Streletz, Kessler and Krenz V. Germany. App. Nos. 34044/96,35532/97, & 44801/98.49 ILM 811 (2001), available at <http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/Judgments.htm>.

K.-H. W. V. Germany. App. No. 37201/97. 49 ILM 773 (2001), available at <http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/Judgments.htm>.

European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber, March 22, 2001.

In a landmark judgment, Streletz, Kesslerand Krenz v. Germany, die European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) unanimously held that criminal prosecution of the leaders of the German Democratic Republic (GDR) for ordering to kill individuals attempting to flee the GDR is compatible with the principle nullum crimen sine lege and consequently with the prohibition on retroactive criminal laws under the European Convention on Human Rights. In a second judgment, K.-H. W. v. Germany, with three of the seventeen judges dissenting, the Court affirmed this holding as applied to the criminal responsibility of a low-ranking soldier.

Metalclad Corporation v. Mexico. ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/97/l. 40 ILM 36 (2001), available at <http://www.worldbank.org/icsid/cases/awards.htm>.

NAFTA Chapter 11 Arbitral Tribunal, August 30, 2000.

Mexico v. Metalclad Corporation. 2001 B.C.S.C. 664, available, at <http://www.courts.gov.be.ca>.

Supreme Court of British Columbia, May 2, 2001.

In 1993, Metalclad Corporation purchased the Mexican company Confinamiento Tecnico de Residuos Industriales, S.A. de C.V. (COTERIN) in order to build and operate a hazardous-waste transfer station and landfill in Guadalcazar, San Luis Potosi. Although the federal government of Mexico and the state government of San Luis Potosi had granted COTERIN permits to construct and operate the landfill, the municipality of Guadalcazar denied a municipal construction permit, and the governor of San Luis Potosi subsequently declared an area encompassing the landfill to be an ecological reserve.

The International Court of Justice bom opened and closed the year 2000 with an unprecedented docket of twenty-four cases; during the year, one case was concluded by ajudgment, and a new one was filed.1 Most of the Court's cases, however, were still in “midstream,” with the parties still exchanging written pleadings. The Court held oral proceedings during 2000 in just five cases: final hearings on the merits in two, hearings on jurisdiction leading to ajudgment in a third, and two requests for provisional measures, one granted and the other not. The year was marked by other events of interest, including some that signal important changes in the Court's procedures.

Baraldini (March 28, 2001), at <http://www.cortecostituzionale.it>.

Corte costituzionale (Constitutional Court of Italy), March 22, 2001.

Following breast cancer surgery in a Rome hospital, Silvia Baraldini—an Italian national who had been transferred from the United States to Italy for the purpose of serving the remainder of her prison sentence in Italy—requested her release from prison while she received radiation treatments or chemotherapy. By order of November 24, 2000, the Tribunale di sorveglianza (Supervisory Court) of Rome for the District of Lazio, on its own motion, brought a challenge of constitutionality against the Italian statute (Transfer Implementation Law) implementing the 1983 Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons (Strasbourg Convention).

In May 2001, at a diplomatic conference in Stockholm, Sweden, the international community adopted and opened for signature the new Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (Stockholm Convention). Over ninety nations signed the convention at the conference, and one country—Canada—ratified it. The Stockholm Convention is designed to protect human health and the environment from persistent organic pollutants (POPs)—chemical substances that are persistent and toxic, that bioaccumulate in fatty tissue (achieving higher concentrations as they move up a particular food chain), and that are prone to long-range environmental transport. Among other things, the convention contains obligations to eliminate or severely restrict the production and use of a number of POP pesticides and industrial chemicals, to take strong measures to prevent or control the release of certain POPs that are formed as by-products of various combustion activities, and to ensure the safe and proper disposal or destruction of such substances when they become wastes.

Lance Paul Larsen v. The Hawaiian Kingdom. At <http://www.pca-cpa.org>.

Permanent Court of Arbitration Tribunal, February 5, 2001.

In Larsen v. The Hawaiian Kingdom Lance Paul Larsen, a resident of the state of Hawaii, sought redress from the Hawaiian Kingdom for its failure to protect him from the United States and the State of Hawaii. The parties, who agreed to submit their dispute to arbitration by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), shared similar goals and wished the Arbitral Tribunal (Tribunal) to address the question of the international legal status of Hawaii.

On November 22, 2000, President Clinton signed into law the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000, closing a jurisdictional gap that had concerned the military since the 1950s. The new law establishes federal jurisdiction for crimes committed by civilians who accompany military forces outside the United States, as well as crimes by former members of the military who leave active duty before being prosecuted by courts-martial. Jurisdiction to prosecute under the new statute, however, is granted only to U.S. Article III courts and not to courts-martial.

The international criminal court (ICC) will serve as a permanent institution dedicated to the enforcement of international humanitarian law sixty days after the sixtieth state has deposited its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval, or accession to the Treaty of Rome with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.1 Pursuant to Article 11 of the ICC Statute, however, the ICC will have jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the treaty comes into force.2 Consequently, when faced with allegations of violations of international humanitarian law in the period prior to the establishment of the ICC, the international community has five options if criminal prosecutions are desired.3 First, additional ad hoc international tribunals, similar to those established for the former Yugoslavia (International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, ICTY) and Rwanda (International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, ICTR) could be established.4 Second, "mixed" international criminal tribunals, which would share certain attributes with the ad hoc Tribunals, could be created.5 Third, the international community could leave the prosecution of alleged offenders to national authorities, provided that the domestic courts are functioning and able to conduct such trials. Fourth, in those instances where the national infrastructure has collapsed, international resources could be made available to assist with the prosecution of the alleged offenders in domestic courts. Finally, the international community could simply do nothing in the face of alleged violations of international humanitarian law.

At its sixty-ninth conference, held in London from July 25 to 29, 2000, the International Law Association (ILA) approved by consensus the Declaration of International Law Principles on Internally Displaced Persons (the Declaration). This Declaration, prepared by the International Committee on Internally Displaced Persons, followed two earlier ILA proclamations relating to the forced movement of people: the Declaration of Principles of International Law on Mass Expulsion, adopted in Seoul in 1986; and the Declaration of Principles of International Law on Compensation to Refugees, adopted in Cairo in 1992. All three instruments address forced movement from the perspective of the responsibility of countries of origin, in contrast to the traditional focus on the care and maintenance of refugees as a responsibility of first-asylum, resettlement, and donor countries, as well as of the United Nations and other international organizations, both governmental and non-governmental. By dealing with the root causes of internally displaced persons (IDPs) and their status, the present Declaration broadens the concerns of international law to encompass all persons who have been forcibly uprooted from their homes, whether or not they have crossed their national borders.

The fifty-sixth session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights took place in Geneva from March 20 to April 28,2000, under the chairmanship of Ambassador Shambhu Ram Simkhada of Nepal. The delegations of fifty-three member states and ninety-one observer states werejoined by 1760 representatives of 224 nongovernmental organizations. The Commission ultimately adopted one hundred resolutions and decisions, three-fourths of them by consensus.