2 January-March 2008

ISIL ACTIVITIES

A SPECIAL LECTURE ON “ANINTERNATIONAL RULE OFLAW?” BY PROF. SIMONCHESTERMAN, GLOBALPROFESSOR OF LAW,DIRECTOR, NEW YORKSCHOOL OF LAW SINGAPOREPROGRAMME, SINGAPOREISIL organised a special lecture on “AnInternational Rule of Law?” by Prof. SimonChesterman, Global Professor of Law,Director, New York School of Law SingaporeProgramme, Singapore on 4th Janauary 2008at its premises. Prof. Chesterman criticallyanalysed the formulation, elaboration andenforcement of the rule of law in internationalgovernance in the background of its historicaljurisprudence and illustrated the dominant roleplayed by the developed countries in thecontemporary international relations andeconomic order. The Lecture witnessed livelyexchange of views with the audience on hispresentation.

A SPECIAL LECTURE BY PROF.GEORGE (ROCK) PRING,PROFESSOR OF LAW,UNIVERSITY OF DENVERCOLLEGE OF LAWISIL organised a Special Lecture on “GlobalComparative Environmental Courts andTribunals (ECT) Study” on 5 March, 2008, atits premises. Dr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Director,ISIL, welcomed and introduced the chiefguest, Prof. George (Rock) Pring, Professor ofLaw, University of Denver College of Law.Prof. Pring analysed the environmental lawsof some countries and the decisions of itscourts. Prof. Pring appreciated the dynamicand proactive role of the Indian SupremeCourt in upholding environmental causes andjustice. He also placed a model law onenvironment for discussion. The seminarwitnessed a lively exchange of views with theaudience on his presentation.

INAUGURATION OF ONE YEAR CELEBRATION OFGOLDEN JUBILEE OF THE ISIL

A GOLDEN JUBILEE SPECIALLECTURE ON INTERNATIONALCRIMINAL COURT BY MS.FATOU BENSOUDA, ICCDEPUTY PROSECUTOR, THEHAGUEISIL organised a Golden Jubilee special lectureon “International Criminal Court” on 15th

February 2008 at its premises. Shri C. Jayaraj,Former Secretary General, and EC Member,ISIL presided over the proceedings andintroduced the chief guest Ms. FatouBensouda, ICC Deputy Prosecutor, the Hague.Ms. Bensouda highlighted achievements of theICC since its establishment and underlinedchallenges posed to it and also discussed thecrucial role of prosecutors in the ICC owing tothe prevailing complex conditions andsituations of referred cases and sites. Thelecture witnessed lively exchange of views withthe audience on her presentation.

Indian Society of International Law (ISIL) hasdecided to organize a year - long celebrationto commemorate its establishment fifty yearsago. The Golden Jubilee celebration began on4 February 2008 and will finally conclude onthe same date in the year 2009. The GoldenJubilee celebration was formally inauguratedon 4th February 2008 by the Honourable ChiefGuest Shri Anand Sharma, Minister of Statefor External Affairs, Government of India, andJustice Vikramjit Sen, Judge, Delhi HighCourt. On this occasion, Dr. B.S.N. Murthy, theonly surviving founder member of ISIL wasinvited as Chief Guest. Shri Anand Sharma,Minister, in his presidential addressemphasised the need for team sprit forachieving better results. Shri Ram NiwasMirdha, President, ISIL welcomed the guestsand Prof. Rahmatullah Khan, SecretaryGeneral, ISIL listed the various programmes ofthe Golden Jubilee activities. The officebearers of the ISIL honoured Dr. Murthy.Professor Upendra Baxi, former President ofthe ISIL also addressed the members on thisoccasion. The Chief Guest also felicitated allsurviving present and former office bearers ofthe ISIL.

To make this event a memorable one, theoffice bearers of ISIL wish to organize series

of events throughout the year. Some activitiesplanned for the year include, the annualconference, special lectures by eminentscholars of international law, a moot court onpublic international law, publication of a bookon the history of ISIL and an edited textbookon Public International Law. The activities willend with an international conference inFebruary 2009. In brief, the period will be anoccasion to celebrate our past achievements,

and embark on new initiatives. ISIL GoldenJubilee celebrations will be used as anopportunity to launch major new initiatives,celebrate successes of the past years, reflecton the past and plan for the future. Allmembers of ISIL will be invited to participateincluding officials of the Government of India,Intergovernmental Bodies, alumni, students,faculty and the local community.

January-March 2008 3

A GOLDEN JUBILEE PUBLIC LECTURE ON BY PROF. SUSAN L. KARAMANIAN, THE GEORGE WASHINGTONUNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL, US

ISIL organised a Golden Jubilee public lectureon “International Law and the US FederalSystem: The Perspective from the States” on25 February 2008 at its premises. Prof.Rahmatullah Khan, Secretary General, ISILintroduced the chief guest Prof. Susan L.Karamanian, Associate Dean for Internationaland Comparative Legal Studies andProfessorial Lecture in Law, The GeorgeWashington University Law School, US and

invited her to deliver the lecture. Prof.Karamanian introduced provisions of USConstitutions and underlined its contributionin development of international law. Somedecisions of the judges of the Circuit Courtsand Federal Court, nevertheless, reflect theirproactive approach to the development andinterpretation of international law. The Lecturewitnessed a lively exchange of views with theaudience on her presentation.

