The study of what has become known as transnational commercial law is fraught with hazards. What do we mean by transnational commercial law? Is it the same as the lex mercatoria or something broader? What are its sources? Can we identify general principles of commercial law and, separately, uncodified international trade usage? If so, what happens to these principles when they become embodied in convention or contractually incorporated uniform rules? Do they disappear, maintain a parallel existence in their original form or change their shape to match the convention or rules? And how far do conventions and rules either evidence pre-existing principles and usages or influence the creation of new ones?

The entry into force of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (“UNCLOS”), on 16 November 1994, is probably the most important development in the settlement of international disputes since the adoption of the UN Charter and the Statute of the International Court of Justice. Not only does the Convention create a new international court, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (“ITLOS”), it also makes extensive provision for compulsory dispute-settlement procedures involving States, the International Seabed Authority (“ISBA”), seabed mining contractors and, potentially, a range of other entities. Implementation of the Convention has spawned a number of inter-State disputes to add to the cases already before the International Court. The initiation of the ITLOS not only opens up new possibilities for settling these disputes but it also has implications for the future role of the International Court and ad hoc arbitration in the law of the sea and more generally. It contributes to the proliferation of international tribunals and adds to the potential for fragmentation both of the substantive law and of the procedures available for settling disputes. Judges Oda and Guillaume have argued that the ITLOS is a futile institution, that the UNCLOS negotiators were misguided in depriving the International Court of its central role in ocean disputes and that creation of a specialised tribunal may destroy the unity of international law. The law of the sea, both judges argue, is an essential part of international law and any dispute concerning the application and interpretation of that law should be seen as subject to settlement by the International Court.

The aim of this article is to extend the critique of human rights law by feminist scholars to humanitarian law—or the law of armed conflict, as it is more traditionally known. When reflecting generally on the role that international law plays in providing protection for women from the effects of violence the obvious starting point is the regime of human rights. So much of human suffering in today's world occurs, however, in the context of armed conflict where to a large extent human rights are in abeyance and individuals must rely on the protections offered by the law of armed conflict.1 The debate that has been taking place for some years in the context of human rights as to the extent to which that system takes account of women&s lives needs to extend to the provisions of the law of armed conflict. Although commentators have convincingly demonstrated the limitations of the existing body of human rights law adequately to take account of the reality of women&s experience of the world,2 the law of armed conflict is even more deficient. Moreover, despite the recent focus on rape in armed conflict as a result of the international outrage at the sexual abuse of women in the armed conflict in the former Yugoslavia, these shortcomings remain largely unaddressed.3 At first glance this seems somewhat surprising until the special difficulties that flow from certain characteristics of the law of armed conflict are appreciated.

An area which has received little attention in the academic literature of foreign State immunity to date is that concerning immunity in employment matters.1 This omission can probably be explained by the scant case law which has hitherto existed on the subject. However, in recent years the number of decisions has increased due to the fact that employment by States of foreign nationals has become far more common. Developing countries in particular, as they seek to create new industries, have become increasingly reliant on advisers and technicians from the developed world.

An overall penetration rate of 1.4 main telephone lines per 100 inhabitants,1 a waiting period of 14 years for new connections, closure of the waiting list because the number of applicants was too great, a telephone call completion rate of less than 30 per cent,2 obsolete equipment, chronic breakdown problems combined with a substandard fault clearance rate; these were some of the features of the “delinquent service” provided by Zimbabwe's State-owned telecommunications monopoly, the Posts and Telecommunications Corporation (PTC). In Retrofit (Pvt) Ltd v. Posts and Telecommunications Corporation (Attorney-General intervening)3 the question which faced the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe was whether the PTC's statutory monopoly, seen in the context of a system which the PTC itself had conceded was “markedly inadequate to meet the present communication needs of the population”,4 was an unjustifiable hindrance on the right to free expression.

In US courts the procedural device of the class action is available by virtue of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to certain conditions, this rule enables one person to bring an action on behalf of a large number of others (the “class members”) and the resolution of such an action, whether it is by way of judgment following trial or by the entry of an order of settlement, has res judicata effect on the class members. In most cases the majority of class members are all resident in the United States.

This Article aims to examine the implementation of the European Convention on Information on Foreign Law, more commonly known as the London Convention, and assess its impact on the application of foreign law under the rules of private international law which prevail in the signatory States. Basically, the Convention provides a system to assist national courts in determining the application of a foreign law in a case involving the rules of private international law. This analysis is divided into three sections.

Amid rather less fanfare than one might perhaps have expected, the press, and, by extension, the public, of the European Union scored a modest victory for freer access to official information following the judgment of the Court of First Instance in the case of John Carvel & Guardian Newspapers Ltd (Denmark, The Netherlands and the European Parliament intervening) v. EU Council.' This case is the latest stage in an evolving policy of access to official information generally, a policy which has gained impetus with official concern about the so–called “democratic deficit” and a heightened awareness of the perceived remoteness of the European institutions from the daily lives of the citizens of the Union.

It is not surprising that, at a time when the world's political maps are being constantly redrawn, the subject of “State succession” features prominently in international legal discourse. By the same token, the infrequency of “waves” of transformation, the diversified modalities of change (cession, annexation, decolonisation, dissolution, secession, merger, unification) and the varying contextual circumstances have resulted in a less than coherent theoretical or practical framework for resolving issues of State succession.1 Nor can limited international attempts at “codification”—represented in the 1978 Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties2 (the “1978 Succession Convention”) and the 1983 Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Property, Archives and Debts3—be regarded as expressing established customary norms or articulating laws grounded in consistent State practice, judicial precedent or juristic opinion.

In the last two years there has been significant legislative activity in the field of company law. The most important development in the field of securities law has been the adoption of a directive amending, inter alia, the Investment Services Directive1 and the directive on undertakings for collective investments in transferable securities2, with a view to reinforcing prudential supervision3. A number of initiatives have been taken with a view to preparing for economic and monetary union. In particular, the Commission has submitted a proposal for a directive on cross-border credit transfers within the European Union which, if adopted, will increase efficiency of cross-border payments4. The regulation of trade in financial services between the Community and third States is of increasing importance, following the conclusion of the General Agreement on Trade in Services5.

In May 1995 the Court of Justice published1 its initial contribution to the debate surrounding the intergovernmental conference (IGC) which officially got under

Developments in the external relations policy and law of the European Union are too numerous to describe comprehensively in this note. We have therefore identified and described what we consider to be some of the more significant issues. These are: recent moves towards enlargement, in particular the Union's pre-accession strategy; expansion of the Union's regional co-operation policies; the mid-term review of the Lomé Convention; and progress in the 1996