This article argues that the harrowing consequences of official corruption for African societies elevate corruption to the level of a breach of the social and economic rights recognized in international human rights law. Yet, unlike in the case of violation of civil and political rights, the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of sovereign states seems to provide a convenient excuse for the inaction of the international community in the face of egregious violation of social and economic rights. This inaction, the article argues, is part of the reason why corrupt public officials in Africa perpetrate graft and openly accumulate illicit gains at home and abroad without fear of punishment. The article, therefore, suggests two things: elevation of corruption to the status of a crime in positive international law, and expansion of the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court to include official corruption and looting of public funds.

Together with the Security Council and the General Assembly, the International Court of Justice is one of the most important guarantors of peace, security and co-operation among states. The role of the ICJ in the enforcement of its decisions has received little attention in the existing literature. Although international courts, regional courts and national courts do not physically enforce their decisions, they have various levels of enforcement mechanism procedures. Nevertheless, it has been widely and mistakenly believed that it is not the business of the ICJ to enforce its decisions, but rather this is the business of other political bodies of the United Nations. It is argued in this paper that this proposition is not accurate and, instead, the ICJ has at its disposal various enforcement procedures and is, moreover, under statutory obligations to participate actively in policing and enforcing its decisions.

This article discusses whether it is permissible to cumulatively convict a superior under both Articles 7(1) and 7(3) of the ICTY Statute. After introducing the various modes of command responsibility under each provision, the discussion is premised on the double jeopardy/non bis in idem concerns underlying the case law of the Tribunal, and that of the ICTR, in relation to cumulative convictions for substantive offences. The article first presents arguments supporting the proposition that superiors should not be held cumulatively responsible under the aforementioned provisions. It then presents arguments to the contrary, including considerations in relation to the impact on sentencing. In this light, the article critically appraises the case law of both Tribunals.

Differing strategic priorities are only the beginning of the dispute over the International Criminal Court. Americans will not abandon their traditional constitution, as submission to the ICC would require. European states have already subordinated their national constitutions to a German-dominated federation. Americans do not accept international monitors in fighting against evil. Europeans are drawn to relativizing abstractions. For Germans, the ICC promises to “overcome the past,” by licensing German judges to try Americans and Israelis for war crimes. Europeans may feel obliged to fall in step with this latest German project. The US still has the moral self-confidence to resist it.

The crime of aggression will be included within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court once agreement is reached on its definition and the conditions for exercising jurisdiction. The author discusses the ultimately unsuccessful efforts of the now concluded Preparatory Commission for the Court to complete the drafting. He suggests how the mental and material elements of the offense might be structured consistently with other offenses in the Statute of the Court. Probably the biggest intellectual hurdle is that of “conditions.” A number of states, notably the Permanent Members of the Security Council, insist that there must be a predetermination of an act of aggression by a state made by the Security Council. Others believe that the predetermination can be made by the General Assembly or the International Court of Justice. Yet others claim that all decisions must be made by the International Criminal Court. The political choice between these positions has still to be made.

In 2001 the International Law Commission finally adopted on second reading the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts and the commentaries thereto, thereby successfully concluding almost half a century of work on the topic by the ILC. Subsequent to the adoption, the General Assembly welcomed the conclusion of the work of the ILC. This article highlights the main changes made during the second reading 1998–2001, among them the issue of international crimes, the concept of injured state and countermeasures. While the 59 articles are the result of compromise, they undoubtedly are a major achievement in one of the most important and most sensitive areas of international law. Ultimately they may be a useful tool to promote the enforcement of community interests in the international legal system.