The UN General Assembly has recently decided to delete from the agenda of the International Law Commission the topic ‘Relations between States and International Organizations’.

Over a period of 31 years, fourteen Reports by two successive Special Rapporteurs studied the topic in two parts. The First part of the topic (1963–1975) dealt with the privileges and immunities of representatives of states to international organizations, and resulted in a Convention, that has, however, not yet entered into force; the Second part of the topic (1976–1992) concentrated on the legal status and immunities of organizations themselves.

The author analyzes the Draft Articles that have been submitted in the course of the ILC's study of the Second part. This is done by way of a three-step application of the functional necessity concept of organizational immunities:

(1) Status, dealing with an organization's functions, legal personality and capacity-(2) Selection, defining a scale of organizational immunities for which an organization may be eligible - and (3) Scope, determining the extent of selected immunities. Finally, the author employs the two statutory functions of the ILC -the codification of international law and the progressive development of international law- to assess the contribution by the ILC to this field of international institutional law.

Article 62 remained a deadletter for almost seventyyears. The Chamber constituted to settle the frontier dispute between El Salvador and Honduras has changed this picture, and has allowed Nicaragua to intervene with respect to the legal régime of the GulfofFonseca. But it only accorded a non-party status to Nicaragua. However, the full Court had refused permission to intervene in two earlier cases with arguments that were based on the premiss of a party status for the intervening State. Only a future decision on a request for permission to intervene can tell whether the full Court will endorse the stances taken by the Chamber.

Taking the United Nations, its specialized agencies and the EC as a focal point, this article looks at the fiscal position of international organizations and their officials vis-à-vis their host state. Firstly, the fiscal privileges are examined from a theoretical point of view, after which a number of cases are analyzed in which international organizations and their host state differed in their views on the application of the aforementioned privileges.

From a broader perspective, this study explores the watercourse of standards which have sprung on the international level down to their application in daily life. A particular type of provision -concerning the fiscal immunities of an international organization and its officialscontained in a particular type of multilateral convention, dealing with the status, privileges and immunities of international organizations and their officials, is followed down to its application on the national level.

The extraterritorial application of competition law on the basis of the effects doctrine of jurisdiction has long been controversial. An analysis of the assumptions which underlie the discourse of jurisdictional assertion leads, however, to the conclusion that the effects doctrine is the only principle on which competition law jurisdiction can reasonably be based.

Moreover, a form of qualified effects principle, founded upon the consent of the undertakings involved, would be supported by most, if not all, of the leading players in the competition law arena.

Is the concept of humanitarian intervention part and parcel of customary law? In order to answer this question the or gins of the concept, (alleged) pre- and post-Charter state practice and the relation with the principles of non-interference in the domestic jurisdiction and the non-use of force will be considered. It will be concluded that the aforementioned question must be answered in the negative, notwithstanding the fact that genuine humanitarian interventions tend to be tolerated by the international community.

Air crashes usually attract a lot of attention. One of the reasons lies in the fact that, if an accident occurs, the damage is substantial. This damage may involve loss of life, bodily injury, mental distress and material damage.

“Todays prison seems to be more of a hotel than a real prison”, and “jailbirds live better lives than normal people do”, are phrases which you can hear quite often. The visit of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (hereafter CPT or the Committee) showed that this is certainly not true for British prisons. This Committee visited the United Kingdom from July 29 to August 10,1990 and drew an extensive report on its findings, to which the British Government reacted.

By Resolution 780 of October 6, 1992 the United Nations Security Council requested the Secretary-General

to establish, as a matter of urgency, an impartial Commission of Experts to examine and analyse the information submitted […] together with such further information as the Commission of Experts may obtain through its own investigations or efforts […] with a view to providing the Secretary-General with its conclusions on the evidence of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and other violations of international law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia.