On June 27, 1996, the Senate voted its advice and consent to ratification of the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 Relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, with Annexes, adopted at New York on August 4, 1995, by consensus of the UN Conference on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Stocks, and signed by the United States on December 4, 1995, subject to one declaration, which read as follows:

I am writing in response to my friend Louis Fisher's piece (89 AJIL 21 (1995)) on the legality of President Truman's commitment of troops to hostilities in Korea without specific statutory authorization. He makes a persuasive case; however, I believe there is at least equally compelling evidence for a very different conclusion. My full response will soon appear elsewhere,1 but a few brief observations may be of interest to your readers.

In response to a request from the court to the Legal Adviser of the Department of State, by a letter dated November 29, 1995, the United States submitted a Statement of Interest in Meridien International Bank Ltd. v. Government of the Republic of Liberia. The United States stated that the executive branch had determined that allowing the (second) Liberian National Transitional Government (LNTG II) access to American courts was consistent with U.S. foreign policy. The court, the United States maintained, should therefore accord that Government standing to assert claims and defenses in the action on behalf of the Republic of Liberia.

Petitioners Marjorie Zicherman and Muriel Mahalek sought damages from respondent Korean Air Lines (KAL) under the Warsaw Convention governing international air transport, for loss of society of a family member killed aboard a commercial airliner downed by a Soviet warplane. In a cross-petition, KAL requested a determination that the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA) prescribed damages recoverable under the Convention and did not allow damages to be recovered for loss of society. The Supreme Court (per Scalia, J.) affirmed in part and remanded in part and held unanimously that the Convention did not permit family members to recover loss-of-society damages because (1) Article 17 of the Convention provides for carrier liability in passenger deaths or injuries but leaves the crucial definition of legally cognizable harm to be determined by domestic courts; (2) in the United States, DOHSA prescribes the substantive law covering air crashes on the high seas; and (3) DOHSA permits only pecuniary damages.

By notes exchanged at a signing ceremony in Hanoi, Vietnam, on August 5, 1995, Secretary of State Warren Christopher and Vietnamese Foreign Minister Nguyen Manh Cam confirmed the establishment of diplomatic relations between the United States of America and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam by mutual consent on July 12, 1995.

In a suit brought by Bosnian nationals against Radovan Karadzic, die U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that, under the Alien Tort Claims Act, a U.S. district court may exercise jurisdiction over a nonstate actor accused of committing genocide or war crimes in violation of international law. Relying on various international agreements, including the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and common Article 3 of the four Geneva Conventions, the court found that, under modern international law, genocide and war crimes are universally condemned regardless of whether the perpetrator is die agent of a state or an independent, nonstate actor. However, the court declined to extend its holding beyond these two categories of international law violations, finding that no similar consensus exists widi respect to more commonplace violations such as torture and summary execution; the current state of international law with respect to these acts concerns state actors only, according to die court.

International Court of Justice, June 30, 1995.

Portugal submitted an Application instituting proceedings against the Commonwealth of Australia before the International Court of Justice on February 22, 1991. Both Portugal and Australia had made declarations accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court pursuant to Article 36, paragraph 2 of the ICJ Statute. Portugal sought a declaration from the Court that Portugal's status with respect to East Timor and the rights of the people of East Timor to self-determination, territorial integrity and unity, and permanent sovereignty over its wealth and natural resources were opposable to Australia. Portugal also sought a declaration that Australia had incurred international responsibility and had caused damage for which it owed reparation to both the people of East Timor and Portugal. Portugal alleged that Australia had incurred this responsibility mainly by negotiating and concluding—not with Portugal, but with Indonesia—a treaty on December 11, 1989, creating a “Zone of Cooperation” in an area of the undelimited continental shelf between East Timor and northern Australia known as the “Timor Gap.”

Opinion 2/94, Accession of the Community to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. 17 Hum. Rts. L.J. 51 (1996).

European Court of Justice, March 28, 1996.

On April 26, 1995, die Council of the European Union requested an opinion on whether accession of the European Community to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) was compatible with the Treaty Establishing the European Community (Treaty). In its request, the Council of the European Union stated that no decision on opening negotiations could be taken before the Court pronounced on die compatibility of accession with the Treaty. The Council argued that, even though a text of the envisaged agreement did not yet exist, the legal issues regarding accession were sufficientiy clear for the Court to provide an advisory opinion. The Council made clear that accession should not have any effect on the reservations entered by member states, which would “continue to apply in the areas falling within national jurisdiction.” It also explained that the “Community would agree to submit to the machinery for individual petitions and inter-State applications; actions between the Community and its Member States would, however, have to be excluded in recognition of the monopoly conferred in such matters by Art. 219 of the EC Treaty on the Court of Justice.”

United States—Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline. 35ILM 603 (1996).

World Trade Organization Appellate Body, April 29, 1996.

In United States—Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline (Gasoline), the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement Body in its first decision addressed one of the most difficult contemporary issues in international trade— the tension between the growth of international trade and the protection of the global environment. The Appellate Body decided that rules regarding standards for cleanliness of gasoline (Gasoline Rule) adopted under the Clean Air Act by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which required importers of gasoline to meet different standards from those required of domestic refiners, were not justifiable restrictions on trade under the environmental exceptions of Article XX of GATT 1994 (GATT).

Loizidou v. Turkey. 310 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A).

European Court of Human Rights, March 23, 1995.

The applicant, a Greek Cypriot woman, stated that since July 20, 1974, Turkish troops had prevented her from returning to land in Northern Cyprus that she owned and had intended to use, inter alia, for her family home. Furdiermore, she alleged that her arrest and detention by Turkish Cypriot policemen for ten hours after she had crossed die cease-fire line in 1989, when participating in a women's march aimed at asserting the Greek Cypriot refugees’ right to return to their homes, violated her human rights. Rejecting in part die preliminary objections raised by the respondent Government, die Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights held that die facts of die case are capable of falling widiin Turkish jurisdiction as a result of die presence of Turkish troops on the territory of Cyprus, so that the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) may be applicable to these acts.