The protection offered to individuals by remedies in public law and tort law is developing in all jurisdictions. The past few years have witnessed an increasingly important European dimension to the tort liability of public authorities. European Union law and European Human Rights law have added to the constitutional protection of tort claims against public authorities already established as a matter of domestic law in many European countries.

The recent reform adopted by the French Parliament, the Loi of 15 June 2000, touches upon a wide range of matters from investigation and detention through to trial and appeal, all within a project designed to ‘reinforce the presumption of innocence and the rights of victims’.1 It is part of a broader reform package which originally included strengthening the independence of the procureur2 from the hierarchical control of the Minister of Justice and changing the way in which magistrats3 are selected,4 together with the measures already enacted in June of 1999 to simplify and clarify aspects of criminal procedure and to reduce delay.5 A large part of the June 2000 reform seeks to strengthen the rights of the accused and the safeguards designed to ensure her proper treatment at all stages of the criminal process. Such rhetoric and aspirations stand in contrast to the Home Office and government discourse to which we have become accustomed on this side of the Channel, a discourse dominated by macho language expressing a desire to ‘get tough’ and ‘crackdown’ on crime and presumed criminals.6 Against the backdrop of almost mandatory defence disclosure and the curtailment of the right to silence in this jurisdiction, provisions which strengthen the rights of the accused and provide her with more information about the case against her together with greater opportunities to influence the pre-trial investigation, will make English criminal justice scholars nostalgic for a time when the rights of the accused were seen as something other than ‘a criminal's charter’.

Pluralism is a main feature of Nigeria as a country. There is ethnic pluralism.1 The pre-colonial Nigeria comprised of over 250 nation states embracing over 500 ethnic and linguistic groups.2 These ethnic groups spread across the three main geographical units in the country, namely, the north, the west, and the east. The north was dominated by the Hausa-Fulani and the Kanuri peoples, the west by the Yoruba speaking tribes, and the east by the Igbos.

In the Six Day War in June 1967, East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip came under Israeli military occupation, as well as the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights. On 22 November that year, the UN Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 242, which it was hoped would provide a route to a permanent peace. It seems clear that Resolution 242 now has binding force1 and that it is accepted by all parties today that Resolution 242 sets out the principles which must be applied in order to reach a settlement. The Resolution is recited in the preambles to the Oslo Accords.2 This means that, in addition, it is binding on Israel and the PLO by agreement.3

On 1 March 2001 Council Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 of 29 May 2000 on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Matrimonial Matters and in Matters of Parental Responsibility for Children of both Spouses (Brussels II) entered into force.1 In the United Kingdom at least this significant step went relatively unnoticed. Nevertheless, the Regulation marks a new departure for the European Community and is likely to be but the first in a series of instruments dealing with family law issues. This article will use an analysis of the evolution of the Brussels II initiative to explore how and why the European Community has been able to move into an area not innately associated with traditional European goals.2 It will then reflect on the wider impact of the Regulation and any future initiatives for private international law and family law in Europe.

The characteristics of market places do not nowadays correspond to the characteristics of national territories of states. Goods and services are marketed throughout the world without respecting national barriers. This is why advertising activities are designed to reach many customers in many countries. The Internet has forced this development in the last 15 years. It has been transformed from a means of communication among research scientists into a means of mass communication, an indispensable part of many peoples every-day lives.

The title for this paper poses a deceptively simple question, and it is this: How do we utilise an earlier obtained judgment from country X to prevent abusive re-litigation in country Y? To this question the answer might appear obvious: one reaches for the doctrine of res judicata, that arcane yet fundamental body of law which provides that an earlier judgment is conclusive in a second suit involving the same subject-matter and same legal bases. However, while the doctrine of res judicata is well understood in the domestic setting, it is not entirely obvious how the doctrine applies to foreign judgments to prevent abusive re-litigation before the English courts. Nor is it obvious how the various judgment recognition regimes—in particular the regime established by the Brussels Regulation1—pre-ordain the preclusive effects to which a foreign judgment can give rise if relied upon to prevent abusive cross-border re-litigation.

It is a measure of how fast International Law is moving that the International Court of Justice found itself deciding a question on immunity for international crimes just three years after Pinochet (No 3).1 Yet its decision in Congo v Belgium2 represents something of a return to conservatism in this field, and prompts a re-evaluation of Pinochet. Congo v Belgium may itself come to be seen as at least as significant for the ICJ's—divided—views on the issues which it did not decide, as for the ratio itself.

Of the thousands of Taliban and al Qaida fighters captured in the recent conflict in Afghanistan, just under 500 are held by US forces, including some 300 at the Guantanamo Bay base, Cuba.1

In three judgments delivered on 27 September 2001, the European Court of Justice ruled on the legal effects of clauses in the Europe Agreements which accord candidate country nationals limited rights to establish themselves as self-employed persons in the Member States of the European Union (EU).1 The Court refused to interpret these provisions as steps on the road to full-fledged EU membership which should be given a dynamic reading in order to provide continuing impetus for enlargement. The significance of these judgments lies less in their legal pronouncements than in their wider political implications. The judgments indicate that the Court is not prepared to act as a second chaperone of the process of enlargement alongside the Commission.

The last account of developments in the external relations of the European Union, described how the Treaty of Amsterdam, which had just entered into force, had reformed the Common Foreign and Security Policy. Three years on one can begin to assess the impact of these changes.

In December 1999, in Helsinki, the European Council requested the Commission ‘to prepare a proposal for a long-term strategy dovetailing policies for economically, socially and ecologically sustainable development’. The Commission presented this proposal to the Gothenburg European Council in June 2001,1 resulting in the launch of the European Union's strategy for sustainable development.2 In keeping with the resolution that the annual spring European Council take on board responsibility for reviewing progress in developing and implementing the sustainable development strategy, and for offering further policy guidance to promote sustainable development, the Barcelona Presidency conclusions place emphasis upon the internal and external aspects of sustainable development, including the environmental dimension thereof.3 Looking at these documents,4 it is readily apparent that the political profile of sustainable development has been raised over the last year, with the European Council coming to play an important leadership function. Looking more closely at these, and other core documents, it is clear that the theme of environmental governance is very much to the fore, and that a number of strands emerge as crucial to European Union thinking in this respect. This short survey note will highlight a number of these strands, examining them within the framework of more general developments concerning ‘governance’ in the EU, and in particular in the light of the Commission's White Paper on governance issued in the summer of 2001.5 Four broad, and often overlapping, dimensions will be discussed in turn: integration, monitoring/evaluation, participation, and instruments for environmental protection.