Amid the proliferation of international judicial and quasi-judicial bodies, worries about the possible fragmentation of international law are increasing. Such fears, however, may be misplaced. A close examination of the jurisprudence of nine international judicial bodies, looking specifically for instances of explicit reference to one another's decisions, shows the practice to be widespread, of variable frequency and covering both procedural and substantive issues. Taken in conjunction with other scholarship about the similar treatment of important doctrines across all (or most) bodies, this study suggests that unity, not fragmentation, may emerge from the proliferation of international courts and tribunals.

Despite repeated attempts to eliminate statelessness and to provide for the protection of stateless persons, international law has not been able to provide an adequate response to these problems. In the Middle East the problem has continued to grow as social and political change pushes people into becoming stateless and fails to provide those who are stateless with adequate protection. The treaties that have attempted to prevent this practice have failed. At the same time the lex specialis aimed at protecting people from the consequences of statelessness have also failed. The result has been a lacuna in the protection of stateless persons. This article suggests that a step towards filling this gap might be made by applying general international human rights law to protect stateless persons.

Successive ICJ Presidents have expressed concern about the proliferation of international tribunals and substantive fragmentation of international law. This is not a new phenomenon. International law has always lacked a clear normative and institutional hierarchy. The problem is more how new institutions have used international law to further new interests, especially those not predominant in traditional law. The anxiety among ICJ judges should be seen less as a concern for abstract “coherence” than a worry about the demise of traditional principles of diplomatic law and the Court's privileged role as their foremost representative. As jurisdictional conflicts reflect divergent political priorities, it is unclear that administrative co-ordination can eliminate them. This does not, however, warrant excessive worries over fragmentation; it is an institutional expression of political pluralism internationally.

This article reviews the case concerning Kasikili/Sedudu Island with reference to acquisition of title to territory under international law. It traces the ICJ's use of evidence of African use and occupation to establish territorial sovereignty in a European state. The tests adopted by the Court are based on Eurocentric assumptions that only the consent of European states is necessary to adjudicate nineteenth century claims of title to territory. International law still carries forward within it the colonial notion that treaties between colonial powers in the nineteenth century extinguished pre-existing title to territory based on African use and occupation. The decision gives probative value to economic intentions of colonizing powers and geographical and scientific evidence in determining title to the disputed island while Africa use and occupation of territory is sidelined. Africa is treated as an unconscious geographical entity – a feature referred to as geographical Hegelianism in this article.

The various Trial Chambers of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia have advanced potentially inconsistent definitions of the crime of persecution under Article 5 of the Tribunal's Statute. The Trial Chamber in the Krnojelac case, in attempting to reconcile these different approaches, has undertaken a comprehensive analysis both of the actus reus and mens rea elements constituting this offence. In the context of the Tribunal's jurisprudence, this article analyses these elements and briefly discusses other issues related to the crime of persecution.

This article analyses the requirements when the ICTY Appeals Chamber may overturn factual findings made by a Trial Chamber and may admit fresh evidence. The conclusion is that the Appeals Chamber should overturn factual findings only when strong reasons so indicate, since trial transcripts cannot provide the same information as did live impressions from the proceedings when the Trial Chamber reached its findings. Fresh evidence should be admitted exceptionally; otherwise the control (corrective) function of the ICTY Appeals Chamber could be weakened, endangering the division of tasks in the court organisation, the effective administration of justice and a final hearing within a reasonable time.

A key achievement of the International Criminal Court is its acknowledgment of the rights of victims to participate in proceedings and to seek reparation before the Court. This article analyses some of the specific challenges relating to the ICC reparations regime, stemming from the interplay between the ICC and national courts on such issues as tracing assets and implementing protective measures, and in enforcing the ICC's reparations orders. A review of several examples of legislation adopted by states parties on cooperation with the ICC is undertaken with a view to examining its potential impact on these issues.

Belgian legislation gives the national criminal justice system far reaching competence to prosecute international core crimes. International and national judicial decisions as well as policy considerations may however dictate restrictions.

The issue of state immunity in the case of human rights violations has been controversial in the last decade, partly due to the absence of international judicial pronouncements. The bringing of the three cases previously litigated in the United Kingdom and Ireland before the European Court of Human Rights was supposed to reduce this uncertainty. However, decisions of the Court seem to have failed to meet these expectations. The Court has failed to properly examine whether the sources of international law support the scope of state immunity as portrayed in the decisions. Furthermore, the decision on Al-Adsani is deficient in that it fails to respect the difference between sovereign and non-sovereign acts, and the effects of peremptory norms with regard to state immunity.