This article offers a U.S. perspective on the creation of the Yugoslav and Rwanda criminal tribunals as each nears its conclusion following more than twenty years of judicial proceedings. During the period in which the tribunals were created, one of us (MJM) was the Acting Legal Adviser or Principal Deputy Legal Adviser of the U.S. Department of State, and the other (DS) was Senior Adviser and Counsel to the U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations and was subsequently the first U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues. Given the leading role played by the United States in the process of creating the tribunals, we hope that our perspective might help to illuminate the critical issues faced at that time.

The International Law Commission (ILC) of the United Nations held its fifty-eighth session in Geneva from May 1 to June 9, and from July 3 to August 11, 2006. This was the final year of the Commission's most recent five-year term (or quinquennium), and it finished work on several topics by completing sets of draft articles on diplomatic protection, principles on international liability for transboundary harm, “guiding principles” on unilateral acts, and conclusions on fragmentation of international law. The Commission also completed its first reading of articles on transboundary aquifers; continued its work on reservations to treaties, responsibility of international organizations, and the effect of armed conflict on treaties; began its consideration of the obligation to extradite or prosecute and the expulsion of aliens; and added a variety of new topics to its long-term program.

There are many important aspects to the 2006 Military Commissions Act, most of which are covered in the contributions of others to this Agora. I will focus on the amendments made by the Act to the earlier War Crimes Act, which set forth criminal sanctions for various violations of international humanitarian law. These amendments, which were ostensibly designed to remove ambiguities in the existing law, have the effect of raising questions about United States implementation of the 1949 Geneva Conventions that need to be resolved by the executive branch or, if necessary, by further action of Congress.

The International Law Commission held its fifty-seventh session in Geneva from May 2 to June 3, and from July 11 to August 5, 2005. The Commission continued its work on shared natural resources, reservations to treaties, responsibility of international organizations, unilateral acts of states, and fragmentation of international law. It began work on the effect of armed conflict on treaties and expulsion of aliens, and decided to begin work next year on the obligation to prosecute or extradite. It took no further action for the time being on diplomatic protection or on international liability for transboundary harm, pending the receipt of comments from governments on the texts adopted on first reading in 2004.

The International Law Commission held its fifty-sixdi session in Geneva from May 3 to June 4, and from July 5 to August 6, 2004, under the chairmanship of Teodor Melescanu of Romania. The Commission completed its first reading of draft principles on international liability for transboundary harm and draft articles on diplomatic protection, which have now been submitted for comment by states with a view to their completion in 2006. The Commission also continued its work on reservations to treaties, responsibility of international organizations, unilateral acts of states, fragmentation of international law, and shared natural resources. In addition, the Commission decided to start work next year on the effect of armed conflict on treaties and the expulsion of aliens, and to recommend adding a new topic—the obligation to prosecute or extradite—to its long-term program. The following is a summary of where each topic stands and what issues are likely to be most prominent at the Commission's 2005 session.

The International Law Commission held its fifty-fifth session in Geneva from May 5 to June 6, and from July 7 to August 8, 2003, under the chairmanship of Enrique Candioti of Argentina. The Commission elected Roman Kolodkin of the Russian Federation, Constantin Economides of Greece, Teodor Melescanu of Romania, and Michael Matheson of the United States to fill the vacancies resulting from the death of Valery Kuznetsov of the Russian Federation, the election of Bruno Simma of Germany and Peter Tomka of Slovakia to the International Court of Justice, and the resignation of Robert Rosenstock of the United States.

At the time this essay is being written (in mid-February), much is still not known about the system of military commissions contemplated by the president’s Military Order of November 13, 2001, and about the circumstances in which such commissions will be used. For example, it is not yet clear what offenses will be tried, what rules of evidence will be adopted, whether the defendants’ choice of counsel will be restricted, and whether defendants will be able to pursue ajudicial appeal of their conviction or a collateral challenge to their detention. Presumably, these points will be clarified by further orders or regulations from the executive branch.

Since the end of the Cold War a decade ago, the United Nations has exercised authority in significant new ways to address various aspects of resolving conflicts and dealing with their consequences. These new approaches have included the use offeree to end interstate and internal violence, the resolution of boundary issues and other disputes that might prolong the conflict, the elimination of threatening weapons capabilities, the prosecution of violations of international humanitarian law, and the compensation of victims of the conflict. These actions have been taken either with the consent of the state or states involved, or pursuant to the authority of the Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, or both.

On July 8, 1996, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) responded to requests by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) for advisory opinions on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons. These opinions deserve careful attention, and have already been the subject of considerable scholarly commentary.