Topic 1

I. The British Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001

 

In mid-March 2005, a World Trade Organization (WTO) panel ruled on a case of interest to many WTO members.[1] The case, brought by Australia and the United States, challenged the WTO consistency of a European Union (EU) regulation[2] related to the protection of geographical indications (GIs) for agricultural products and foodstuffs. The widespread interest stems from concern that at a time when WTO negotiations are focusing on liberalizing trade in agricultural products, the EU regulation effectively limits import competition for much of its farm and food sector.

 

As was widely expected, on April 7, 2005, the WTO Appellate Body substantially reversed an earlier Panel decision condemning a US ban on internet gambling.[1]

 

On March 3, 2005, the WTO Appellate Body (AB) issued a landmark decision[1] interpreting key WTO provisions on agricultural subsidies and upholding a prior panel ruling finding various US cotton subsidies to be WTO illegal. In September 2004 the panel, in a challenge by Brazil, had ruled that various US agricultural programs constituted illegal subsidies under the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, the Agreement on Agriculture and Article XVI of the GATT 1994.[2]

 

This year's commemoration of International Women's Day is a time for assessment: the international community celebrates over 25 years since the adoption of the Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and ten years since the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, China adopted the Beijing Platform for Action ("Beijing Platform"). In addition, this year there will be a review of the United Nations' Millennium Development Goals of 2000 (MDG), which incorporate gender equality as a core plank.

 

Background

 

More than seven years after its adoption, the Kyoto Protocol finally entered into force on February 16, 2005, thus marking the beginning of a new era in global efforts to combat climate change. [1] While international agreement for action on global warming was first reached in the Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992, this failed to set clear targets for the abatement of greenhouse gas emissions. [2] In adopting the Kyoto Protocol, however, the international community agreed on quantified emission limitation and reduction obligations.

 

The Bush administration's proposed budget for FY 2006 contains appropriation lines for resuming research on the nuclear bunker-buster. This proposal is likely to renew the heated debate within the United States over the role and shape of U.S. nuclear forces. It also raises an important legal issue: does this research cause the United States to run afoul of its disarmament obligations under Article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)?

 

On January 11, 2005, the Ontario Court of Appeal issued a judgment in the case involving the United Mexican States (Mexico) and Marvin Feldman Karpa (Feldman).[1]Justice Robert Armstrong of the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld Justice Dan Chilcott's decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.[2] Justice Armstrong accepted Justice Chilcott's finding that the NAFTA Tribunal's US$1.6 million ruling against Mexico[3] should be given a high degree of deference and that Mexico had not shown any basis upon which to interfere with the arbitration award.

 

I. Criminal Law Issues