The multiplication of legal orders is characteristic of what one could call an age of globalization and counter-hegemonic globalization. In this age, the relationship between international law and other normative orders is increasingly important. The dominant disciplinary frameworks that provide explanations of such a relationship are focused on compliance with and/or the effectiveness of international norms in domestic legal orders and are derived from international relations. In this article, I examine the limits and possibilities of such approaches through a case study of the use of law (at multiple levels) by one of India's most prominent social movements, the Narmada Bachao Andolan (Save the Narmada). The article argues that the use of law by a social movement is a concrete instance of counter-hegemonic globalization in which international law is one of many different legal orders, a situation of global legal pluralism, in which it is impossible to tell in advance which normative order will best advance cosmopolitan goals such as human rights.

Since its publication in 2000, Hardt and Negri's book Empire has been at the centre of significant debates within international relations (IR) and international law (IL) communities, both academic and other. Hardt and Negri's recently published Multitude (2004) is likely to add momentum to these debates. Outlining the importance of both Multitude and Empire for legal scholarship and practice, this contribution sets out to give a brief overview of the core issues that are to be distinguished in the debates amongst IR and IL academics, and includes a number of criticisms that could be levelled at Hardt and Negri's work. The focus of the paper, however, is on the ambiguities that mark Hardt and Negri's flawed attempt to deal with the issue of the boundary of Empire and the liminality of (the) multitude. Indeed, this contribution maintains that precisely this rather fundamental flaw in Hardt and Negri's work is why their intellectual ‘tour de force’ is ultimately unconvincing.

The World Trade Organization is often criticized for requiring its members to adopt policies which can detrimentally affect poor and vulnerable groups. Close analysis of the relevant provisions of WTO law, however, often reveals international trade obligations to be significantly more flexible than is commonly suggested. The author argues, however, that, on its own, detailed formal analysis of trade law paints an incomplete picture. Trade law also influences political choices by framing debates about trade policy – determining the arguments which can be made, who can make them, and in what forums they can be presented. The author illustrates this argument through a focused analysis of one controversy relating to the trade regime, namely the ‘GATS and water’ debate, and in particular the question of whether the General Agreement on Trade in Services may require the ‘privatization’ of water infrastructures.

Recent years have seen a proliferation of forms of transitional justice, ranging from pure truth and reconciliation formulas to various integrated approaches, combining international or internationalized trials with alternative forms of justice. Many of these phenomena have been examined in individual case studies. However, few attempts have been made to put the various pieces of the puzzle together and to analyze the merits and pitfalls of different institutional choices of transitional justice. This essay seeks to fill this shortcoming. It looks at different institutional designs of transitional justice from a comparative and impact-based perspective. It tries to identify some of the contextual parameters which may contribute to the success or failure of specific formulas of institutional design. Moreover, this contribution seeks to establish that international and domestic models of justice are not contradictory, but interdependent forces in the process of sustainable peacemaking, in areas such as criminal trials, victim's protection and reparation. It argues that transitional justice requires pluralist and complementary approaches, combining parallel mechanisms at the domestic and the international level, in order to succeed in practice, especially after the coming into operation of the International Criminal Court.

The impartial and nearly unanimous advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice in the Wall case put the role of politics and diplomacy in the settlement of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in its proper place, within the context of the rule of law. The significance of the opinion goes far beyond the illegality of the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT). The Court wisely and courageously seized the opportunity of its first direct involvement in the conflict to speak in plain legal terms about the tricky political problems that have ruined the Israeli–Palestinian peace process. It ascertained the present responsibility of the United Nations to protect Palestine's statehood. It affirmed the applicability of the prohibition of acquisition of Palestinian territory by Israel and confirmed the illegality of the Israeli settlements in the OPT. Moreover, the existence of the Palestinian people as the rightful claimant to the OPT is no longer open to question. One may only regret that the UN was not able to ask the Court to throw light on the Palestinian question at a much earlier stage.

This article appraises the impact of the Advisory Opinion of 7 July 2004 on the development of self-determination as a legal principle. The plight of the Palestinians being widely understood as a textbook self-determination struggle, the Court had to address the issue in its examination of the case at hand. Self-determination left an indelible mark upon the Opinion, from the decision to allow Palestine to participate, through the use of the principle as applicable law, to the elucidation of the violations and the erga omnes character of the obligations breached. The article examines the Court's positions, which, however sparsely elaborated, may have serious repercussions on the understanding of the principle and on its handling in future judicial proceedings.

