This article argues that orthodox international law is committed to the state at the expense of the Other, that which is not the state, and, at a more philosophical level, to ontology at the expense of ethics. Drawing on the philosophy of Emmanuel Lévinas, it seeks a shift from ontology, focusing on Being, to ethics, constituted by our responsibility to the Other. Section 1 argues that international law assumes the natural existence of a Being of the State and that this ontology of statehood constitutes the ontology of international law. Section 2 explains how the ontology of statehood having been transformed into an epistemology ultimately leads to the violent suppression of alterity. Section 3 proposes a number of projects and strategies through which we may pursue the ethics of alterity in international law. The article concludes with a discussion of three tensions within international law: statehood–alterity, ontology–ethics, and law–politics.

This paper argues that the concerns and methodology of the recently completed Report of the International Law Commission (ILC) over the fragmentation of international law presuppose a particular way of understanding legal language which tends to separate the understanding of rules from their factual adaptability to certain recurring social problems faced within specific institutional contexts. The paper argues that separating rules from their factual adaptability focuses the analysis on surface coherence – coherence at the level of abstract terms and phrases. It is the argument of this paper that this presupposition is not warranted, and that the understanding of rules cannot be thus separated. An alternative model of the understanding of legal language is developed on the basis of the work of Bernard Jackson and Geoffrey Samuel. This is further supplemented by the approach to the study of institutional contexts in the recent work of Robert Summers and John Bell. Together, these resources can lead to the analysis of the deep coherence of the international legal order, that being one that prioritizes not the unity of that order, but its responsiveness. The ideal of responsive law is elaborated upon by reference to the work of Philip Selznick and Philippe Nonet. Finally, a different agenda for the ILC is offered on the basis of the methodology of deep coherence. The upshot is that the paper calls for a reorientation of international legal theory, away from concerns about ‘the law itself’ and towards an engagement with the responsiveness of legal work performed in international legal institutions.

The long awaited judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was handed down on 26 February 2007. It has attracted the attention of the international legal community as well as political circles. In addition, the world media – not to mention the local media – have taken note of the judgment, with leading newspapers carrying the story on their front pages rather than buried deep within, as sadly tends to be the case with international legal issues.

The article explores the political context of the Bosnian Genocide case recently decided by the International Court of Justice. It strives to show that an appreciation of the larger disputes within Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia is necessary for understanding the Court's judgment properly, particularly when it comes to the litigation strategies of the two parties which shaped the final outcome of the case, and, above all, for understanding how the judgment was perceived by the general public of the former Yugoslavia.

This article uses the recent judgment of the ICJ in Bosnia v. Serbia to highlight the potential problems that arise when international courts have to adjudicate on overlapping situations. It describes the dispute between the ICJ and the ICTY on the appropriate legal standard for the attribution of state responsibility, and finds that the ICJ's approach in this case suggests that those keen to minimize the fragmentation of international law between adjudicative bodies should not overlook the need for consistency within those bodies. With regard to fact finding, this article raises serious concerns about the manner in which the ICJ relied on the ICTY's work. The decision of the ICJ not to demand crucial documents from Serbia is discussed and criticized. Based on its approach to fact finding in this case, doubts are raised as to whether the ICJ will ever hold a state responsible for genocide outside the parameters of the prior criminal convictions of individual perpetrators.

This note evaluates the application of rules on judicial independence and impartiality in two international decisions issued in 2004 – the ICJ Order on Composition in the Wall Advisory Proceedings and the disqualification decision of the Special Court for Sierra Leone in Sesay – and compares them with a code of judicial conduct recently prepared by an ILA study group (the Burgh House Principles on the Independence of the International Judiciary). We assert that the approach taken by the ICJ in Wall is excessively restrictive and is out of step with contemporary tendencies to embrace stricter standards of judicial independence and impartiality.

