Increasingly, litigants are seeking to rely on international treaties before domestic courts. The difficulties they face, together with the judges hearing these cases, are great. Public international law is unknown territory for the vast majority of Canadian lawyers, both at the bar and on the bench. Moreover, the rules according to which international treaties take effect in Canadian domestic law engage a wide variety of legal sources, including ancient common law jurisprudence, unwritten constitutional rules, federalism, and the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and other Canadian human rights instruments. The object of this article is to describe in a comprehensive manner how international treaties may be used in Canadian courts. The disparate and seemingly unrelated norms informing the Anglo-Canadian law of treaty reception, including the implementation requirement, the treaty presumption, the rule in Labour Conventions, and the landmark decision in Baker v. Canada, are depicted as internally-consistent manifestations of the guiding principles of the Canadian reception system: self-government and respect for international law.

This article examines whether the characterization of a regulatory measure as expropriatory depends upon the objective intent of the state in enacting that measure. The issue of regulatory expropriation is of particular importance, given the fact that a number of recent multilateral investment treaties, including the North American Free Trade Agreement, grant investors a right of direct action against a foreign state for losses arising out of measures that are “tantamount” to expropriation.

This article will first consider the respective approaches of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal and the United States to regulatory expropriation. These approaches will be then briefly contrasted with the unique jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights. Next, the role of intent in municipal law as a means of categorization will be addressed and a case made as to why this approach is equally viable on the international plane. In conclusion, reasons will be given as to why a test based on intent is to be preferred over other theories.

It is generally accepted that NATO’s military intervention against Yugoslavia did not conform to recognized rules of legal positivism. For most western observers, the justification relies on its legitimacy rather than its legality. This moral argument is based on the belief that the humanitarian plight of the Albanian populations in Kosovo was exceptionally grave. While the situation on the ground prior to NATO’s bombing campaign warranted western involvement, the article shows that it was not exceptional in relation to other armed conflicts around the world.Western diplomacy in this Balkan crisis reflects an element of selectivity concerning respect for public international law that will have negative consequences on the future of international relations. The result in the immediate region is a change in the balance of power accompanied by general destabilization. Despite the large international military and civilian presence, Kosovo has been transformed into an almost homogeneous Albanian territory and neighbouring Macedonia is threatened by an extension of the Albanian insurrection. This international intervention confirms the relevance of established legal norms on the use of force because they allow better chances for action guided by reason rather than one-sided media pressure.

The flexibility afforded by the new rules in Canada for jurisdiction and judgments creates opportunities for opposing parties to commence parallel proceedings against one another in different jurisdictions. As litigants begin to take advantage of these opportunities, Canadian courts are faced with the special concerns associated with parallel proceedings and the potential for inconsistent results. Various mechanisms have been developed in other legal systems for addressing these concerns but some of these mechanisms do not prevent the “race to judgment” or the “race to file.” A review of the experiences with these mechanisms, and of the Canadian decisions to date, can help in formulating rules that accord with the Canadian appreciation of comity and that seek to prevent abuse without compromising fairness.

On May 17, 2001, an arbitral tribunal established by the minister for natural resources of the government of Canada issued its decision in Phase I of the dispute between the provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador over the boundary dividing their respective offshore areas. The tribunal was required to determine in Phase I, in accordance with the principles of international law governing maritime boundary delimitation, whether the line dividing the offshore areas of the two provinces had been resolved by agreement. This note discusses the dispute settlement mechanism set up to deal with this issue and the arguments made by the parties before the tribunal, and it summarizes the decision of the tribunal.

Pour la première fois, l’Organe d’appel, dans l’affaire CE — Amiante, offre une analyse plus globale de la relation entre l’obligation de traitement national (article III du GATT) et la possibilité d’invoquer des exceptions (article XX du GATT). Mettant de côté la littérature et l’approche traditionnelle qui semblaient mettre en opposition les soucis des environnementalistes (et défenseurs de la protection de la santé) et les réalités des marchés, l’Organe d’appel statue que les risques à la santé peuvent affecter la détermination de “similarité” entre marchandises (celles à risque et celles sans risque à la santé). De ce fait, l’Organe d’appel conclut que les risques à la santé peuvent affecter les propriété physiques des marchandises, de même que les goûts et perceptions de consommateurs concernant ces marchandises, deux des quatre critères qui doivent nécessairement faire l’objet d’analyse dans la détermination de similarité entre marchandises importées et marchandises domestiques — une détermination reposant essentiellement sur la relation de concurrence entre ces marchandises nationales ou importées.Continuant sa croisade sur le sens et la portée de l’Article XX du GATT, l’Organe d’appel réitère les nouveaux paramètres du test de “nécessité” de l’article XX — dont l’importance relative de l’intérêt commun ou des valeurs communes que la loi ou le règlement que l’on veut faire respecter est censé protéger, l’efficacité de la mesure et son impact sur le commerce — et mettra ainsi de coté le test traditionnel basé essentiellement sinon exclusivement sur l’existence d’alternatives moins restrictives sur le commerce.

In 1998, a Canadian oil company, Talisman Energy Incorporated of Calgary, acquired part interest in an oil concession in southern Sudan. In 1999, it began exporting oil from the region and paying royalties to the Sudanese government, some of which have been used to fund government forces engaged in a civil war against separatists in the south. The war has caused numerous human rights abuses. Talisman’s investment in Sudan therefore raises concerns about corporate operations in countries where there are serious and frequent human rights violations. What are Talisman and Canada’s obligations at this particular juncture — a point of fertile development in the field of international corporate social responsibility? This comment examines this question in light of recent events.

In 1966, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Once it had acceded to the Covenant, Canada undertook the obligation to make regular reports to the Human Rights Committee (the independent body of experts established under the Covenant) in regard to its protection of human rights and its progress in implementing the new treaty. In the next few pages, the four reports submitted by Canada, as well as the comments issued by committee members in the course of analysis of these reports, are examined, so as to get a better sense of whether, and to what extent, Canada is fulfilling its Covenant commitments.