In its judgment issued on 17 January 2005, in Prosecutor v. Vidoje Blagojević and Dragan Jokić, Trial Chamber I, Section A, found that genocide had been committed against the Bosnian Muslim population following the fall of the Srebrenica ‘safe area’ in July 1995. The Trial Chamber's findings that forcible transfer, when combined with other acts, can constitute an underlying act of genocide (namely, causing serious mental harm to members of a group) contributes to a growing body of jurisprudence on genocide. The Trial Chamber found the accused guilty of such serious crimes as complicity in genocide, extermination, persecutions and murder. It determined that the appropriate mode of liability for each was aiding and abetting rather than committing through participation in a joint criminal enterprise, Accordingly the Trial Chamber sentenced Vidoje Blagojević to 18 years' imprisonment and Dragan Jokić to nine years' imprisonment.

In seeking to define torture in international humanitarian law, the ICTY and ICTR have turned to the definition of torture contained in the UN Convention against Torture for guidance. The Convention definition contains a requirement that the actor be a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. The ad hoc tribunals have put forward various views as to whether this is an element of the definition of torture in international humanitarian law. This article examines these views. Potentially more significant are the pronouncements of the tribunals on the actor element of the definition of torture in international human rights law. This article also explores these pronouncements. It compares them with the drafting history of the Convention against Torture and with the jurisprudence of the Committee against Torture, the European Court of Human Rights and the UN Human Rights Committee. It questions whether the approach of the ad hoc tribunals is part of a trend towards a wider reading of ‘the actor’ in international human rights law.

This article asserts the emergence of multi-level global governance through an analysis of the relationship between the International Criminal Court and the Democratic Republic of Congo. The article suggests a far deeper set of influences than previously anticipated, presenting research on how the ICC is directly influencing Congolese domestic politics and how some actors within the Congo are seeking to manipulate the Court for their own political benefit. Further, the article considers the self-referral by the Congolese government, the early impact of complementarity, and efforts at judicial reform in the Congo. In the process the article develops a set of criteria to evaluate the ‘total or substantial collapse’ provisions of the complementarity regime.

Faced with increasing expectations and demands on the new International Criminal Court, the process of preparing its budget for 2005 presented significant challenges to the Court, the Committee on Budget and Finance and the Assembly of States Parties. This article focuses on the major challenges and examines the decisions taken by the Assembly. In particular, it looks at budgetary matters relating to the independence of the Prosecutor and decisions that could undermine it. Furthermore, with planned progress towards the first trials it focuses on key areas of the Court's work, including outreach, victim protection and field presence, that are in danger of being compromised through under-investment.

The UN High Level Panel Report, published in December, takes a comprehensive approach and is very frank in analysing the threats to international peace and security and their rootcauses. Its analysis and recommendations range from economic and social challenges to the use of force. This article discusses in particular the role and tasks that the High Level Panel envisages for the Security Council in light of the threats and challenges it identified. With the events of 11 September 2001 as the pivotal moment in history, the Panel nevertheless does not recommend or insist on fundamental changes of international legal paradigms, including in the (collective) use of force. The Panel's focus on reform of Security Council composition instead of the system that it operates neglects the problems with the latter and the impossibility of achieving the former.

With the launch of the UN International Decade for Water on 22 March 2005, awareness is raised in the international community of the growing demand and scarcity of water for people throughout the world. Water is a particularly scarce resource in both Israel and the Palestinian Territories. The use of the water resources of the West Bank and Gaza has been part and parcel of the Israeli–Palestinian peace negotiations. With the beginning of new peace negotiations under Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas, the topic of water and its allocation to Palestinians and Israelis is back on the negotiation table. The present article will point to the water crisis in Israel and the Palestinian Territories and analyse core provisions of international law which govern the use of water resources. Finally, it will outline how an allocation of water rights according to principles of international law could take place.

In its Taylor decision the Special Court for Sierra Leone denied immunity ratione personae to the, at the time of the indictment, President of Liberia. This article first analyzes the legal reasoning of that decision. The Court's finding that it is an international court is approved; the consequence it attaches to that finding is criticized. The decision is then presented as an illustration of the negative consequences of relying upon controversial elements of the ICJ's Arrest Warrant case. It is suggested that instead of the distinction between national and international courts, the difference between criminal responsibility and procedural immunity could have been the basis for the reasoning of the ICJ and Special Court.

Books and Articles in the Field of the Prevention and Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes (Spring 2005) Compiled by Ingrid Kost, Conservator Peace Palace Library