I feel privileged to have been invited to deliver this yearřs FA Mann lecture in succession to a long line of distinguished lawyers who have paid their own tribute to one of the most outstanding German legal émigrés of the 1930s. Francis Mann became a legend in his lifetime for his profound scholarship and his expertise in international and commercial litigation. While still in Germany he had fallen under the spell of the legendary Martin Wolff, the great conflicts lawyer, with whom he was able to resume contact years later in England. Mann himself was to become a leading light in both private and public international law. He had strong views on everything, a few of them decidedly unorthodox. His work The Legal Aspect of Money became a classic, and he died in bed while correcting the proofs of the fifth edition. Happily, Charles Proctor has taken over the mantle of editing the sixth edition, which has now been published by Oxford University Press. Full details of the contributions to English law by Wolff, Mann and other outstanding German émigré lawyers will be found in a collection of essays in a fine new publication, Jurists Uprooted, edited by Sir Jack Beatson and Professor Reinhard Zimmerman.

How do treaties evolve? How in particular do we ensure the [durability over time] of a globalconvention, intended to elaborate [a new and comprehensive regime for the law of the sea] ?1 Earlier attempts to do so all failed. Why should the most recent attempt be any more successful?

The internet presents challenges for private international law. One challenge relates to jurisdiction, which is traditionally based on territory. Transactions on the internet span many borders. When cross-border wrongs are committed they may lead to transnational litigation. This article examines the circumstances in which a court can exercise jurisdiction over a foreign defendant alleged to have committed a civil wrong over the internet. Section I examines the background to jurisdiction and the internet and sets the scope of the topic. Section n gives a brief summary of the internet and its applications. Section HI examines jurisdictional rules in civil wrongs cases.The focus is on two sets of rules commonly applied around the globe: the service abroad provisions and the special jurisdiction provisions. Section IV aims to apply those jurisdictional rules to cases of wrongs committed on the internet. It advances general principles, applicable in cases of cross-border wrongs committed on the internet, relating to the place where a wrong is committed and the place where damage is suffered. Defamation has its own peculiarities and is discussed separately. The issue of whether a court can grant an injunction against a foreign defendant in respect of foreign conduct is explored. The article concludes (in Section V) that existing jurisdictional rules need not be amended in light of the internet, and offers general statements about how jurisdictional rules apply to wrongs committed on the internet.

Kenya is one of the countries that are currently in the process of preparing a new law on government procurement as part of the anti-corruption efforts of a new democratically elected government which came into power in December 2002. Whereas it may be too early to judge the commitment of the new government to meaningful and consistent anti-corruption initiatives, one may already discern either a definite unwillingness to move forward with serious reforms or an implicit acquiescence towards corrupt practices, particularly in the government procurement process. In this paper, we shall examine Kenya's government procurement laws, and their practical application. We focus on two recent examples of the procurement process, one by a government ministry and the other by a parastatal body. The first example of application we shall look at is the controversy over the procurement of HIV-Aids testing equipment by the Ministry of Health, and the second is the procurement of cranes by the Kenya Ports Authority. We shall end with a brief examination of the proposed Public Procurement and Disposal Bill (2003)l which is currently before the Kenyan parliament and how it may revolutionalize the government procurement process in Kenya. This Bill has already received the approval of the Cabinet of Ministers and is due for the second reading in Parliament.2 Despite the Government having stated its commitment to have the bill enacted, the bill has not been passed yet.3 In the last substantive part of the paper, we assess the relevant international agreements and standards such as the UNCITRAL Model Law on Public Procurement and the WTO's Agreement on Government Procurement, and also highlight the regional procurement law.

It was Robert Nozick who, distinguishing the classical liberal ‘night-watchman State’ which protected citizens against violence and enforced contracts on their behalf, conjured instead the ‘ultra-minimal State’1 in which the task of the State is confined to the monopolization of violence rather than the actual provision of security (unless paid for by citizens by choice). On the face of it, it seems that Western governments are increasingly keen to move towards this model of the ultra-minimal State and to allow even the provision of force to be assumed by private enterprise on a contractual model in which the rich or the desperate may choose to avail themselves of fortifications at the going rate while the rest take their chances in life. The ultra-minimal State is left with a residual steering2 policy role in which the parameters of contractual engagement for protection can be set. In short, it appears that nothing is sacrosanct in the onward march of the principles of neo-liberalism. Even the ultimate bastions of establishment—Her Majesty's armed forces—are not immune from processes of commodification and marketization that have previously been applied to core functions such as policing3 and imprisonment.4

An analysis of recent development in international criminal law shows the emergence of two countervailing trends: on the one hand a broadening trend, in that the various prosecutorial meansused to hold individuals accountable for violations of certain international crimes has expanded; and on the other hand a narrowing trend, in that the protection from prosecution afforded by international law to certain individuals, that once seemed to falter, has been reinstated.

