The Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (Harmonized System) has been adopted by the major trading nations of the world, including Canada. Decisions of the European Court of Justice are influential for interpretation of the Harmonized System. According to these decisions, goods should be classified under the Harmonized System on the basis of their physical characteristics, while factors that relate to use after importation should be considered only if they are reflected in the physical characteristics. The author rejects this narrow approach and argues that interpretation will be successful only if it is done in light of the full commercial context, including use after importation, advertising, distribution, and market indicators such as price. The article reviews Canadian case law since implementation of the Harmonized System in 1988 as well as some decisions interpreting the pre-1988 Canadian nomenclature, which contained many tariff items that depended on the end use of goods after importation.

Les conventions internationales à caractère économique sont souvent modelées sur les préoccupations de la partie la plus puissante à l’entente au détriment de la partie la plus faible. Cette situation, qui est l’une des consequences de l’inégalité de faits entre les États, s’exprime par une conditionnalité rigoureuse imposée aux pays en développement lorsqu’ils s’engagent avec un pays développé ou une organisation internationale créanciers. Le pays en développement est alors confronté au dilemme de devoir rembourser la dette contractée conformément aux modalités de la conditionnalité, mettant en péril la mise en application de droits de la personne à caractère économique : droit à l’éducation, à la santé, au logement, à la nourriture, etc., ou de donner préséance à ces droits sur son obligation de remboursement de la créance. Les pays en développement ont avancé l’argument de l’état de nécessité, avec un succès limité, comme en témoignent les décisions internationals relatives à cette préoccupation des états qui remonte au début du 20e siècle.

Le droit à la conditionnalité universelle aurait comme fondement le droit positif des transferts financiers Nord-Sud, qui est inéquitable car il integer une conditionnalité préjudiciable aux pays en développement. La notion de conditionnalité constituerait ainsi, la source d’un droit pour les pays en développement, dont l’application aurait comme objectif le rétablissement des droits de la personne à caractère économique qui ont été restreints par l’application stricte de la notion de conditionnalité dans l’entente économique. C’est à travers l’étude de la notion de conditionnalité dans le contexte des relations Nord-Sud que cet article tente de démontrer l’existence du droit à la conditionnalité universelle dont la doctrine n’a jamais fait état. La notion de conditionnalité est ainsi envisagée sous une double perspective: celle où elle origine de la convention économique qui lie le débiteur et le créancier et celle où elle sert de fondement à un droit du débiteur à l’égard du créancier. Dans les deux situations, le débiteur est un pays en développement et le créancier est un pays développé ou une organization internationale.

The law of occupation has become the subject of great contemporary interest because of two prominent, although sui generis, situations: the long-term Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights and the “transformative” occupation of Iraq. In both situations, the occupying powers resisted the label of belligerent occupier and selectively applied the 1907 Hague Regulations and the 1949 Geneva Conventions to the territories in question. The unique circumstances of these occupations have sparked vigorous debate over the future of the law of occupation. To wit, is the widely accepted, but largely unenforced, law of occupation capable of regulating transitions between armed conflict and peace in the twenty-first century? This article examines recent developments in the notoriously open-textured law of occupation that have arisen as this law has been variously ignored, invoked, challenged, examined, and ultimately reformed through practice. In particular, it discusses the triggers for beginning and ending an occupation, including recent jurisprudence on the “effective control” test. The article examines who can be an occupier, the question of “multiple occupiers” under unified command, and the obligations of occupiers in the areas of legislation and institutional reform. The author also considers the challenges of UN involvement in transitional situations, including the applicability of the law of occupation to UN forces and the role of the Security Council in adapting the law of occupation. The author concludes with a discussion of the principle of “conservationism” and the relationship between the law of occupation and jus post bellum, in order to provide an assessment of possible “futures” of the law of occupation.

This article argues that there is an increasing trend of civil society resorting to civil disobedience in relation to international legal values. International law, however, has not caught up with this trend. In fact, both international law and civil disobedience can gain much from a better understanding of their interaction. The article briefly traces the record of arguments drawn from international law in civil disobedience cases, highlights the theoretical constraints of the debate, and seeks to establish some basic foundations for an international legal theory of legitimate civil disobedience.

In Canada, as in most countries, assisted human reproduction has become accessible treatment for individuals who wish to conceive. Scientific advancements in the area of human reproduction have led to the enactment of legislation that attempts to regulate this novel field. The Canadian Assisted Human Reproduction Act (2004) identifies the health and wellbeing of children born through reproductive technologies as a paramount principle in all decisions respecting their use. On the other hand, and surprisingly, the statute restricts access by offspring to information that can lead to identification of their genitors. The disclosure of donors’ identity to the recipients of reproductive materials is quite limited. According to this article, this legislation is in violation of international human rights law on health, identity, and family relations to which Canada is a party. The first part of the article explores international human rights law on identity, health, and family relations rights that Canada has signed, ratified, or acceded to. The second part discusses whether the Canadian legal system is in line with the relevant international human rights obligations identified earlier and asserts that there is scope for judicially interpreting Canadian law in such a way that would conform to those obligations.

