adopted by the World Conference on Human Rights in 1993, the principle of the equality of all rights was, however, forcefully emphasized.

The evolution of international commercial arbitration as an alternative mechanism for the resolution of international commercial disputes has been accompanied by the gradual liberalization of national arbitration laws and the acknowledgement of the special role this institution has had to play in international trade. At present, most of the developed national arbitration laws accord substantial freedoms to parties and arbitrators in framing the arbitral procedure as they see fit and reduce the instances of possible court interference in the proceedings. These developments have been accompanied, and sometimes preceded, by the evolution of legal theories aimed at explaining the specific contractual nature of international commercial arbitration and justifying its autonomous and independent status.

A controversial issue in international humanitarian law is whether violations of norms applicable in internal armed conflicts constitute criminal offences under international law and can be adjudicated as such. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) recently faced this question in the context of a preliminary motion lodged by the Defence alleging lack of jurisdiction in the Tadić case. The indictment against Dusko Tadić charges the accused, inter alia, with violating the laws or customs of war, ‘recognised by Article 3 of the Statute of the Tribunal and Article 3(1 )(a) of the Geneva Conventions of 1949’ (Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions enumerates prohibitions applicable in conflicts not of an international character).

On 23 September 1989 Presse Alliance, a company incorporated under French law whose registered office is in Paris, which publishes the newspaper France-Soir, published an article about an operation which drug squad officers of the French police had carried out at one of the bureaux de change operated in Paris by Chequepoint SARL. That article, based on information provided by the agency France Presse, mentioned the company ‘Chequepoint’ and a young woman by the name of ‘Fiona Shevill-Avril’. Chequepoint SARL, a company incorporated under French law whose registered office is in Paris, has operated bureaux de change in France since 1988. It is not alleged to carry on business in England or Wales. Fiona Shevill, a United Kingdom national residing in North Yorkshire (England), was temporarily employed for three months in the summer of 1989 by Chequepoint SARL in Paris. She returned to England on 26 September 1989. On 17 October 1989 the plaintiffs issued a writ in the High Court of England and Wales claiming damages for libel from Presse Alliance in respect of the copies of France-Soir distributed in France and the other European countries including those sold in England and Wales.