No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 February 2017
1 21 ILM (1982) 891.
2 35 ILM (1996) 397.
3 It should not be assumed, however, that the commission was speaking for the European Community as a whole. In their joint amicus brief in this case Australia, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom took a more restrictive position and argued that the exercise of universal civil jurisdiction was inconsistent with international law.
4 For an opposing view, see Stephens, Beth, Translating Filártiga: A Comparative and International Law Analysis of Domestic Remedies for International Human Rights Violations, 27 Yale J. of Int'l Law 1 (2002)Google Scholar