Dr René Lefeber stayed at the helm of the Leiden Journal of International Law as its Editor-in-Chief for more than four important years (1996–2000), marked by innovation and change in practically every aspect of the Journal. Barely two years after a profound re-organization, the Journal's volume was doubled with three issues per year in 1997, and four issues in 1998. Meanwhile, the number of pages, the quality, and the diversity of published material saw dramatic growth. The section on Hague International Tribunals became a standard feature; a sub-section on the International Criminal Court was set up in 1998 to regularly cover ongoing developments in this important institution; an annual specialized bibliography on dispute settlement was introduced; and regular Editorial notes by members of the Board figured in each issue. All in all, a very different Journal than the one handed down four years earlier.

Lawyers have begun to think of the legal events and institution-building related to the demise of Yugoslavia as raising new hope for international law. The recognition of newly self-determining sovereign entities that was facilitated by the European Community, together with the creation by the UN Security Council of an international criminal tribunal, constitute instances of newfound political authority over political disputes. On the other hand, close examination of the recognition process of the European Community and the constitutional stature of the ad hoc criminal court reveals political considerations to have dominated normative principles. Thus, while in form the legal events surrounding the Yugoslavia conflict seem to reflect the triumph of internationalism over the force of sovereignty, in substance they reflect precisely the opposite. In analyzing these legal pronouncements through the lens of the fantasy stories of Jorge Luis Borges, one can begin to appreciate international law's conceptual embarrassment of riches. For this is all a dream we dreamed one afternoon long ago.Hunter & Lesh, Box of Rain.

Carl Schmitt was an intellectual who made the discipline of international law grapple with the major issues of his time. His work as an international lawyer remains largely untranslated. It is riddled with racism and anti-Semitism. However, an interest of his work is that it reflects the ‘shadow side’ of contemporary international law, forgotten because the moral defeat of Germany in 1945 was so total. Schmitt argues for an inherent tendency to violence and demonization in Western liberal international law theory and practice. He argues for the acceptance of difference as against homogeneity in world society as the only way to limit this violence. Finally, he argues that the liberal tradition is fundamentally compromised by its own colonialist heritage. Its objections to Nazi Germany translating this colonialist imperialism onto Eastern Europe are incoherent. Schmitt's avowed racism and anti-Semitism remain shocking. The article does not try to downplay this aspect of his work. However, it is worth noting that his Nazi bosses, for the most part, thought his racism insincere. If any negative spirit imbues the actual technical detail of Schmitt's work it is his aversion to the West. This probably had its roots in the envy which the Kaiserreich had of the British, French, and American Empires while Schmitt was growing to maturity.

On 5 December 2000 the International Court of Justice adopted amended texts of Articles 79 and 80 of the Rules of Court, dealing respectively with preliminary objections and with counter-claims. The present paper introduces the new articles in the light of the 1978 version of the texts.

States can accept the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice with respect to all or certain categories of legal disputes by means of unilateral declarations. This article examines the reservations to the acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction that states include in such declarations. It reviews the practice of states and traces the trends in drafting and adopting reservations. It also analyzes the jurisprudence of the Permanent Court of International Justice and the International Court of Justice in relation to the interpretation of various reservations, particularly in recent cases, illustrating the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of different types of reservations.

The December 1999 judgment of the ICTY in the Jelisić case is the first ruling on the merits from that court dealing with an indictment for genocide. The Trial Chamber concluded that the Prosecutor had failed to prove that genocide was committed and that consequently the accused could not be convicted as an accomplice to the crime. It went on to examine whether despite the absence of genocide on any widespread or systematic basis it was still possible for an individual, driven by genocidal intent, to commit one of the underlying crimes such as killing or causing serious bodily or mental harm. The Trial Chamber considered this a plausible hypothesis but ruled that this did not correspond to the facts of the case. Since the Jelisić ruling, the Preparatory Commission of the International Criminal Court has attempted to eliminate the lone génocidaire scenario in the Elements of Crimes. While the law remains unsettled, awaiting clarification from the Appeals Chamber, a wise prosecutorial policy would be to reserve international genocide prosecutions for serious cases involving organized and widespread crimes. Exaggerated attention to individual and isolated cases is a questionable use of valuable resources and risks diluting some of the terrible stigma now attached to the “crime of crimes.”

The Award of the Arbitral Tribunal in the Second Phase (Maritime Delimitation) of the Eritrea-Yemen Arbitration follows the trend towards producing a single all-purpose delimitation line constructed on the basis of equidistance, the course of which is chiefly dictated by mainland coastal geography. Islands are accorded little impact upon the course of the final line, save to the extent necessary to permit them a full territorial sea. The potential relevance of other factors, including fishing and navigational interests is acknowledged but, given the methodology adopted, they did not influence the construction of the line. As in other cases, proportionality is demonstrated by comparison of areas with the relevant coastal lengths, although the usefulness of this is dubious. Although entirely separate exercises, it may be that the methodology pursued owes something to the outcomes of the first phase of the Arbitration, concerning sovereignty over the islands, and this may have a bearing upon the impact of the Award for maritime boundary delimitation more generally.

This article considers the implications of the Lockerbie case for Scots law. It examines the case from the standpoint of criminal procedure, the substantive charges against the accused, the presentation of evidence, the verdicts open to the court, and the available sentences. Originally written before the trial had commenced, it has been updated to take account of several important developments that occurred during the trial.

This article discusses the Review to Identify Non-Cooperative Countries or Territories, which was issued by the Financial Action Task Force in June 2000. After a general overview of the problem of secrecy havens and of the criteria used to identify them, the article gives a critical assessment of the process used to arrive at the ‘black list’ of 15 jurisdictions that was eventually drawn up. In this respect, a comparison is made with the work carried out by the OECD in the field of unfair tax competition by tax havens. It also looks forward at the possible follow-up to this list, both by the FATF and other international fora.

The ILC has initiated the codification of the law relating to diplomatic protection. Two reports have so far been submitted, a preliminary one and a first one in which eight draft articles are proposed. An analytical synopsis of the preliminary report will be followed by a short outline of the object and purpose of the draft articles as well as of the comments of the Commission which discussed the articles during its 52nd session. In the conclusion the contours of diplomatic protection as may be inferred from the work done so far are sketched.

This essay discusses international law aspects of an airport in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), concentrating on the law of the sea and air law. The law of the sea gives a more positive answer to the question regarding the feasibility of the operation of an airport in the EEZ than air law. At the same time, the evolution of regimes, including also EC law and policy, may facilitate acceptance of international operations at a national airport in the EEZ. Finally, the prevailing circumstances, such as economic, financial and environmental considerations, will be liable to affect the acceptability of an airport in the sea, more particularly in the EEZ.