School of Law and Governance, JaipurNational University, Jagatpura, Jaipur andProf. R. P. Anand, Executive President, ISILrespectively. Eminent panelists namely Dr. M.Gandhi, Director, L&T Division, Ministry ofExternal Affairs (MEA), Government of India,Dr. Luther M. Rangreji, Legal Officer, L&TDivision, MEA, Government of India, Dr. ManojKumar Sinha, Director, ISIL, Dr. Ch. Benarjee,Legal Advisor, ICRC presented papers.The third session was held on the theme‘Private International Law’ and chaired by ShriT. K. Viswanthan, Department of Legal Affairs,Minsitry of Law and Justice, Government ofIndia and co-chaired by Shri Narinder Singh,

Joint Secretary, L&T Division, MEA,Government of India. Prof. LakshmiJambholkar, Executive Council Member, ISIL,Mrs P. Lakshmi, Assistant Professor, HNLU,Raipur, Dr. Nidhi Gupta, Assistant Professor,National Law University, Jodhpur spoke onvarious aspects of the theme namely,International Child Abduction: India’s Position,Inter-Personal Conflicts of Law, Enforcementof Foreign Arbitral Awards in India under 1996Indian Arbitration Act. Finally, Dr. Justice A. R.Lakshmanan, Chairman, Law Commission ofIndia gave valedictory address. The AnnualConference ended with the General BodyMeeting.

GOLDEN JUBILEE THIRTY SEVENTH ANNUAL CONFERENCE OFTHE INDIAN SOCIETY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

ISIL organized its Golden Jubilee 37th AnnualConference on 29-30 March 2008 at V. K.Krishna Menon Bhawan (ISIL), New Delhi.More than 200 delegates including law facultymembers, researchers, students and lawyersfrom different parts of the country andrepresentatives from several embassies andministries participated in the Conference. ShriRam Niwas Mirdha, President, ISIL, whilewelcoming the distinguished guests and thedelegates, mentioned the significance of theAnnual Conference of ISIL and the need forparticipating in such a conference. Justice V.S. Shivpurkar, Judge, Supreme Court of Indiain his inaugural address, emphasized thatinternational law is gaining much importancein the national courts over the years. Hestrongly argued for increased emphasis oninternational law in the law schools andcolleges and the need to appoint a properfaculty to teach this subject as the subject haswider ramifications and implications on manyaspects of day-to-day activities as well. Prof.R. P. Anand, Executive President, ISIL in hisaddress highlighted the absence ofinternational law teachers during his days(1960’s) and strongly emphasized on the needto train scholars in international law to counterthe hegemony of western scholars’ writing. Healso stressed the need to highlight the currentinjustices perpetrated under the broad bannerof globalization.Three sessions were organized to discuss thetwo themes. The first and second sessionwere on the ‘Recent Developments in theJurisprudence/Theories of International Law’and ‘International Institutions in theProgressive Development of International Law’and chaired by Prof. V. S. Mani, Director,

4 January-March 2008

RECENTDEVELOPMENTSIndia Accepts HCCH StatuteOn 13 March 2008, India deposited itsinstrument of acceptance of the Statute of theHague Conference, and thus became the 69thMember of the Hague Conference on PrivateInternational Law. India is already a party tothe following Hague Conventions: Conventionof 5 October 1961 Abolishing the Requirementof Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents;Convention of 15 November 1965 on theService Abroad of Judicial and ExtrajudicialDocuments in Civil or Commercial Matters;Convention of 18 March 1970 on the Taking ofEvidence Abroad in Civil or CommercialMatters; Convention of 29 May 1993 onProtection of Children and Co-operation inrespect of Inter-country Adoption.

The Republic of MadagascarRatifies the Rome Statute of theInternational Criminal CourtOn 14 March 2008, the government ofMadagascar deposited its instrument ofratification to the Rome Statute. The Statutewill enter into force for Madagascar on 1 June2008, bringing the total number of StatesParties to the Rome Statute to 106.

Colombia Ratifies theComprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban TreatyOn 29 January 2008. Colombia is one of the44 States listed in annex 2 of the Treaty, theratification of which is essential for the entryinto force of the Treaty. This brings the numberof ratifications of the Treaty to 144, including35 ratifications of the annex 2 States. Theremaining nine States which have not yetratified are China, the Democratic People’sRepublic of Korea (DPRK), Egypt, India,Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Pakistan and theUnited States.

The ICC Signs a Memorandumof Understanding with theAALCOA memorandum of understanding (MoU) wassigned between the International CriminalCourt (ICC) and the Asian-African LegalConsultative Organisation (AALCO) on 5February 2008. Signed on behalf of the ICC byPresident Philippe Kirsch and by H.E.Ambassador Dr Wafik Zaher Kamil, Secretary-General of the AALCO, the aim of theagreement is to formalise and reinforce co-

operation and assistance between the twoorganisations in matters of mutual concernincluding international criminal law. AALCO isan inter-governmental organisation whoseprimary purpose is to serve as an advisorybody to its member governments in the field ofinternational law and to provide a forum for co-operation in legal matters of concern to thosemember states. The agreement facilitates co-operation in areas such as promotingawareness of international criminal law,exchanges of information, and attendance atconferences, meetings and public hearings.

WTO Members Adopt DisputePanel Ruling on ‘Salmon’The WTO Dispute Settlement Body, whichcomprises all members, adopted on 15January 2008 the panel report on Norway’scomplaint against the EU’s anti-dumpingmeasures on salmon (WT/DS337/R). Thepanel found the EC had committed acontinuum of violations. The panel explicitlydeclined to use its discretionary power torecommend the revocation of the measure,despite repeated Norwegian calls for the panelto do so. Hong Kong (China) raised two legalissues contained in the report, one on the useof sampling in injury determination permittedunder the Antidumping Agreement and one onthe legality of excluding ‘en bloc’ non-producing exporters in sampling underdumping determination. Hong Kong (China)added it was disappointed with the panel’sreasoning and ruling on these two points.

DS367: Australia - MeasuresAffecting the Importation ofApples from New ZealandOn 21 January 2008, the DSB established apanel to examine Australia’s measuresaffecting market access of New Zealand’sapples into its market. At the previous meetingon 17 December 2007, New Zealand hadclaimed that these measures were notscientifically justified and were inconsistentwith the Sanitary and PhytosanitaryAgreement. Japan, US, Chinese Taipei, Chileand the EC reserved their third party rights.

DS291: European Communities- Measures Affecting theApproval and Marketing ofBiotech ProductsAt the DSB meeting on 19 February 2008, theprincipal parties in the GMO disputes reportedon the state of play as part of the surveillanceof implementation of DSB rulings. Thus,arbitration on US request for sanctions inGMO case suspended by parties while they

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

MEETING WITH WESTAFRICAN LAWYERS ANDPROFESSORS

Nine members of the delegation from WestAfrica (Ghana, Gambia, Senegal and Nigeria)visited ISIL to exchange notes on experiencesin public interest law advocacy. On thisoccasion, Hon’ble Justice Madan B. Lokur,High Court, Delhi addressed on the origin ofpublic interest litigation, advocacy, law reformand research work with regard to the Indianjudicial system. Following were members ofthe delegation: Dr. Nana Tanko, ExecutiveDirector, Open Society Initiative for WestAfrica, Dakar, Senegal; Mr. OlawaleFapohunda, Managing Partner, LegalResources Consortium, Nigeria; Prof. MaidorFall, Lecturer, University of Dakar, Senegal;Ms. Nana Afadzinu, Country Director, Ms.Bosede Muibi, Programme Officer, both fromOpen Society Initiative for West Africa, Dakar,Senegal; and Ms. Janet Sallah-Njie,Chairperson, Gambian Women LawyersAssociation, Banjul and others.

VISIT OF STUDENTSA delegation of students from Dayanand LawCollege, Kanpur, Bombay Law College,Bombay, Deekshabhumi Law College, Nagpurand Aligarh Law College, Aligarh visited ISILon 7 February, 28 February, 5 March and 14March 2008 respectively. Dr. Manoj KumarSinha, Director, ISIL welcomed the studentsand described the activities of ISIL to thevisitors and also discussed the importance ofinternational law and career prospect in thisarea.

FORTHCOMING EVENTSEighth V.K. Krishna Menon Memorial(Golden Jubilee) Lecture on “Food Securityand National Sovereignty” by Prof. M. S.Swaminathan, Member, Rajya Sabha, 3 May2008Golden Jubilee Special Lecture by MsBridget Prentice, Parliamentary UnderSecretary of State, UK , Ministry of Justiceon “The Effects of Globalisation onLawyers”, 5 May 2008.One Week Training Programme for SeniorGovernment Officers of Ministry ofEnvironment & Forests, 12-16 May 2008.Golden Jubilee Summer Course onInternational Law, 16-27 June 2008.

