The adoption of Protocol V to the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons represents a shift in focus for weapons law towards the long-term after-effects of weapons. This note considers this development.

Each time this writer has prepared a three-yearly update on the external relations of the Union, the Treaty framework has changed and the sense that Europe's leaders are being distracted from vital problems grows. The Constitution for Europe now on offer, the result of a mandate from the European Council at Laeken to effect a simplification of the treaties with a view to making them better understood without changing their meaning, would introduce new legal uncertainties into the framework for the conduct of external relations. Its entry into force, however, now appears unlikely.

1. You have asked me for advice on the legality of military action against Iraq without a further resolution of the Security-Council, This is, of course, a matter we have discussed before. Since then I have had the benefit of discussions with the Foreign Secretary and Sir Jeremy Greenstock, who have given me valuable background information on the negotiating history of resolution 1441. In addition, I have also had the opportunity to hear the views of the US Administration fromtheir perspective as co-sponsors of the resolution. This note considers the issues in detail in order that you are in a position to understand the legal reasoning. My conclusions are summarised at paragraphs 26 to 31 below.

On 9 January 2003 Mexico instituted proceedings against the United States of America for violations of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963.1 Mexico based the jurisdiction of theCourt on Article 36(1) of the Statute of the Court which provides that:

This is a surprising-and disquieting-judgment which raises serious questions about the role of the Court. The Legality of Use of Force cases began in 1999 when the Federal Republic ofYugoslavia (FRY)2 first brought an action against ten NATOStates for their use of force in Kosovo.3 In December 2004 the Court decided unanimously that it had no jurisdiction to decide the cases. However, this unanimity masked a fundamental disagreement between the judges: it is apparent from the Joint Declaration of Judges Ranjeva, Guillaume, Higgins, Kooijmans, Al-Khasawneh, Buergenthal and Elaraby that the judges were strongly divided, by eight to seven, on the reasoning which led them to agree that there was no jurisdiction.

1. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide {Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro).