Since the establishment of the World Trade Organization (WTO), commentators have debated the wisdom of replacing the model of political-diplomatic dispute settlement under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) with a model of legalized dispute settlement. Under the GATT model, a dispute settlement panel report could be given full legal force only if adopted by a consensus of GATT Contracting Parties, including the party that lost the case. Under the WTO model, a report of the panel or the Appellate Body is adopted automatically unless WTO members, including the prevailing member, decide by consensus to block it, which is sometimes referred to as “negative consensus.” Many analysts whose work has focused on the politics of dispute settlement have emphasized the success, political flexibility, and apparent sustainability of the older model and cautioned that the legalized approach might be too cumbersome in various political contexts. Those favoring the legalized approach have emphasized its legitimizing capacity and potential to constrain more powerful WTO members from engaging in unilateral or rule-breaking behavior.

The concept of “common but differentiated responsibilities” (CDR) is receiving increasing recognition in international law. “Common” suggests that certain risks affect and are affected by every nation on earth. These include not only the climate and the ozone shield, but all risk-related global public goods, including peace, public health, and terrorism. In reducing the mutual risks, all nations should “cooperate in a spirit of global partnership.” Responsibilities are said to be “differentiated,” however, in that not all countries should contribute equally. CDR charges some nations, ordinarily the Rich, with carrying a greater share of the burden than others, ordinarily the Poor.

The International Court of Justice again completed a substantial program of work during 2003, with old and new cases involving the United States figuring prominendy. In a decision that will find Hide favor in official Washington, the Court dismissed Iran's 1992 Oil Platforms case against the United States, but in doing so firmly rejected U.S. positions regarding the scope of self-defense. Libya withdrew its venerable Lockerbie cases against the United States and the United Kingdom, in parallel with its acceptance of responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing and the final lifting of UN sanctions. And Mexico sued the United States, claiming failures of consular notification for fifty-four Mexican nationals sentenced to death in U.S. proceedings, the third such ICJ case against the United States.

In other significant developments, the General Assembly in December asked die Court for an urgent advisory opinion on die legal consequences of the Israeli construction of a wall in occupied Palestinian territory. Malaysia and Singapore brought a new territorial dispute by special agreement; France consented to jurisdiction over a suit by the Republic of the Congo; and the Court rejected requests by Yugoslavia and El Salvador to revise earlier judgments. Finally, the Court elected Judge Shijiuyong of China as its president and Judge Raymond Ranjeva as vice president.

The International Law Commission held its fifty-fifth session in Geneva from May 5 to June 6, and from July 7 to August 8, 2003, under the chairmanship of Enrique Candioti of Argentina. The Commission elected Roman Kolodkin of the Russian Federation, Constantin Economides of Greece, Teodor Melescanu of Romania, and Michael Matheson of the United States to fill the vacancies resulting from the death of Valery Kuznetsov of the Russian Federation, the election of Bruno Simma of Germany and Peter Tomka of Slovakia to the International Court of Justice, and the resignation of Robert Rosenstock of the United States.