January-March 2008 5

continue discussions to resolve the dispute.The facts were: on 8 February 2008, the USretaliation request in the GMO case wasreferred to arbitration following EC’schallenge. The US introduced its request forauthorization to impose sanctions (WT/DS291/39) in the GMO case by pointing out that, eventhough more than four and half years hadpassed since it brought the case to the WTOin May 2003, the dispute remainedunresolved. The US recalled that the period oftime for EC compliance had expired on 11January 2008, and that on 14 January the USand the EC had reached an agreement (WT/DS291/38) concerning the procedure underArticles 21 and 22 of the Dispute SettlementUnderstanding (DSU). The US also said that inline with these procedures, the EC hadobjected to the level of sanctions and hadclaimed that the US had not followed the DSUprinciples or procedures in Article 22.3 (WT/DS291/40). Hence, the matter had beenreferred to arbitration under DSU Article 22.6.Meanwhile, the European Communitiesreported that they had made good progress intechnical discussions with the threecomplainants (US, Canada & Argentina) toresolve all their relevant biotech-relatedissues. In recognition of the EC’s efforts,Argentina and Canada had agreed to anextension of the reasonable period of time(RPT) for implementation of the DSB’s rulings,respectively until 11 June 2008 (WT/DS293/32) and 30 June 2008 (WT/DS292/33).

United States - MeasuresRelating to Shrimp fromThailandThe WTO, on 29 February 2008, issued panelreports on complaints by Thailand and India,respectively, against “United States -Measures Relating to Shrimp fromThailand”(DS343) and “United States -Customs Bond Directive for MerchandiseSubject to Anti-Dumping/Countervailing Duties(DS345)”. On 24 April 2006, Thailandrequested consultations with the United Statesconcerning anti-dumping measures on importsof frozen warm water shrimp. Thailandrequested consultations on the United States’application in the Preliminary, Final andAmended Final Determinations of the practiceknown as “zeroing” negative dumpingmargins, the effect of which was to artificiallycreate margins of dumping, and theconsequent imposition of definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of certainfrozen warm water shrimp from Thailand.Thailand considers that through its use of“zeroing”, the United States has failed to makea fair comparison between the export priceand the normal value, and calculated distortedmargins of dumping therefore violating:

Articles 1, 2.1, 2.4, 2.4.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4,3.5, 5.8, 9.2 and 9.3 of the Anti-DumpingAgreement, and Articles II, III, VI:1 and VI:2 ofthe GATT 1994. In addition, Thailandrequested consultations on the United States’continuous bond requirement as such and onits application to imports of frozen warm watershrimp from Thailand which it considers maybe inconsistent with Articles I:1, II, III, XI:1 andXIII:1 of the GATT 1994 and may not bejustified under Article XX(d) of the GATT 1994.India, China and Japan requested to join theconsultations. At its meeting on 26 October2006, the DSB established a panel. Brazil,Chile, China, the European Communities,India, Japan, Korea and Mexico reserved theirthird-party rights. Subsequently, Viet Namreserved its third-party rights.The Panel upheld Thailand’s claims that theapplication of the EBR to subject shrimp fromThailand was inconsistent with Article 18.1 ofthe Anti-Dumping Agreement, and the AdNote. The Panel rejected the United States’argument that the application of the EBR wasjustified under Article XX(d) of the GATT 1994.The Panel further upheld Thailand’s claim thatthe United States acted inconsistently withArticle 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreementby using zeroing to calculate margins ofdumping in respect of the Anti-DumpingMeasure. The Panel declined to ruleseparately on Thailand’s claims that theapplication of the EBR to subject shrimp fromThailand was inconsistent with Articles I,II:1(a), the first and second sentences ofArticle II:1(b), X:3(a), and XI:1 of the GATT1994. Under Article 3.8 of the DSU, in caseswhere there was infringement of theobligations assumed under a coveredagreement, the action was considered primafacie to constitute a case of nullification orimpairment of benefits under that agreement.Accordingly, the Panel concluded that to theextent the United States had actedinconsistently with the provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the GATT 1994, ithad nullified or impaired benefits accruing toThailand thereunder. The Panel, therefore,recommended that the United States bring itsmeasures into conformity with its obligationsunder the Anti-Dumping Agreement and theGATT 1994.

WTO Issues Panel Reports onHormones DisputesThe WTO, on 31 March 2008, issued panelreports on the complaints by the EuropeanCommunities against “US - ContinuedSuspension of Obligations in the ECHormones Dispute” (DS320) and “Canada -Continued Suspension of Obligations in theEC Hormones Dispute” (DS321), respectively.The summary of the case were as follows: On

