On December 15, 2004, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) dismissed separate complaints originally filed on April 29, 1999 by Serbia and Montenegro against eight NATO member states (Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Portugal and the United Kingdom), asking the ICJ to hold each of the respondent states responsible for international law violations stemming from the NATO bombing campaign against Yugoslavia in March-April 1999. According to the Court's unanimous Judgments, Serbia and Montenegro lacks standing to sue before the ICJ. [1]
On 1 November 2004, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia issued its decision on whether Slobodan Milosevic has a right to continue to act as his own lawyer in his war crimes trial at The Hague. [1] The decision has important implications for the trial of Saddam Hussein before the Iraqi Special Tribunal and future trials involving former leaders accused of international crimes.
The Initial Decision to Permit Milosevic to Act as His Own Lawyer
Under the headline quoted above, the New York Times on June 23 reported that the United States bowed to opposition within the U.N. Security Council and dropped its effort to obtain a Security Council resolution that would immunize its troops from prosecution in the International Criminal Court (ICC). [1] It is important to understand just what this does and does not mean, particularly in the context of the continued presence of substantial numbers of U.S. military personnel in Iraq after the sovereign Interim Government of Iraq took office on June 28.
It is well known that overfishing has led to the collapse of several commercially valuable fish species and the decline of others. [1] In this context, WTO Members agreed during the WTO Ministerial Conference held in Doha (Qatar) in November 2000, to launch negotiations with the aim to "clarify and improve WTO disciplines on fisheries subsidies, taking into account the importance of this sector to developing countries." [2]