Among the major crises threatening humanity today, forcing some 20 million people to flee their countries as refugees and displacing some 30 million people within the borders of their countries, are violent internal conflicts, systematic violations of human rights, massive denials of democratic freedoms, and frustration of sustainable, environmentally sensitive development. Although mostly grounded in domestic jurisdictions, these crises often result in human rights tragedies of grave concern to the international community. In this article, the focus lies on the state's sovereignty to underscore its responsibilities and accountability to both domestic and international constituencies.

This article deals with the legal aspects of the dispute between Hungary and Slovakia concerning a joint project of locks and power-stations, which had to be constructed in the Danube at Gabc ikovo and Nagymaros. Rules of treaty-law, environ-mental protection, good faith, reprisal and contributory negligence will be applied to assess whether Hungary was entitled to terminate the treaty and whether Slovakia could lawfully construct a provisional solution. Furthermore the significance of the case and its submission to the International Court of Justice is addressed.

The geographical disadvantages faced by land-locked states place them in a particularly vulnerable position: unable to compete on equal trading terms with coastal neighbours, they are highly susceptible to all forms of economic and political ‘aggression’. Such measures produce more than the usual degree of ‘inconvenience’, but can so destabilise the state as to compromise its existence. Equity and the sanctity of ‘statehood’ require the protection of such states by furnishing them transit rights.Not only must international law recognise such rights as existing in one form or another, but must also provide adequate means of securing them. A society unwilling to redress natural imbalances and prepared to perpetuate an inherently unfair system is a society committed to conflict, rather than the maintenance of peace and security.

The expansion of the Security Council's membership is presently being seriously debated by the international community. The UN Charter is most likely to be amended if agreement is reached in negotiations now underway.At the same time, a number of other possible fundamental reforms, also requiring Charter amendments, are being discussed in various UN fora. The question arises whether the Charter could or should be amended only once during our generation or many times over a period of a few years.

The 1995 Review and Extension Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons concluded its work last May in New York and decided that, in accordance with the provisions of Article X(2) of the Treaty, the Treaty shall continue in force indefinitely.

The purpose of the present study is to briefly introduce the final (1994) Draft Articles of the International Law Commission (hereinafter ILC) on The Law of Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses (hereinafter Draft Articles or 1994 Draft) and to analyse some of the more important and interesting provisions. It is not the intention to discuss basic theories relating to the management of international watercourses, on which numerous studies are already available. Nevertheless, the Draft Articles incorporate two fundamental principles of the law relating to watercourses, viz. the principle of equitable utilization and the no-harm rule, which will be treated at rather greater length because of their importance as well as certain ambiguities in the Draft Articles relating to them.

In order to present the Princz case1 to a reader unfamiliar with US law, some introductory comments of a general nature are considered advisable. For the reader familiar with US law, it is suggested that you jump over these comments and go directly to the presentation of the case.

Since June 1995, the following information has been communicated to the press by the Registry of the International Court of Justice.

On 15 December 1994, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 49/75K by which it decided:

to request the International Court of Justice urgently to render its advisory opinion on the following question: ‘Is the threat or use of nuclear weapons in any circumstance permitted under international law?’

This contribution is intended to update the author's recent contribution to this Journal concerning current developments at the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA). Developments since the publication of that article primarily concern the PCA Financial Assistance Fund and the work of the Steering Committee. In addition, the International Bureau is currently serving as Registrar in three arbitrations initiated pursuant to the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, and has assumed a pivotal role in fostering contact and an exchange of views among international lawyers and jurists in The Netherlands.

In a recent interview with a Dutch newspaper, Lord Owen, until the beginning of June Co-Chairman of the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia, said:

[W]e were instructed by the conference to make recommendations on the establishment of a war crimes tribunal. We decided that this tribunal should be completely disconnected from the negotiating process. It should have a life of its own in order to enable us the negotiators for the UN and the EU to say that we had nothing to do with it in case the matter would be brought up to us.

The first indictments against high-ranking political and military leaders were issued by the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) on 25 July 1995. Those indicted include Radovan Karadžić, the President of the Bosnian Serb Administration of Pale;Ratko Mladić, the commander of the army of the Bosnian Serb Administration;and Milan Martic, the President of the former Croatian Serb Administration of Knin. On the same day, the defence motion challenging the jurisdiction of the ICTY to try the accused currently before it, Dusko Tadicwas argued before the Trial Chamber. On 10 August 1995, this motion was dismissed.These recent developments, amongst others, are the culmination of the Prosecution's work in confronting the immense challenges of this unique international jurisdiction. Although the task is far from complete, the achievements to date provide a stable foundation upon which to progress with confidence. This article will comment on the significance of these new developments.

Antonio Cassese, who is now President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), once observed from an academic point of view:

[i]nternational legal control of warfare has kept pace with the developments in organized armed violence only to a limited extend. Major military Powers have not accepted sweeping restraints, with the consequence that this body of law is beset with deficiencies, loopholes, and ambiguity.