8 November 2004, the European Communitiesfiled a request for consultations with theUnited States asserting that the United Statesshould have removed its retaliatory measuressince the EC has removed the measuresfound to be WTO-inconsistent in the EC -Hormones case.The issues which the EC raised in theconsultations included, but were not limited to:the failure by the United States to remove theretaliatory measures despite the EC’s removalof the WTO-inconsistent measures; theunilateral determinations by the United Statesthat the new EC legislation was a continuedWTO violation; and the failure of the UnitedStates to follow DSU Article 21.5 disputesettlement procedures to adjudicate thematter. The EC considered that the continueduse by the United States and of retaliatorymeasures in this case, in the currentcircumstances, were violations of Articles Iand II of GATT 1994, and Articles 21.5, 22.8,23.1 and 23.2 (a) and (c) of the DSU.Canada, Australia, and Mexico requested tojoin the consultations. At its meeting on 17February 2005, the DSB established a panel.Australia, Canada, China, Mexico andChinese Taipei reserved their third-partyrights. Norway, Brazil, India and New Zealandalso reserved their third party rights. ThePanel concluded that, with respect to theclaims of the European Communitiesconcerning the violation of Article 23.2(a),read together with Articles 21.5 and 23.1 ofthe DSU, the United States made thefollowing procedural violations: (I) by seeking,through the measure at issue – that is thesuspension of concessions or otherobligations subsequent to the notification ofthe EC implementing measure (Directive2003/74/EC) - the redress of a violation ofobligations under a covered agreementwithout having recourse to, and abiding by,the rules and procedures of the DSU, theUnited States has breached Article 23.1 of theDSU; (II) by making a determination within themeaning of Article 23.2(a) of the DSU to theeffect that a violation had occurred withouthaving recourse to dispute settlement inaccordance with the rules and procedures ofthe DSU, the United States had breachedArticle 23.2(a) of the DSU.In addition, having addressed the claimsraised by the European Communitiesconcerning Article 23.1 read together withArticles 22.8 and 3.7 of the DSU based on theconsiderations mentioned above, the Panelconcluded that: (a) to the extent that themeasure found to be inconsistent with theSPS Agreement in the EC - Hormones dispute(WT/DS26) had not been removed by theEuropean Communities, the United Stateshad not breached Article 22.8 of the DSU; (b)to the extent that Article 22.8 had not been

6 January-March 2008

breached, the European Communities had notestablished a violation of Articles 23.1 and 3.7of the DSU as a result of a breach of Article22.8.However, the Panel took into note Article 3.8of the DSU which provides that “[i]n caseswhere there is an infringement of theobligations assumed under a coveredagreement, the action is considered primafacie to constitute a case of nullification orimpairment”. The United States failed to rebutthis presumption. Therefore, to the extent theUnited States had acted inconsistently with itsobligations under the DSU, it must bepresumed to have nullified or impaired benefitsaccruing to the European Communities underthat Agreement. Thus, in the light of thoseconclusions, the Panel recommended that theDispute Settlement Body request the UnitedStates to bring its measure into conformitywith its obligations under the DSU. Whereas itwas for the Members to decide on theappropriate steps needed to bring measuresfound in breach of their WTO obligations intoconformity, the Panel deemed it important torecall its conclusion in paragraph 7.251 as theparties had apparently diverging opinions as tohow this report should be implemented by therespondent. As already mentioned, while thePanel performed functions similar to that of anArticle 21.5 panel, this was done only in orderto determine whether Article 22.8 of the DSUhad been breached. This Panel was notcalled upon, nor did it have jurisdiction, todetermine the compatibility of Directive 2003/74/EC with the covered agreements. In thatcontext, the Panel suggests that, in order toimplement its findings under Article 23 and inorder to ensure the prompt settlement of thisdispute, the United States should haverecourse to the rules and procedures of theDSU without delay.

Peacebuilding CommissionAdopts Conclusions andRecommendations on Situationin BurundiThe Peacebuilding Commission on 20 March2008 adopted proposed conclusions andrecommendations on the situation in that EastAfrican country, expressing optimism aboutprogress achieved in consolidating peace,while at the same time stressing that recentreports of violent incidents highlighted theneed for vigilance and commitment in fulfillingthe Strategic Framework for Peacebuildingthere. Introducing the conclusions andrecommendations (document PBC/2/BDI/L.1),Burundi configuration Chairman John Løvald(Norway) said he had taken part in a meetingof Special Representatives and SpecialEnvoys on Burundi in Cape Town on 22 and23 February, which had been convened by

South Africa in its capacity as Facilitator of theBurundi Peace Process. A “Programme ofAction to Take Further the Burundi PeaceProcess” had been discussed and had nowbeen presented to both the BurundiGovernment and to the Palipehutu-FNL(Forces nationales de libération).The Programme of Action encompassed the31 December timetable that the RegionalInitiative for Peace in Burundi had extendedfor the mandate of the facilitation component.The Programme was aimed atcomprehensively addressing the political,security and socio-economic reintegrationdimensions of the peace process, to ensureearly resumption and to prevent a collapse inthe future. Carried out in two phases, theProgramme will assure the safe return of allFNL leaders and combatants to Burundi. It willalso define their political, economic and socialintegration, complete with close monitoring toensure the security of FNL members and theproper functioning of systems catering to theirintegration. The Programme was predicatedon the Government and the FNL bearingprimary responsibility for full implementation ofthe Comprehensive Ceasefire Agreement andfor conclusion of the peace process.Slovenia’s representative, on behalf of theEuropean Union, welcomed the Commission’sdocument. The Union had issued a statementexpressing concern over the recent events inBurundi. He called for the consolidatedaddress of the political, social and economicchallenges confronting Burundi and for theparticipation of all members in furthering thepeace process. Belgium’s representative saidthe document was an appropriate templatethat could be applied in the future. Theconclusions basically concerned the role of theFNL. Further, he fully supported the holding ofspecific meetings on the land issue and onrepatriation, while discussion of the nationalelectoral commission should be postponeduntil authorities were more up to speed on theissues. While his embassy could notpersonally take part in the visit, it wanted to bein on the process as fully as possible. Therepresentative of the Russian Federationechoed that view.

