In spite of the startling technological strides in the field of weapons, and the resultant capability for nations to wage a ‘push-button‘ war, small arms still feature prominently in international conflict. Whilst it could not be reasonably claimed that most casualties in modern, mechanised war result from the use of small arms, these weapons still make a significant contribution to the carnage, especially in today's low intensity warfare. ‘In Vietnam, half of the US casualties were to bullets, mostly fired by small arms’. Small arms have found some employment in every international conflict, major and minor.

The magnitude and seriousness of the environmental consequences of the 1990–1991 Iraq-Kuwait War, have raised a variety of legal questions concerning the validity, effectiveness and interpretation of applicable principles and rules of international law.

The parties to an investment agreement, i.e., a State or its controlled enterprise and a foreign private entity, often fail to reach an agreement as to the substantive law applicable to any dispute that may arise during the course of their contractual relationship. Sometimes, such disagreement occurs owing to the conflicting interests of the parties. As a distinguished jurist has aptly put it:

‘While the host State is primarily interested in subjecting foreign investments to its national legal system because it wishes to retain the fullest legislative freedom in pursuance of its national economic policies, the foreign investor is primarily interested in excluding the application of the law of the host State because he fears that the host State may use its sovereign legislative power to change the legal environment to the detriment of his investment.’