European integration has been portrayed as an example of the juridification of cosmopolitan values and the constitutionalization of cosmopolitan law. Yet, is the EU really a successful case of cosmopolitan constitution-building? Moreover, can cosmopolitanism itself provide a way out of the current dilemmas of the EU as occasionally seems to be suggested? In seeking an answer to these questions, first of all the roots of and contemporary rationale for moral and legal cosmopolitanism are explored from a normative point of view. What emerges from this is that the juridification of cosmopolitan values, such as universal human rights standards, together with the increasing loss of power of states resulting from globalization have raised concerns about the democratic legitimacy and accountability of the current global legal order. Democratic states are believed to no longer function properly given the non-democratic nature of the current global legal environment. Demands for the establishment of a (different) global legal order which constitutes, attributes and demarcates public power effectively amount to an appeal for the constitutionalization of cosmopolitan law. From an analysis of the relevant literature the allocation of power, the provision of democratic legitimacy and accountability, and the establishment of a political community beyond the state, are identified as the main challenges that any viable model for the constitutionalization of cosmopolitan law has to address. Applying these key issues as a theoretical framework for the analysis of the multidimensional constitutional legal order of the EU, it can be observed that while the EU undoubtedly signifies the most advanced form of governance beyond the state, it can neither unreservedly be considered to constitute a cosmopolitan project, nor does it offer a convenient model for the establishment of a democratic global legal order. At the same time, given the many uncertainties governing its concrete shape, legal cosmopolitanism also does not offer ready-made solutions for the structural, constitutional and institutional challenges which the EU currently faces.

The World Trade Organization's (WTO) Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) has been the focus of intense scholarly debate regarding the effects of IP protection on the development interests of the global South. Far less attention has been directed at the organizational framework in which future IP norms should be developed. The governing assumption has been that the norm-setting role of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) remains unchanged notwithstanding the primacy of the WTO as an Organization with explicit mandate for global IP regulation.

In this Article, I argue that the WTO, in a hierarchical division of labor with WIPO, should be promoted as the locus of IP norm-setting, particularly with respect to those norms that affect the regulation and supply of global public goods. IP norm-setting in the WTO is not without risks. Nonetheless, an organizational culture in which IP protection is one of many tools to accomplish defined welfare goals, rather than the raison d'être of the organization's existence, may force open important institutional space in which future IP norms consistent both with the interests of less developed countries and the ideals of mature IP systems, can be meaningfully negotiated. At a minimum, a hierarchical relationship could facilitate inter-institutional competition between the WTO and WIPO, generating additional welfare gains for the international community in the form of greater transparency in the processes of IP norm-setting, improvements in the democratic deficit inherent in international organizations generally, as well as systemic gains from enhanced accountability in the global management of IP.

In this article it is discussed how the European Union's use of treaty-making powers and other external relations competences has contributed to the establishment of human rights as customary international law and makes it more likely that democracy and modern concepts such as good governance, precaution and sustainable development, will also gain this status. A specific focus of attention is on the EU's vision of the aforementioned rights and principles as a limit to State sovereignty. It is shown that the EU promotes an interventionist approach, which allows for proportionate responses to violations of peremptory norms by or in sovereign States. Since this view is expressly subscribed by a vast number of the EU's treaty partners, the EU's vision of State sovereignty is becoming a significant element in the development of the international legal order.

The disciplines of international law and geopolitics have evolved around the same object – the exercise of State power in space. But the interaction between geopolitical and legal categories has not been properly examined yet. Similar to international law, geopolitics focuses on certain, albeit not formally binding, laws that govern or explain the conduct of States in relation to space. There is room for the geopolitical laws reasoning to lead to outcomes that differ from those required under international legal obligations of States. In other cases, geopolitical laws and reasoning could actually explain why certain international legal rules and institutions are what they are. This contribution is the first attempt to study geopolitics and international law in parallel to each other. It is demonstrated that the evolution of geopolitical thinking, whether as part of a particular expansionist or containment agenda or as scientific approach, has constantly reflected on the categories of international law, and also has been used in practice by States to justify their particular conduct in defiance of international legal requirements. At the same time, international law has traditionally left to States the room for pursuing their geopolitical agenda without breaking the requirements of international law. It is here that the significance of geopolitical factors for international law becomes clear, as the allegedly lawful expansionist action by States can lead, and has repeatedly led, to reactions that involve breaches, and potentially damage the integrity, of international law. Despite geopolitical agenda being allegedly lawful, it still has to observe certain geopolitical laws in order to avoid broader negative repercussions both for that agenda and for international law.