The Statutes of the ICTY and ICTR provide for the review of final judgments upon the discovery of a ‘new fact’ that could have affected the judgments. The Appeals Chambers of the two Tribunals interpret the term ‘new fact’ to mean new information related to a matter that was not at issue during the original trial, as opposed to simply meaning new information of a factual nature. The article argues that this interpretation of ‘new fact’ creates a risk that review will be denied on formalistic grounds even in situations where principles of justice would make review plainly warranted. The article proposes several ways in which the Appeals Chambers could alter their case law to ensure against such injustice. Finally, the article considers the implications of this issue for other international criminal tribunals.

Negotiators of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) did not intend the Pre-Trial Chamber (PTC) to act as a de facto investigating judge; rather, their intent was that the PTC ensure that the Prosecutor act responsibly and within well-defined limits. Several opportunities have arisen in the Lubanga case before the ICC's PTC and the Appeals Chamber to examine the Prosecutor's duty and performance in disclosing documentary evidence and the identities of witnesses at the pre-trial stage. International criminal tribunals necessarily must bridge the evidentiary magnitude of atrocity crimes with a pragmatic focus on one person's role. The PTC judge should aggressively narrow the charges and focus the Prosecutor on the requirement of minimal evidence to meet the sufficiency standard for the remaining charges, direct the Prosecutor to share existing and emerging evidence with the accused in a timely manner and not wait until 30 days prior to confirmation hearing, and use statutory power to ensure timely non-disclosure requests and determinations.

This article addresses the prosecution of service members by the United States for the commission of war crimes, specifically whether or not the offences charged in such cases can truly be considered ‘war crimes’. The answer has implications in terms of application of the complementarity provision of the Rome Statute, as well as the stigmatic effect that is avoided when the United States prosecutes ordinary criminal offences rather than war crimes.

The Israeli official policy of targeted killing has often been a subject of controversy and criticism. Although still applied by the state of Israel, this cruel practice was recently limited in a courageous decision handed down by the Israeli Supreme Court. The new restrictions on targeted killing represent an important step towards its criminalization. Despite this, the Court's interpretation of the international humanitarian law requirements is still too broad and there is a need for more restrictive safeguards. In addition, the current uncertainties of this field of law, replicated in the decision, exacerbate the problem further. The main difficulty, however, lies in the theoretical assumption that targeted killing is legal. This article proposes instead to view targeted killing as an exception to the presumption of protection of the civilian population. The authors review the recent trends in international humanitarian law in order to assess the impact of the Court's reasoning. Although this landmark case represents an important breakthrough, it will certainly not be the last word on targeted killing.

The Telders International Law Moot Court Competition passed the milestone of its thirtieth birthday last year, and is still going strong. Since its humble beginnings in 1977, when only four universities took part, the Competition has today become the most prestigious and important moot court competition in Europe. Annually, teams from over forty universities compete in the national rounds, with the successful teams going on to represent their countries in the international rounds traditionally held at the Peace Palace in The Hague.

This case concerns a claim for damages suffered by nationals of the State of Icara following an aerial accident in the State of Mercuria.

The cover of Sex Rights: The Oxford Amnesty Lectures 2002 shows a picture of two men photographed from the back, with their hands holding each other's waists. They are walking towards a camera crew. Based on the way they are dressed, it seems that they have just been married. Both men are wearing white dress shirts and have similar hairstyles, with one wearing a black waistcoat over the white shirt and the other with black braces. This collection, based on the Oxford Amnesty Lectures series on gender and sexuality, thus apparently features on its cover the same-sex marriage of two men, ostensibly held in one of the few jurisdictions that have legalized such a union (perhaps the Netherlands, which was the first to do so, and was later followed by Belgium, Spain, Canada, Massachusetts (United States), and South Africa). And while we know that ‘love and marriage go together like a horse and carriage’, what has sex got to do with this? Would it not be more appropriate for a cover of a book entitled Sex Rights to feature two persons engaged in sex or having just engaged in sex rather than a marriage ceremony? Would it not be more appropriate to depict, on a cover of a book called Sex Rights, a picture of two men in a position that suggests they have just had sex, an act for which they could be persecuted and prosecuted in various jurisdictions?

So why, then, does a book on Sex Rights feature same-sex marriage on its cover?