In the decision on the second Genocide case (Croatia v. Serbia) the ICJ did not deviate from its ruling of 2007 (Bosnia-Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro) in matters of evidence. A comparison between the two cases nevertheless shows subtle but interesting nuances. Whereas in the first Genocide case the Court was confronted with a ICTY finding that a genocide had indeed been committed in Srebrenica in July 1995, in the present case the ICTY Prosecutor had not even indicted any Serbian or Croatian organ of such a crime. The ICJ was able to find the actus reus of genocide in many instances, both on the part of Serbia and Croatia, but it found that neither party had been able to prove the existence of the mens rea, either by relying on a pattern of conduct, or even by relying on the transcript of a governmental meeting. This throws a disquieting light on the actual capacity of the Court to deal with claims of commission of genocide, as distinguished from claims of lack of prevention or repression.

For the last 15 years the European Union (EU) has been particularly active, both internally and internationally, in the fight against global warming, and it is determined to continue to play a global leadership role in this strategic issue. Among the various market-based measures decided upon, the Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) for energy-intensive industrial sectors has been rightly described as the ‘flagship of the EU climate policy’.1 Even before proceeding to a general overhauling of Directive 2003/87 in the framework of the 2009 Climate and Energy package, the EU had decided to modify the Directive by including aviation activities in the ETS. Directive 2008/1012 provides that all flights from whichever aircraft operator taking off from or landing in the EU territory will be subjected to the ETS from 1 January 2012. For the year 2012 97 per cent of all emissions allowances will be freely assigned, from 2013 the amount will decrease to 95 per cent, whereas 15 per cent of all allowances will be auctioned. In reality the percentage of free allowances is much lower, about 60 per cent, because it takes as parameter the historical aviation emissions of the years 2004–06, when the air traffic was 40 per cent lower than it is now. The idea underlying the Directive is that aircraft operators will either purchase the necessary allowances in the market or will try to reduce their emissions by using bio-fuels (or else reducing the number of flights), with the second option becoming more economically attractive over time.

The pending dispute at the ICJ between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Republic of Italy on jurisdictional immunities of states bears on the hotly debated question of whether a state having committed a violation of jus cogens loses its immunity from civil jurisdiction abroad, as maintained by the Italian Court of Cassation. The article aims to demonstrate the untenability of the position of the Italian Court of Cassation, not only under current international customary law, but also under a prospective de lege ferenda. Nevertheless, different options are open to the ICJ to adjudicate the case, without impinging on possible future developments of state practice. The article closes by pointing at the risks that, in a strict dualist/pluralist perspective, not even an ICJ's decision in favour of Germany would eventually ensure compliance by Italian domestic judges.

The Koenigs Collection of Old Master drawings was transferred during the course of World War II from private ownership to the German government. Most of the collection recently appeared in the Pushkin Museum in Moscow. The author examines the validity of these transfers and the proper ownership of the collection today from both a public and private international law perspective. The dispute as to ownership between Russia and the Netherlands and the role of the German government is a difficult one to resolve, particularly in light of current claims for war reparations and recent developments in international law concerning the transfer of cultural property.

One year ago in this Journal Carty offered a reassessment of Schmitt's writings on international law, in an attempt to present them as a still valuable theoretical tool in a contemporary critical discourse on (neo)liberalism. Carty's proceedings, thought provoking as they may be, is unconvincing, because Schmitt's views on international law are indissolubly tied up with Nazi ideology and political purposes. Paradoxically a transfer in our time of Schmitt's Großraum concept provides a less critical argument against neoliberalism than at the best a dubious bolster to it.