The author describes the main characteristics of the English judicial system and its methodology. A central topic is the so-called judicial legislation, as is illustrated by the developing case lawwith respect to the tort of negligence. The method has the twin advantages of flexibility and pragmatism and it also has the advantages of speed. But there is a minus side also. First, the development of the law in this way can only be achieved at the expense of certainty. Secondly, it involves the alteration of the law, sometimes a quite radical alteration, without any extensive consideration of the practical and economic results such as would take place in the course of parliamentary scrutiny and debate. Judges are not the elected representatives of the people and the methodology of English Judges which results in the development and alteration of the law without the benefit of parliamentary debate may not perhaps be altogether a satisfactory democratic process to a constitutional purist.

International civil aviation regulation is still mainly characterized by government influence and bilateral air transport services agreements. Also, the internationalization of the airline industry is still far away although the developments within the EEC may lead to the recognition of the need to abolish the ‘nationality’ criterion for airlines to operate internationally, at least for scheduled air services between the EEC member states. Professor Wassenbergh contends that the bilateral regime should be replaced by a multilateral regime, or to begin with maybe by one or more plurilateral regimes, creating a framework of rules enabling free competition between the airlines but allowing for temporary differential treatment based on existing differences between the states concerning their capabilities with respect to the participation under their own flag in the international air traffic market (‘pluralism’). Internationalization and privatization of the airline industry should form the basis for the treatment of air transport as a ‘trade in services’ to which the GATT-rules may be made to apply.

In this article the author states that until now the lack of specific guidelines might explain the fact that the application of the Aerospatiale ruling has been far from uniform in American practice. Nevertheless, some issues that had been considered by Courts and Commentators before Aerospatiale have now been resolved.

Alley and Prescott claim that the Hague Evidence Convention has represented a very positive step in international legal cooperation between nations which employ considerably different legal procedures. The authors discus recent developments and hope that there will be a continuation of construe five building of the US. and other signatory states upon their past experiences in mutual cooperation.

The Hague Evidence Convention – officially the Convention On the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters – was realized in 1970 by The Hague Conference for Private International Law. The Convention gave rise to several differences of opinion between Europe and the United States. The European countries and the United States, in particular, disagree about the (optional or obligatory) character of the convention-procedures. This article will, among other things, deal with the consequences to be expected in The Netherlands of a recent American Supreme Court judgement on this issue: The Aérospatiale case1. The subject will be treated in five sections: 1.The Hague Evidence Convention; 2.The Netherlands and The Hague Evidence Convention; 3.Consequences of the Aérospatiale-case for The Netherlands; 4.Consequences of the Aérospatiale-case for Dutch parties involved in litigation in the UnitedStates; 5.Aérospatiale and conclusion.

Decolonization in the late twentieth century sometimes differs markedly from the classicalpost-war decolonizationphenomenon. While colonies were then fighting for their independence, today (ex) colonies might have to spend their energy on efforts to prevent being forced into independence. In the case of the Antilles and Aruba, the Dutch seem to view the islands as a somewhat embarrassing legacy of the Dutch colonial era and are seeking to sever all constitutional links with the islands although sofar the Netherlands Antilles have refused to discuss independence at all, while Aruba appears to have some second thoughts about its 1996-independence choice. The issue raises questions of international law, most of them concerning the right of all peoplestoself-determination. The authorsdescribeandanalyze Dutch policy and conclude that it is not in line with Dutch duties under international law.

In many member states of the European Community legal problems arise when implementing EEC environmental directives, especially those regarding dangerous substances. It has been said that sometimes these problems are caused by the fact that it is not always clear to national legislators what amount of discretion is available to them. This hypothesis is investigated here, mainly in relation to the way the Netherlands Chemical Substances Act has transposed dangerous substances directives into Dutch national law.

In 1966 the General Assembly of the United Nations revoked the Mandate over South West Africa (Namibia) and thus terminated South Africa's right to administer the territory. It furthermore placed Namibia under the direct responsibility of the United Nations. Administration of the territory was delegated by the General Assembly to a subsidiary organ, the UnitedNations Council for Namibia (UNCN). The author briefly describes the establishment, the structure, the functions and the powers of the Council. Special attention will be paid to questions concerning the legal status of the UNCN. Finally the major activities of the Council will be reviewed and appraised

This article deals with recent developments in the United States' refugee legislation and policies. After an examination of the relevant procedural aspects, the author discusses several concepts and criteria that play an important role in the decision whether an alien will be granted asylum in the United States. Despite recent jurisprudence, the related concepts of ‘wellfounded fear’ and ‘clear probability’ of persecution remain vague and illdefined. Thus, according to the author, it is doubtful whether the present standards of United States refugee law contribute to the protection of truly politically persecuted. Besides, the concept of ‘safe haven’ should not replace the concept of ‘firm resettlement’.

The international flow of information produced by international press agencies is discussed in this article. The author shows how the position of the Third World with respect to the alleged imbalances in the international communication infrastructure, both quantitative and qualitative, has led to two legal developments. On the one hand, the ‘right to communicate’ was formulated in addition to the traditionally recognized freedom of information. On the other hand, the concept of a New World Information Order has been developed. The ideological battle between the West and the Third World, which has dominated the discussion on these concepts since the early 1970s, should, according to the author, not impair the development of a viable technological infrastucture in the Third World. Development assistance could be used to give new and independent news agencies access to the international flow of information.