Although this sets out to be an annual survey, it may also include material which dates from a different parliamentary year from that given in the heading. This has proved to be inevitable in those cases when texts do not become available to the editor until long after their original date of drafting; written submissions to international organizations made by the Netherlands representatives frequently fall into this category.

Most of the information is derived from the Reports of Parliament which are available in Dutch on <www.overheid.nl/op/index.html>. The Yearbook surveys are also available in a consolidated way in a database on <www.asser.nl/pil/index.htm>.

This survey covers the treaties, international agreements, and other international instruments mentioned in the ‘Tractatenblad van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden’ – Treaty Series of the Kingdom of the Netherlands (abbr.: Trb.). Its purpose is to record the legal consequences of such agreements and instruments for the Netherlands, and Netherlands State acts in respect of them, such as signature, parliamentary approval, ratification, entry into force, provisional application, extension or limitation of territorial application, termination and abrogation. Signature by the Netherlands, however, is mentioned separately only if, in the case of multilateral treaties, such signature has taken place on a date different from the official date of conclusion of the treaty.

This survey covers municipal regulations relevant to international law that could not be dealt with adequately in the State Practice section. Translations of all or part of the text are usually given, together with descriptive or analytical notes where appropriate.

The information is derived from the Staatsblad and Staatscourant which are available in Dutch on <www.overheid.nl/op/index.html>. The Yearbook surveys are also available in a consolidated way in a database on <www.asser.nl/pil/index.html>.

The decisions in this survey are taken from the documentation system of the Public International Law Department of the T.M.C. Asser Instituut, which now contains abstracts from approximately 6000 decisions dating from 1839 to the present day.*** Most of the texts are taken from various Reports and Journals, but the Institute also receives the texts of decisions involving questions of public international law directly from the Courts concerned by special agreement between the Institute, the Ministry of Justice, and the Courts. If the decision has not (yet) been published elsewhere, the source of the text is given as ‘Institute's Collection’ followed by the administrative sequence number.

Not all the decisions in the documentation system of the Institute are included in this survey. Some are left out because they contain very minor points of (international) law. Those decisions which are included are given either in an extensive form, with verbatim extracts from the judgment, or in a summarized form, depending on their relevance to international law.

A two-year period is covered by the survey, one year of which overlaps the period covered by the survey in last year's volume of the NYIL. This is made necessary by the fact that the text of the decisions is sometimes available only after a considerable time. This is also why, by way of exception, decisions are occasionally included although given at a time prior to the period covered by the survey.

The Yearbook surveys are also available in a consolidated way in a separate database on <www.asser.nl>

*** For the period covered updated by research associate L. Wannet.

This survey is intended to provide information for international lawyers, both in the Netherlands and abroad, on literature on Dutch State practice in the field of public international law published in and outside the Netherlands mainly by Dutch authors. A few articles not meeting these criteria are also included.

Since NYIL 2007 the survey no longer focuses on all Dutch literature on public international law, but limits itself to (Dutch) literature dealing with Dutch State practice in the field of public international law. Thus the survey adapts itself more to the purpose of the Yearbook, i.e. providing information on the practice of the legislative, executive and judicial organs of the State of the Netherlands.

Furthermore, ‘international law’ has been interpreted widely, so as to include related matters, if the work in question deals with international law considerations. Fiscal law, polemology and specific regulations under European law are generally not included. The survey lists books, articles, inaugural lectures, dissertations and reports.