Security Council ApprovesAppointment of Additional AdLitem Judges for FormerYugoslavia TribunalIn order to enable the International CriminalTribunal for the Former Yugoslavia to conductadditional trials as soon as possible and meetits completion strategy, the Security Councilon 20 February 2008 (Resolution 1800) gavethe green light for the appointment of more adlitem judges than the 12 provided for in thecourt’s statute. Unanimously adopting

resolution 1800 and acting under Chapter VIIof the United nations Charter, the Councildecided that the Secretary-General mayappoint, within existing resources, additionalad litem judges to the Tribunal,notwithstanding the fact that the total numberof ad litem judges appointed to the Chamberswould, from time to time, temporarily exceedthe maximum of 12 provided for in theTribunal’s statute. The total number shouldnot exceed 16 at any one time, returning to amaximum of 12 by 31 December 2008.An ad litem judge is an “ad hoc” judge,appointed to participate only in a particularcase or a limited set of cases. The completionstrategy, as set out in paragraph 7 ofresolution 1503, adopted unanimously on 28August 2003 under Chapter VII of the UnitedNations Charter, aims at completing all trialactivities in first instance by the end of 2008and completing all work in 2010. (See PressRelease SC/7859)

Zhiguo Gao of China ElectedJudge of International Tribunalfor the Law of the SeaOn 3 Mar ch 2008, at a public ceremony, MrGao Zhiguo (China) was sworn in as amember of the Tribunal. Judge Gao waselected on 30 January 2008 at a SpecialMeeting of States Parties to the UnitedNations Convention on the Law of the Sea tofill the vacancy created by the resignation ofJudge Xu Guangjian (China) on 15 August2007. Judge Gao will serve the remainder ofhis predecessor’s nine-year term, whichexpires on 30 September 2011. He waselected in one round of secret balloting,garnering 136 votes and thus exceeding thenecessary two-thirds majority (91) of the 136States Parties that voted. The InternationalTribunal for the Law of the Sea wasestablished in Hamburg, Germany, when theConvention entered into force on 16November 1994. Consisting of 21 judges,each elected for a nine-year term, the Tribunaldeals with disputes arising from theinterpretation and application of theConvention.Pursuant to the decision adopted by theseventeenth Meeting of States Parties(SPLOS/164, para. 111), the election to fill thepositions of seven members of the Tribunalwhose terms of office expire on 30 September2008 will be held at the eighteenth Meeting ofStates Parties, which will take place from 13 to20 June 2008 in New York. Followingcandidates are for the election of sevenmembers of the Tribunal: Name andnationality Nominated by AKL, Joseph(Lebanon); Bamela Engo, Paul (Cameroon);Bouguetaia, Boualem (Algeria);Chandrasekhara Rao, P. (India); Elzaki, Ali

January-March 2008 7

RECENT ARTICLES

Mohamed (Sudan); França Van-dúnem,Fernando J. (Angola); Fomba, Salifou (Mali);Golitsyn, Vladimir Vladimirovitch (RussianFederation); Jesus, José Luis (Cape Verde);Kanu, Allieu Ibrahim (Sierra Leone); MarottaRangel, Vicente (Brazil); Nandan, Satya N.(Fiji); Ntoutoume, Jean-marie (Gabon);Sanyaolu, Emmanuel Oladeinde (Nigeria);Wolfrum, Rüdiger (Germany).

States Parties to CERD ElectNine Members to MonitoringBodyOn 17 January 2008, having received therequired majority of 83 votes in one round ofsecret balloting, the following were elected tothe Committee on the Elimination of RacialDiscrimination: Dilip Lahiri of India (152 votes);Francisco Calitzay of Guatemala (144 votes);Alexi S. Avtonomov of the Russian Federation(143); Fatima Binta Victoire Dah Diallo ofBurkina Faso (143 votes); Pierre-RichardProsper of the United States (143 votes);Huang Yong’an of China (139 votes); IonDiaconu of Romania (133 votes); Chris PeterMania of the United Republic of Tanzania (131votes); and Pastor Elías Murillo Martínez ofColombia (130 votes). The names of the ninemembers of the Committee who will continueto serve until 19 January 2010 are listed inAnnex II of document CERD/SP/69. Alsoelected were Magdalena Grabianowska ofPoland, Julio Peralta of Paraguay and PollyIoannou of Cyprus as Vice-Chairpersons.The Convention entered into force on 4January 1969. The Convention’s 18-membermonitoring body considers reports from StatesParties and if the State concerned hasaccepted the Convention’s Optional Protocolconsiders petitions from individuals or groupsalleging violations of the Convention. It wasnoted that the Committee, established in 1969,had so far held 71 sessions.