As is well known, states may take measures derogating from their obligations under the human rights treaties during proclaimed states of emergency. They remain, however, bound to respect certain inalienable human rights, the ‘hard core’, at all times and in all circumstances. The right to life, the prohibition of torture, slavery and retroactive penal measures are thus considered as being a ‘minimum safeguard’ against human rights violations. They are generally accepted as being customary international law, one may even speak of jus cogens. Moreover, one may argue that common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which contains a larger list of human rights than the abovementioned four, should also be respected in situations which are below the threshold of an armed conflict. In the important Case of Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua in 1986 the International Court of Justice held that the rules in common Article 3 are fundamental principles of Humanitarian Law, which are customary law and constitute a minimum, applicable in all circumstances. Even so state practice seems to indicate the opposite; experience has shown that it is during emergency situations that flagrant abuses of human rights are most common, especially in the treatment of persons who have been detained or deprived of their liberty.

Although states are no longer the sole subject of international law, they are in any event still its principal subject in (he current phase of development. And they will inevitably remain so for as long as the world community is organized in the form of a community of states.

Within the European Community several countries are seeking to accelerate the process of achieving free movement of persons. To this end several international forums have been created in which harmonization or coordination of matters relating to immigration is taking place. This article is concerned with the developments in one of these forums: that of the Schengen Accord. The Schengen countries involved in this forum are Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, and the Federal Republic of Germany.

On October 31, 1988, in a ceremony at the Beverly Hilton Hotel attended by Congressmen and members of the artistic community. President Reagan signed the 1988 Berne Convention implementation Act. This Act allowed the United States to join the international Berne Convention lor the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works as of March, 1989. Although the Act somewhat expands the availability of U.S. copyright protection to European atilhors, it affects U.S. authors' rights even less, practically speaking. Perhaps that explains why only three major U.S. daily newspapers, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times, briefly mentioned this historic moment for the internal ional copyright environment. This article explores why and how the U.S. has joined the Berne Convention after more than 102 years, and the effect that this will have un the availability of U.S. copyright protection to foreign authors. Before considering the technical consequences of the Berne Convention Implementation Act, we give a brief overview of two relevant international copyright treaties and their major differences.

From 26 to 29 June the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries convened at the premisses of the Peace Palace in The Hague to discuss the issue of peace and the rule of law in international affairs. This meeting was the start of a campaign for a Decade of International Law. This was the first occasion that an extraordinary ministerial conference of the Non-Aligned Movement was not held in one of its member countries. The Hague was chosen to underline the historic ties between this city and the (early) development of international law. This year it will be 90 years ago that the First Hague Peace Conference was held on the initiative of Emperor Nicholas II of Russia. This conference (together with the Second Hague Peace Conference of 1907) became a landmark in the history of the codification of international law and especially the development of mechanisms for the peaceful settlement of international disputes between states. The two most important conventions that were adopted at that conference were the Convention with Respect to the Law and Customs of War on Land and the Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes.

On 22 December 1986 the Council of the European Communities adopted Regulation 4057/86/EEC, dealing with unfair pricing practices in maritime transport. This Regulation was designed to combat unreasonably low shipping tariffs made possible by state subsidies. On 4 January 1989, the Council imposed, in the form of regulation 15/89/EEC, the first redressive duty based on this Regulation on cargo transported by a South Korean company.

Most European courts face overloading. Therefore the Single European Act has incorporated Article 168A into the lifiC Treaty. According to this article the Court of Justice of the European Communities may request the Council to create a Court of First Instance with a limited jurisdiction. This request has been made by the Court on September 29, 1987; by its decision of October 24,1988 the Council has approved of this request. The reason behind this proposed change in the procedure before the Court of Justice is the enormous pile of cases on the desks of the Judges in Luxembourg. Apart from this, already institutionalised remedy, other ideas are also circulating in Luxembourg with a view to improve the existing practice of the Court of Justice. One of these ideas concerns the possibility of abandoning the institution of Advocates-General by merging them with the corps of judges. Only in cases of exceptional interest one of the judges could act as a Advocate-General. I do not intend, however, to give a full account of the possibilities which have already been put forward in order to improve the working of the Court of Justice. This note will look at the other ‘European Court’, that is, the European Court of Human Rights (European Court), which is one of the organs created by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention). This Court is ill so overloaded with cases, just as its counterpart in Luxembourg. Kill unlike the constitutional changes in the European Communities, none of the proposal measures to improve and accelerate the work of the European Court has been incorporated in an amendment of, or an additional protocol to the European Convention.

In April of this year the 12th Telders International Law Moot Court Competition was held in the Peace Palace in the Hague. Teams from twelve European countries debated the issues concerning the “Right to Insurgency Case”, which was included in the last issue of the Leiden Journal of International Law. The winner of the 1989 Competition was the Team from the University of Leiden, the Netherlands. In the final round they took on the team from Germany, in the Great Hall of Justice at the Peace Palace, in front of Judge Jose Maria Ruda, Judge Manfred Lachs and Judge Sir Robert Jennings.

On 17 September 1984, Regulation 2641/84, also called the EC New Trade Policy Instrument, or simply the New Instrument, became effective. Pursuant to the New Instrument, a Community industry can File a complaint with the EC against an illicit trade practice of a foreign government. From the effective date of the New Instrument until the day of writing of this article (February 1989) four complaints have formally been lodged.