Since 1 March 2001, family courts in the European Union (except Denmark) have been obliged to follow the rules of EC Regulation No. 1347/2000 of 29 May 2000 on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Matrimonial Matters and in Matters of Parental Responsibility for Children of Both Spouses. The Regulation was meant to complement the Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters of 27 September 1968, and that is why it has come to be known as the ‘Brussels II Regulation’. The Convention covers, roughly speaking, patrimonial matters – such as property, contracts and torts – while the Regulation deals with divorce and child custody. On 1 March 2002, another Regulation entered into force, replacing the Brussels Convention and therefore aptly called the ‘Brussels I Regulation’. However, ‘Brussels I’ does not apply in Denmark, and that means that the Brussels Convention is still in force as between Denmark and the other EU member states. To complicate matters further, another Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters continues to apply in all EU member states, as well as in Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Poland: the Lugano Convention of 1988. Its text is virtually identical to that of the Brussels Convention, but there are major differences between the Lugano Convention and the Brussels I Regulation. As far as patrimonial matters are concerned, the courts in Europe now have to juggle with three different sets of rules: the Brussels I Regulation, the Brussels Convention and the Lugano Convention.

Since its adoption in 1998, the United States has criticized the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) on several grounds. One of its major concerns is that its nationals, particularly officials and personnel participating in peacekeeping operations, could be brought to the Court, without US consent, on false charges advanced by enemies of the US. The US delegation unsuccessfully attempted to introduce new articles into the text of the Rome Statute before its adoption to guarantee the immunity of its nationals from the jurisdiction of the Court. Later at the meetings of the Preparatory Commission for the Establishment of the International Criminal Court (PrepCom) it failed to modify the Statute indirectly, through proposals to insert a provision into the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the Court and subsequently into the Relationship Agreement to this effect.