Convention on Recognition,Enforcement of Foreign ArbitralAwards Completed Its 50 YearsOn 1 February 2008, on the occasion of thefiftieth anniversary of the United NationsConvention on the Recognition andEnforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards UNGA conducted a special conference. Thislandmark instrument is one of the mostsuccessful treaties in the arena of internationalcommercial law. It provided a basis forenforceable rights and binding commitments ininternational commercial agreements. It gaveinvestors and companies confidence to dobusiness in locations which they may haveotherwise bypassed. And it quickly became amodel for numerous other legislative texts onarbitration.

Consensus Text on PriorityTheme ‘Promoting FullEmployment and Decent Workfor All’ Approved by UNCommission on SocialDevelopmentRecognizing that a people-centred approachmust be at the heart of economic and socialdevelopment, the United Nations Commissionon Social Development on 22 February 2008concluded its forty-sixth session, calling onGovernments to match their words with deedsin terms of eliminating poverty by ensuringdecent employment for all. Approving aconsensus text on its priority theme:“promoting full employment and decent workfor all”, the Commission recommended thatthe Economic and Social Council call onGovernments “as a matter of priority” tocontinue efforts towards ratifying and fullyimplementing relevant International LabourOrganization (ILO) conventions and coreprinciples embodied by the “Decent WorkAgenda”. The Agenda brings together thegoals of rights at work, employment and socialprotection in a coherent, development-orientedand gender-equitable vision to guide economicand social policy choices and, to that end, theresolution calls on Governments to worktowards ensuring freedom of association, theeffective recognition of the right to organizeand bargain collectively and the elimination ofall forms of forced or compulsory labour, aswell as the effective elimination of child labourand discrimination in respect of employmentand occupation.

RECENT ARTICLESChenette, Susanna, “Maintaining theConstitutionality of the Patent System”,Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, vol. 35,no. 2 (2008), pp. 221-262.Mayama, Akira, “Japan’s New EmergencyLegislation and International HumanitarianLaw”, The Japanese Annual of InternationalLaw, no. 47 (2004), pp. 69-118.Owada, Hisashi, “The United Nations and theMaintenance of International Peace andSecurity - The Current in the Light of ReformProposals”, The Japanese Annual ofInternational Law, no. 48 (2005), pp. 1-25.Obata, Kaoru, “Historical Functions of Monismwith Primacy of International Law – A ViewBased on the Japanese Experience during theEarly Period of the Allied Occupation”, TheJapanese Annual of International Law, no. 49,(2006), pp. 1-35.

Yokimizo, Dai, “Japanese Blocking Statuteagainst the U.S. Anti-Dumping Act of 1916”,The Japanese Annual of International Law, no.49 (2006), pp. 36-54.Nakatani, Kazuhiro, “Bilateral Air Agreementsand Japan”, The Japanese Annual ofInternational Law, no. 49 (2006), pp. 71-98.Choedon, Yeshi, “India’s Perspective on theUN Security Council Reform”, India Quarterly,vol. LXIII, no. 4 (2007), pp. 14-48.Kohler, Pia M., “Science, PIC and POPs:Negotiating the Membership of ChemicalReview Committees under the Stockholm andRotterdam Conventions”, Review of EuropeanCommunity & International EnvironmentalLaw, vol. 15, no. 3 (2006), pp. 293-303.Davenport, Deborah S. and Peter Wood,“Finding the Way forward for the InternationalArrangement on Forests: UNFF-5, -6 and -7”,Review of European Community &International Environmental Law, vol. 15, no. 3(2006), pp. 316-326.Rajamani, Lavanya, “The Right toEnvironmental Protection in India: Many a Slipbetween the Cup and the Lip?”, Review ofEuropean Community & InternationalEnvironmental Law, vol. 16, no. 3 (2007), pp.274-286.Fry, Ian, “More Twist, Turns and Stumbles inthe Jungle: A Future Exploration of Land Use,Land-Use Change and Forestry Decisionwithin the Kyoto Protocol”, Review ofEuropean Community & InternationalEnvironmental Law, vol. 16, no. 3 (2007), pp.341-355.Babu, R. Rajesh, “Foreign State Immunity inContracts of Employment with ParticularReference to Indian State Practice”, Journal ofThe Indian Law Institute, vol. 49, no. 4 (2007),pp. 469-502.Acquaviava, Guide, “Human Rights Violationsbefore International Tribunals: Reflections onResponsibility of International Organizations”,Leiden Journal of International Law, vol. 20,no. 3 (2007), pp. 613-636.Waible, Michael, “Two World of Necessity inICSID Arbitration: CMS and LG&E”, LeidenJournal of International Law, vol. 20, no. 3(2007), pp. 637-648.Duggard, John, “The Future of InternationalLaw: A Human Rights Perspective – withSome Comments on the Leiden School ofInternational Law”, Leiden Journal ofInternational Law, vol. 20, no. 4 (2007), pp.729-739.Higgins, Rosalyn, “Human Rights in theInternational Court of Justice”, Leiden Journalof International Law, vol. 20, no. 4 (2007), pp.7545-751.

