The theory of command responsibility is established in the field of international humanitarian law. The practical problems for the application of the theory were especially highlighted in the General Yamashita case, decided by a United States military commission in Manila in October 1945. Defence counsel in the case stated that the theory, as relied upon by the commission, was new law at that point in time, because it asserted that criminal responsibility of a commander would arise even if he was relevant to the crimes committed by his subordinates only by reason of his capacity qua their commander.

The conflict in South Africa between the African National Congress (ANC), Pan-African Congress (PAC) and the Azanian Peoples Organisation (AZAPO), on the one side, and the apartheid government and its allies, on the other, is over. The conflict lasted from the early 1960s to the early 1990s, and during this period the international community's level of concern about the conflict steadily mounted. Attempts to apply relevant aspects of humanitarian law to the conduct of the conflict were, however, severely restricted by the attitude of the apartheid government. It erected a laager of national sovereignty, and crawled inside this domain reserve in an effort to seek sanctuary from the unwelcome intervention of international law. And, at least with respect to humanitarian law, it found sanctuary. International law provided no way of penetrating this defence in order to regulate the violence which was taking place within South Africa, and thus, in spite of the international outcry over apartheid, the apartheid government was able to ignore humanitarian law in its prosecution of the conflict.

Few conflicts in recent years have generated so much confusion, controversy and passion as the violent break-up of Yugoslavia. The Yugoslav wars and their aftermath have raised many questions, ranging from military-strategic issues and horrific human rights violations to international legal aspects. The General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina (GFA) is the international community's attempt to provide answers. This paper is concerned with one of those answers, in the legal-political and military sphere. It focuses on the measures of sub-regional arms control that have been established pursuant to Article IV of Annex 1-B of the GFA.

Although it is often said that nowadays the central issue of conflicts law or private international law is to be found in the areas of jurisdiction or the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, rather than in the field of choice of law, in my opinion choice of law is still at its core. Choice of law, including the rationale of this area of conflicts law, is still to be considered as a separate and important subject that cannot be compared with the other areas in this field of law, because ultimately it depends on the contents of the judgments of our courts whether or not justice will be achieved between the parties. However, whether justice is achieved in a multistate case depends not only on the quality of the substantive law that has been applied, but also on the quality of the choice-of-law decision in such a case. I submit that these choice-of-law decisions are fundamental to the authority of states enforcing the law in multistate cases.

On 10 August 1993, a child (M) was born in Drunen, the Netherlands. The mother (P) was of the Dutch nationality and the biological father (A), was of the Moroccan nationality, having been born in Morocco. From January to May 1993, P and M lived together in England as an unmarried couple. P subsequently returned to the Netherlands, where she gave birth to M. The couple was married on 9 December 1994 and resumed living together in Drunen.

On 18 September 1998, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom concluded a treaty envisaging the trial of the two Libyan suspects of the Lockerbie disaster before a Scottish Court sitting in the Netherlands.2 The initiative represents an attempt to break the stalemate resulting from, on the one hand, Libya's refusal to surrender the two suspects for trial in the United Kingdom or the United States and, on the other hand, the refusal by the United Kingdom and the United States to provide the Libyan authorities with the evidence that would have made it possible to try the suspects in Libya.

On 5 August 1998, the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) requested the Court to give an advisory opinion on the difference which has emerged between the organisation and the Malaysian government out of the interpretation or application of the Convention of 13 February 1946 on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations. This is the second time that ECOSOC makes uses of its authorisation to request advisory opinions of the Court. An Order was made to organise the proceedings on 10 August 1998.