In the Showlag case, the Privy Council had to decidewhich of two conflicting foreign judgments it was to enforce, thefirst-in-time or the last-in-time. The “Cyclops” chapter in JamesJoyce’s Ulysses presents a modernized reenactmentof the epic encounter between Odysseus and the cave dwellingone-eyed monster. The author explores the relationship between thelegal conflict and the dramatic conflict, together with the judicialresolution and the literary resolution of the problems at hand. Thearticle focuses on the nature of argument as displayed and workedthrough in the case law and in the novel, and points out thedifficulty law has in overcoming intractably conflicting rules. Indoing so, the author highlights the struggle in international lawbetween national independence and national submission to law — thevoices of sovereignty and the voices of internationalism.

This article considers the way in which territorial modifications andbreakups in federal states are dealt with in domestic and ininternational law. It investigates whether federal states permitseparatist claims of their minorities for “internal modifications”on the basis of constitutional Law, such as the formation of newmember units or the merger of existing member units, and whetherdomestic law knows of any secessionist claims for “externalmodifications,” such as the formation of new sovereign states or themerger or association with existing states. The extensive practicesurveyed by the author allows for a new outlook on the well-knownproblem of “self-determination.”

The first NAFTA Chapter 19 binational panel review of a Mexicanantidumping determination raises important questions about theinterpretation of treaties. In confronting the different way inwhich Mexico, a civil law country, had implemented NAFTA, the panelhad to deal with a process of implementation different from that inthe common law jurisdictions of Canada and the United States. Theauthors argue that in interpreting NAFTA, the panel relied on thenegotiating history of one party, the United States, to reach aconclusion that did not represent the intentions of the threeparties, and led to the exercise of a jurisdiction by a Chapter 19panel in respect of Mexico that ü different from that exercised byChapter 19 panels reviewing determinations from the other two NAFTAparties.

The United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women provided animportant occasion for the international community to assess and todevelop its political commitment to the protection of the humanrights of women. The author discusses the Beijing Declaration andPlatform for Action that resulted from the conference and considerswhether international machineries for the enforcement of rights willbe adequate to deal with rights that traditionally have beenmarginalized. Recognizing the past and current limitations ofinternational mechanisms, the author argues that working withinmainstream institutions as well as developing independent specialprocedures are necessary measures to ensure that the internationalsystem reflects the needs of women.

The decision of the second GATT panel in theTuna/Dolphin dispute again focuses attention onthe perceived conflict between the goah of trade liberalization andnational and international efforts to protect the earth’s naturalenvironment. The author reviews the reasoning of the panel inTuna/Dolphin II, compares it with that of Tuna/Dolphin I, andconsiders the adequacy of GATT law to deal with environmentalconcerns. Although he criticizes some of the reasoning of the panelsin the two tuna/dolphin cases, the author argues that the reports doprovide — though inferentially — a coherent approach for judging theGATT-legality of environmental trade measures that stem frominternational multilateral agreements.

A series about the judges of the International Court must be based ontwo postulates: first, that the unique character and, of course,“value-structure” of each judge ü a variable of some importance inthe application, if not incremental formation, of international law;and second, that the International Court is an important institutionand has played a significant role in “the progressive development ofinternational Law.” While welcoming the idea of thü series, thereviewer has reservations about the way these postulates have beenembraced and adopted by the author and outlines his reservationsabout key jurisprudential assumptions and strategic choices thatwere made in designing the idea and about the ways those assumptionsand strategies have been implemented.

La première année de l’Organisation mondiale du commerce (OMC) fut ungrand succès. Les Membres de l’OMC ont notamment mis en place toutle nouveau système de notification préalable et de révision deslégislations nationales, et mis sur pied les nouveaux comités surl’environnement, sur les arrangements régionaux et sur les pays lesmoins avancés. En plus d’assurer l’achèvement des activités GATT1947 et la transition formelle en faveur de l’OMC, les Membres ontégalement procédé à la nomination des présidents de plusieurscomités et des “juges” du nouvel organe d’appel. L’élément peutêtrele plus impressionnant du départ de cette nouvelle organisation estla participation particulièrement active des pays en développementau nouveau système obligatoire de règlement des différends; lamoitié des vingt-cinq requêtes pour consultation ont été initiéespar ceux-d. Quel changement alors qu’entre 1948 et 1994, les pays endéveloppement n’avaient initié que onze des 126 différends. En faitl’OMC a déclenché un nouveau processus pour lequel il n’y a pas demarche arrière possible.

In light of the increased risks nowadays faced by much greaternumbers of peacekeepers in hostile environments, the author surveysthe legal sources for their safety and protection. The article firstdescribes the kinds of personnel that may be engaged in peacekeepingoperations before exploring the legal rights of protection thatattach to each of them. It shows that many conventions, especiallythose relating to immunities of United Nations personnel as well ashumanitarian and human rights treaties, contain general provisionsthat may be interpreted to include peacekeepers, but that none areaimed directly at thdr problems and protection. None, that is, untilthe United Nations adopted the Convention on the Safety of UnitedNations and Associated Personnel in the fall of 1994. When thatConvention comes into force, it will impose affirmative duties onstates to ensure the safety and security of peacekeepers and willapply criminal sanctions against individuals who attack them ortheir property. The article concludes that the new convention castsa wide net of protection over peacekeepers but suffers from twosignificant lacunae. It will not cover peacekeepers who arecombatants (and the criteria for that characterization are unclear)or personnel engaged in non-United Nations peacekeepingoperations.

Avec l’entrée en vigueur de la Convention sur la diversitébiologique, les ressources génétiques de la biosphère sont soumisesà la juridiction de l’État à l’intérieur du territoire où elles setrouvent, conformément au principe de la souveraineté permanente desÉtats sur les ressources naturelles. L’idée d’une gestion de cesressources par la communauté internationale au profit de l’humanité,sehn les caractéristiques propres du concept de patrimoine commun del’humanité, n’a pu être retenue à cause de l’attitude des paysdéveloppés. Ces derniers refusaient d’établir des mécanismes depréférence à l’égard des pays en développement, quant à latransmission des connaisances et des brevets en matière debiotechnologie, en échange de leur libre accès aux ressourcesgénétiques.

Le rejet du concept de patrimoine commun de l’humanité par les paysen développement a été encouragé par leur désillusionnement quant àson application à d’autres ressources naturelles communes, ainsi quepar le traitement fait à la diversité biologique par la Commissionmondiale sur l’environnement et le développement dans le rapportqu’elle a produit. Les pays en développement, s’appuyant sur leconcept de développement durable, entendent poursuivre laréalisation des éléments constitutifs du nouvel ordre économiqueinternational à travers la gestion des ressources génétiques.

Bill C-26 is intended to provide for the integrated management of theoceans and marine resources within Canada’s jurisdiction. The billsets out Canadian jurisdiction in the territorial sea, thecontiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone, and the continentalshelf in accordance with the United Nations Law of the SeaConvention. It defines a framework for a national oceans managementstrategy based on sustainable development, a precautionary approach,and integrated management plans for oceans and coastal resources andactivities. These promising provisions suffer from limitedcommitment to sustainable development principles, lack of detailsand clarity about the intended oceans management strategy, andlimited embrace of integration in management planning. The bill ahoredefines the organizational responsibilities for Canada’s oceans ina way that significantly enhances the role of the minister offisheries and oceans. In fulfilling these functions, the minister islikely to have to share responsibilities with other stakeholdersrather more than Bill C-26 actually requires, if its integrativemanagement objectives are to be attained.