Let's assume, if only for the sake of argument, that the Chechen people have the right to self-determination. Since the massive indiscriminate use of military force by Russia in December 1994, it is arguable that the Chechen people's right to internal self-determination has evolved into a right to external self-determination, i.e., into a right to secede from Russia. This is a reasonable assumption as we, as well as others, have pointed out on several occasions. However, the legal analysis has not been taken beyond this point. In this editorial, the legal consequences of the lawful exercise of the right to external self-determination by the Chechen people will be explored, albeit tentatively.

In recent years, the UN Security Council has increasingly been involved in domestic conflicts. To explain this development, two lines of arguments have been used most often, both referring to the end of the Cold War. The first line of argument holds that the collapse of the Soviet Union has led to more domestic conflicts that manifest themselves at the international level, and the UN has simply responded to that growing problem. In the second line of argument, the collapse of the Soviet Union has led to an end of the anticipation and use of Soviet veto power in the Security Council, leading to more opportunities for the UN to take a more proactive stance in domestic conflicts. How plausible are these explanations? In this article, the argument is made that both lines of explanation rest partly on faulty premises.

The Rwanda Tribunal is an independent judicial institution established by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. It is the first international court having competence to prosecute and punish individuals for egregious crimes committed during an internal armed conflict. While the Government of Rwanda was a member of the Security Council and participated in the negotiations regarding the creation of the Tribunal, there were significant differences of opinion between it and the Council regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction and competence. This article discusses the special features of the Rwanda Tribunal, as compared to the Yugoslavia Tribunal.

United Nations peace-keeping is presently being faced with dynamic new challenges. The concept of peace-keeping is rapidly expanding, operations are being entrusted with new and innovative tasks, and are increasingly being deployed in intrastate conflicts. As the functions of peace-keepers vary, so too does the role and conception of peace-keeping. The new tasks entrusted to peace-keepers have brought with them new problems and difficulties. Controversial recent operations, such as those in Somalia and the former Yugoslavia, have particularly raised the issue of impartiality in the context of UN peace-keeping. Impartiality is traditionally a distinguishing feature of peace-keeping operations, yet its meaning and status remain unclear.

One of the most controversial contests over the allocation of shared natural resources is now being waged by four former Soviet Union republics (Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Turkmenistan) and Iran over the riches of the Caspian Sea. The bilateral regime established by the former USSR and Iran governing the Caspian Sea, though technically still existing today, is inadequate to deal with the present-day complex issues of the use and allocation of natural resources. The situation is aggravated by unilateral claims of the states bordering the Sea. Although the coastal states are currently discussing how the regime of the Caspian Sea might be resolved, the issue is not yet settled and the positions of the parties remain divergent.

On 21 July 1995, Greece ratified the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (hereinafter the 1982 Convention). The entry into force of a widely accepted and comprehensive law of the sea convention has been a consistent objective of successive Greek administrations since negotiations began over two decades ago. Greece was very active during the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III]), voting in favour of the Convention and its Final Act with the intention of ratifying it at a later date. This article discusses the political and substantive context of the Greek ratification of the 1982 Convention by considering its impact upon Greek law of the sea interests and assessing its implications for Greek-Turkish relations in the Aegean Sea.

In January 1996, tension escalated in the south-eastern Aegean as a result of Turkey's challenge of Greek sovereignty over the Imia rocks. Turkish ‘journalists’ from the newspaper Hurriyet occupied the Greek rocks and took down the Greek flag. This led to a build-up of Turkish and Greek naval forces near the rocks, thus creating a potential source of armed conflict. The tension was reduced after diplomatic intervention by the United States. However, there was a surprising absence of initiative on the part of the European Union in spite of the fact that the external borders of one of its member states had been challenged. The following will be a very brief account of the incident and the arguments of both parties, as evidenced primarily by their respective verbal notes.

In Dayton, Ohio, on 21 November 1995, after three weeks of proximity talks, the Bosnian parties, joined by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Republic of Croatia, initialled a General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, together with twelve Annexes. Following an implementation conference held in London on 8 and 9 December 1995, the General Framework Agreement and its accompanying Annexes were signed in Paris on 14 December 1995. They came into force upon signature.

Ever since the creation of the Albanian state in 1913, the Greek-Albanian relations have often been tense and emotional. Mainly focused on the presence and the rights of the Hellenic minority in Albania – and especially in the region of Northern Epirus which was the object of Greek territorial claims for many decades – over the years, these bilateral relations have known many periods of tension with international repercussions. Indeed, from the time of the League of Nations until the catalytic changes in Europe in 1989 and the post-bipolar international order, the issue of the Hellenic minority has dominated and defined the bilateral relations, and has often caused the reaction of international institutions and emotional outbursts of Greek public opinion. Furthermore, it has affected the broader Balkan stage and the security and stability of the region, with the interrelation of minority questions in all Balkan countries.

Andrés Aguilar Mawdsley had a national and international career of the highest distinction. After his studies in Venezuela and at McGill University in Montreal – where more than the law he found the lovely wife who was at his side until the moment of his death – he began his career as a teacher of law, early attaining the rank of professor and dean of the law faculty in Caracas. By the age of thirty-four, he was appointed Minister of Justice. He subsequently served as the legal counsel of the Venezuelan national oil company and in many other positions of responsibility in Venezuela.

Libya has come three times before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the basis of special agreements. At present, Libya has pending before the Court two cases it has brought by unilateral application, respectively against the United Kingdom and against the United States, concerning Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention Arising From the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie. For its part, Chad had never come before the Court since its accession to independence in 1960.

On 22 February 1991, Portugal filed a case against Australia in the Registry of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) instituting proceedings in a dispute concerning “certain activities of Australia with regard to East Timor”. The impetus behind the case was the conclusion of the Timor Gap Treaty between Australia and Indonesia in December 1989. The application alleged that Australia's conduct had caused “particularly serious legal and moral damage to the people of East Timor and to Portugal, which will become material damage also if the exploitation of hydrocarbon resources begins.” Jurisdiction was founded on the parties' declarations under Article 36(2) of the Statute.

The Permanent Court of Arbitration is currently acting as Registrar in arbitrations between:

1. an African state and two foreign investors;

2. an Asian state and a foreign company;

3. an Asian state enterprise and a foreign-owned local subsidiary; and

4. a European enterprise and an African state.

Recently, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) issued its opinion on jurisdictional matters in the case of The Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadić. The defendant had challenged the establishment and jurisdiction of the Tribunal. While the defendant specifically contested the authority of the Tribunal on three grounds, it is the claim of lack of subject matter jurisdiction which will be the focus of this article. As the first case proceeding towards trial, this challenge gives the Tribunal its first opportunity to comment upon and clarify the extent of its subject matter jurisdiction.