Topic 1

The bombings of three trains in the London Underground (subway) system and of one London bus on July 7, 2005, have been denounced as terrorist attacks by world leaders and reported as terrorism by the media. Although there is still no all-encompassing definition of terrorism that is universally recognized in international law, it is apparent that these bombings would qualify legally as terrorism and that there are international ramifications.

 

Introduction

 

British news headlines have recently been dominated by the General Election, which took place on 5 May 2005. Predictably, the Iraq war was one of the "hot topics" of the election, and received much air time from politicians of all persuasions. One comment, which sparked a flurry of press attention, may have been confusing both to lay observers in Britain and to watchers abroad. On 30 April 2005, Gordon Brown, the current Chancellor of the Exchequer, stated that, in future, Members of Parliament should be allowed to decide whether Britain goes to war.[1]

 

Introduction

 

In early April 2005, the WTO Appellate Body (AB) issued a ruling in an appeal of a case brought by Honduras against measures taken by the Dominican Republic in connection with the importation and internal sale of cigarettes.[1] One of the measures was a requirement that a tax stamp be affixed to all cigarettes.

 

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]