8 January-March 2008

NEW ADDITIONS IN ISIL LIBRARY

Printers: Paras Printers 4648/21 Sedhumal Building, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002

Current Issue ofIndian Journal of International LawVol. 48 No. 1 January–March 2008

CONTENTSARTICLES

The European Community and the EuropeanUnion and The Law of The Sea: RecentDevelopments

Tullio Treves

Globalizing the Rule of Law

Guiguo Wang

International Legal Aspects of Eco-Labellingin the Context of North-South Division onInternational Trade Rules

Amit Singh

SHORTER ARTICLES

The Application of the Doctrine of forum nonconveniens in the Anglo-American Case Law:Could Fears of Relocation of MNEs EntitiesMatter?

Panayotis M. Protopsaltis

Extradition and Human Rights

Aftab Alam

OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS

United Nations Framework Convention onClimate Change Revised Draft Decision 14December 2007, Bali, Indonesia

Convention on the International Recovery ofChild Support and Other Forms of FamilyMaintenance, 2007

BOOK REVIEW

SELECT ARTICLES AND NEWACQUISITIONS

New Acquisitions to the ISIL Library fromJanuary to March 2008

Schrijver, Nico, “The UN Human RightsCouncil: A New ‘Society of the Committed’ orJust Old Wine in New Bottles?” Leiden Journalof International Law, vol. 20, no. 4 (2007), pp.809-823.Waart, Paul J. I. M. de, “Israel’s Settlement-Policy Stumbling-Block in the Middle EastProcess”, Leiden Journal of International Law,vol. 20, no. 4 (2007), pp. 825-839.Cassese, Antonio, “On Some ProblematicalAspects of the Crime of Aggression”, LeidenJournal of International Law, vol. 20, no. 4(2007), pp. 841-849.Bown, Chand P. and Bernard M. Hoekman,“Developing Countries and Enforcement ofTrade Agreements: Why Dispute Settlement isNot Enough”, Journal of World Trade, vol. 42,no. 1 (2008), pp. 177-204.Wouters, Jan, and Bart De Meester, “TheUNESCO Convention on Cultural Diversity andWTO Law: a Case Study in Fragmentation ofInternational Law”, Journal of World Trade, vol.42, no. 1 (2008), pp. 205-240.Singhvi, L. M., “A Tale of Three Cities”,Australian International Law Journal (1996),pp. 15-35.Chng, Bin, “Outer Void Space: The Reason forthis Neologism in Space Law”, AustralianInternational Law Journal (1999), pp. 1-8.Buckley, Ross P., “The International MonetaryFund’s Proposal for Sovereign DebtRestructuring: The International Assessment”,

Australian International Law Journal (2002),pp. 1-23.

NEW ADDITIONSAbeyratne, R. I. R., Fronties of AerospaceLaw (Ashgate Pubn., England, 2002).Battjes, Hemme, European Asylum Law andInternational Law (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,Leiden, Boston, 2006).Bently, L. and Sherman, B., IntellectualProperty Law 2 ed. (Oxford University Press,New York, 2004).Bricmont, Jean, Humanitarian Imperialism:Using Human Rights to Sell War (AakarBooks, Delhi, 2007).Burdekin, Brian, National Human RightsInstitutions in the Asia - Pacific Region(Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, Boston2007).Cermudy, Chi and others (eds.), TrilateralPerspective on International Legal Issues:Conflict and Conference (Transnational Pubn.,New York, 2003).Chakrabarti, R., India’s External Relations in aGlobalized World Economy (Anthem Press,London, 2007).Dua, B. D., Singh M. P., and Saxena R.,Indian Judiciary and Politics: The ChangingCloudscape (Foundation Books, New Delhi,2007).

Hollis, D. B. and Blacketee, M. R. andEderington, L. B., (eds.), National Treaty Lawand –Practice (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,Leiden /Boston, 2005).Park, William W., Arbitration of InternationalLaw Business Dispute: Studies and Law andPractice (Oxford University Press, New York,2006).Rubino-Sammartano, M., InternationalArbitration Law and Practice (Kluwer LawInternational, 2001).Schoenbaum, Thomas J. others eds., TrilateralPerspectives on International Legal Issues:From Theory into Practice (TransnationalPublication, New York, 1998).Sharma, Gokulesh, Ancient Judicial System ofIndia (Deep & Deep Publications., New Delhi,2008).Tweeddale, A. and Tweeddale, K., Arbitrationof Commercial Dispute: International andEnglish Law and Practice (Oxford UniversityPress, New York, 2005).Weiss, Thomas G. and Samdaws (eds.,) TheOxford Handbook on the United Nations(Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2007)Yong, M. K. and Iwasawa, Y., TrilateralPerspective on International Legal Issues:Relevance of Domestic Law and Public(Transnational Publications, New York, 1996).