The Antarctic continent played no important part in international politics or international law before the present century,1 but scientific interest has been sustained for a much longer period. Shortly before and particularly during World War II, the strategic importance of the territory was recognized and the race to acquire new territory and to secure positions reached a new dimension of importance and urgency. The first important claim was made by Great Britain in 1908 and the last by Norway in 1939.2 Subsequent to that time several incidents have occurred, and many efforts have been made to find a reasonable solution for some of the problems of the Antarctic

There has been, in recent years, a growing concern about the international legal implications of the computer storage of data outside the country where the information originated. The purpose of this article is to show that there are grounds for this concern but that these grounds cannot be fully understood, nor the problems properly assessed, without looking into the issues raised by computer data storage in the broader context of the transborder flow of information by electronic means.

Two recent cases in the International Court of Justice have given new prominence to the role of interim measures of protection in international controversies. The circumstances of both the Icelandic fisheries litigation and the Australian and New Zealand application to prevent the holding of French nuclear tests in the Pacific Ocean were such as to promise an enhanced role for interim measures in interstate conflicts. First, the jealousy with which states guard their natural resources and the continuing competition for those resources, especially in the high seas, have occasioned disputes in which a potential conflict management role for interim measures has been foreshadowed. The classic award of interim measures of protection, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company Case (Interim Measures o f Protection) (United Kingdom v. Iran) 1 was made in this context, as was the order in Fisheries Jurisdiction (United Kingdom v.Iceland), Interim Protection.2 Secondly, in both cases, the indication of interim measures was disregarded. The effective role of interim measures is thus related to the general problem of improving the acceptability of the Court to states. Interim measures of protection, as an adjunct of the ,judicial process, reflect the perennial judicial concern for effective decisionmaking.The present debate on the role of the International Court of Justice has, to a large extent, concentrated on the lack of confidence shown by states in the Court. The length of time which elapses before final judgment has constituted a serious objection to the proceedings of the Court. Interim measures may have a role to play in ameliorating this situation3 for the duration of proceedings is of less concern when the rights of the parties receive interim protection. Thirdly, interim measures, may prove a unique means of preventing abuses of the human environment at the international level. The current emphasis on problems of the environment, especially pollution in international areas such as the high seas and pollution transcending state borders, has given rise to a growing demand that environmental abuses be nipped in the bud. States are unlikely to be satisfied with final judgments after irreparable damage to the environment has been caused. Increasing awareness of the global dimensions of these problems, the greater consciousness of the interdependence of states and of the inevitable impact of natural activities upon the environments of other states, should lead to a strengthening of the preventive role of the international judicial process. In this area, the institution of interim measures of protection, such as the injunction, has a potential role of great significance.