This article explores how international humanitarian law (IHL) may apply to protect innocent civilians during the fight against transnational terrorism. To achieve the goal of allowing states to protect their populations from the threat of terrorism while respecting the rule of law and the rights of individuals, it is argued that, while IHL should remain applicable only to armed conflicts it must evolve so that it clearly applies to “transnational” armed conflicts (that is, armed conflicts between State A and a non-state actor based in State B, where State A uses force in the territory of State B without State B’s consent). Rather than recognizing a new third category of armed conflict to cover these situations, it is argued that non-international armed conflicts should be understood as a residual category that regulates all armed conflicts to which the parties are states and/or their agents.

This comment reviews the Supreme Court of Canada’s May 2008 decision in Canada (Justice) v. Khadr, in which the Court announced an exception to its June 2007 holding in R. v. Hape. Hape held, on international legal grounds, that application of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to the acts of Canadian officials abroad is “impossible.” Khadr held that this was not so if the acts of Canadian officials abroad amount to participation in a process that violates Canada’s international legal obligations. The author welcomes this partial retrenchment of the Hape principle, which, it is argued, is ill-founded in international law. However, the author is also critical of the Court’s failure to engage directly with Hape's many flaws or to justify in any way the seemingly arbitrary exception to it propounded in Khadr. These failures, it is argued, serve only to deepen the legal and logical incoherencies that currently characterize, in the name of respect for Canada’s international legal obligations, the rules governing the extraterritorial applicability of the Charter.

L’ Entente entre le Québec et la France en matière de reconnaissance mutuelle des qualifications professionnelles de 2008 est sans doute la plus importante que le Québec a conclue au cours des dernières années. Celle-ci met en place un système franco-québécois de reconnaissance mutuelle des titres professionnels acquis en France ou au Québec, afin de permettre l’établissement permanent des professionnels sur le territoire d’accueil. Ce système, qui s’inscrit dans la nouvelle politique internationale du Québec, a subi l’influence significative du système général de reconnaissance mutuelle des qualifications professionnelles de la Communauté européenne. Les deux systèmes sont fondés sur le principe qu’il n’est pas nécessaire d’harmoniser le contenu des formations pour opérer leur reconnaissance, mais que des mesures de compensation peuvent cependant être prescrites aux professionnels migrants. L’étude de la mise en oeuvre de l’ Entente montre que les ordres professionnels sont activement engagés dans la conclusion d’arrangements de reconnaissance mutuelle, mais que les mesures de compensation prescrites varient grandement d’une profession à l’autre. Certaines dispositions ambigües de l’Entente pourraient également s’avérer problématiques, quant à son champ d’application en particulier. Le fait que le système franco-québécois porte exclusivement sur l’établissement permanent des professionnels migrants signifie que celui-ci apparaît compatible avec le droit international économique et le droit communautaire, mais certaines difficultés pourraient survenir avec le droit international de l’investissement. Le nouveau chantier transatlantique qui est ouvert par l’Entente pourrait être un modèle à suivre, en plus de constituer un exemple où l’action international du Québec renforce celle du Canada sur la scène internationale, alors que celui-ci s’engage actuellement dans des négociations commerciales avec l’Union européenne..

In Canada Post Corp. v. Lépine, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the lower Québec courts’ refusal to recognize an Ontario judgment approving an out-of-court settlement of a class action that included Québec residents. In reaching its decision, the Supreme Court of Canada did not extend to the non-resident plaintiff members of the class the jurisdictional test applicable to defendants. The decision was based on the lack of procedural fairness accorded to the non-residents. The Court also rejected a literal interpretation of Article 3164 of the Québec Civil Code, which requires that the foreign court must have had jurisdiction in accordance with Québec rules, including the doctrine of forum non-conveniens. To apply this doctrine is not compatible with inter-provincial and international comity as it defeats the liberal approach taken by the Civil Code with respect to the recognition of foreign judgments. This settles a long-lasting controversy. As a result of this decision, enhanced procedural fairness has become the best defence available to non-resident, non-attorning plaintiffs in inter-provincial and international class actions. Finally, the Court hoped that, in the spirit of mutual comity, the provincial legislatures would develop more effective methods for managing jurisdictional disputes involving national class actions.

Huit ans après les évènements du 11 septembre 2001, la “guerre” contre le terrorisme perdure dans différentes parties du monde. Toutefois, en soi l’expression “guerre contre le terrorisme” perd du souffle. Les raisons en sont essentiellement politiques, mais l’évolution relance le débat sur la qualification juridique de la lutte contre le terrorisme. Après un examen des arguments pour et contre la “guerre” contre le terrorisme, la présente étude envisage la position du droit international. Elle conclut que les mêmes principes fondamentaux s’appliquent quels que soient les termes employés et le système juridique applicable à la lutte contre le terrorisme.