Governments, in their diplomatic and consular establishments abroad, typically employ a wide range of people apart from career diplomats and civil servants. Translators, secretaries, drivers, clerks, technical support staff, librarians and chefs are among the jobs that are commonly performed in embassies and consulates. Significantly, many of these subordinate positions are filled by nationals and residents of the forum State, that is, the country in which the embassy or consulate is located. (By contrast, diplomatic or senior policy positions in the organization will almost always be held by nationals of the sending State.) The sending State, particularly if it is a developing country, will often have little choice but to employ local residents to perform many routine tasks given the exorbitant cost of importing a labour force from abroad. From the perspective of the employee of a mission, the nature of the work to be performed may be little different from that carried out for its own government or even the private sector.

In England and Wales, as elsewhere, criminal law stands in sharp contrast to other systems of social control. Criminal offences and their related penalties are clearly distinguishable from civil wrongs and their associated (civil) sanctions. And because the term ‘civil law’ refers not only to the domain of torts, but also encompasses administrative law, criminal penalties are, in addition, distinguished from the administrative or regulatory sanctions. This ‘distinction between criminal and civil justice has been such a basic feature of the common law’1 that it shapes not only substantive law but also the organization of the courts into civil, criminal and sometimes administrative chambers or divisions. More importantly, the distinction between civil and criminal sanctions will lead to the application of different procedural rules: civil proceedings, used for the imposition of civil sanctions, are less stringent that their criminal counterpart applied when the offender faces a criminal sanction. This more gentle approach can be detected in both the burden and standard of proof.

In 1996, the current President of the French Constitutional Council (the Conseil Constitutionnel), Pierre Mazeaud, wrote:

The adoption of Protocol V to the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons represents a shift in focus for weapons law towards the long-term after-effects of weapons. This note considers this development.

1. You have asked me for advice on the legality of military action against Iraq without a further resolution of the Security-Council, This is, of course, a matter we have discussed before. Since then I have had the benefit of discussions with the Foreign Secretary and Sir Jeremy Greenstock, who have given me valuable background information on the negotiating history of resolution 1441. In addition, I have also had the opportunity to hear the views of the US Administration fromtheir perspective as co-sponsors of the resolution. This note considers the issues in detail in order that you are in a position to understand the legal reasoning. My conclusions are summarised at paragraphs 26 to 31 below.

On 9 January 2003 Mexico instituted proceedings against the United States of America for violations of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963.1 Mexico based the jurisdiction of theCourt on Article 36(1) of the Statute of the Court which provides that:

This is a surprising-and disquieting-judgment which raises serious questions about the role of the Court. The Legality of Use of Force cases began in 1999 when the Federal Republic ofYugoslavia (FRY)2 first brought an action against ten NATOStates for their use of force in Kosovo.3 In December 2004 the Court decided unanimously that it had no jurisdiction to decide the cases. However, this unanimity masked a fundamental disagreement between the judges: it is apparent from the Joint Declaration of Judges Ranjeva, Guillaume, Higgins, Kooijmans, Al-Khasawneh, Buergenthal and Elaraby that the judges were strongly divided, by eight to seven, on the reasoning which led them to agree that there was no jurisdiction.

1. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide {Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro).

1. On 30 July 2004 the Court issued three new practice directions (X-XU). Practice Direction X calls for agents to attend meetings concerning procedural aspects of cases without delay; Practice Direction XI calls on parties to ensure that material presented during oral hearings on prov sional measures are strictly relevant to the criteria for their being awarded; Practice DirectionXB established procedures with regard to submissions made by international NGOs in connection with advisory proceedings. The Court also amended Practice Direction V, clarifying that the 4-month period in which a party may present observations and submissions on preliminary objections runs from the date on which the preliminary objections were filed.