In sharp contrast to the high hopes raised by the reconstitution of the International Court of Justice in 1946, its subsequent record has been somewhat less than inspiring; and its impact as an organ for the settlement of disputes has been anything but spectacular. Established as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, it broods at The Hague in idle splendour, waiting hopefully for the occasional suit to be taken before it. Despite the hopes, the promise and the optimism, recourse to adjudication is exceptional, infrequent, and limited to disputes of minor importance.

Writings on the Court are suffused with lamentations over the chasm between the idealized aspirations of its founders and its actual performance. From the depths, however, the call is heard; the vision of the jurists becomes the burden of the reformers — the burden of recasting the machinery of world order. Political theorists, lawyers and institutional reformers are all prepared to shoulder the burden, and each considers it his duty to add to the literature on the Court yet another “epilogue for the improvement….”

The Case of the Polish art treasures in Canada presents two important issues: the question of immunity of a foreign state’s public movable property and the question of state responsibility for such property.

Removal from Poland and Entry into Canada

In 1940 the Canadian government permitted the duty free entry into Canada, as property of the Polish state, of a number of cases and trunks containing Polish art treasures which had been removed from the museum at the Wawel Royal Castle in Cracow before invading German armies could seize them. The treasures were stored in the Records Storage Building at the Central Experimental Farm in Ottawa, on the clear understanding that Canada was to assume no responsibility for their safekeeping. At no time was an inventory of the treasures given to the Canadian government.

The decision of the ICAO Council on April 1, 1968, to convene a meeting of an ICAO legal subcommittee on the revision of the Warsaw Convention is the latest in a series of moves to shore up this 40-year-old Convention which has been tottering on its foundation since late 1965-early 1966 when the United States of America threatened to denounce it. The purpose of this note is to examine briefly the main problems discussed in relation to the revision of the Warsaw Convention since the unsuccessful Special ICAO Meeting held in February 1966 to consider the Warsaw passenger limits, and to indicate the lines along which further exploration of these problems has been made.

La convention de varsovie du 12 octobre 1929, pour l’unification de certaines règles relatives au transport aérien international, a été ratifiée par soixante-seize pays. Les principes généraux gouvernant la responsabilité du transporteur aérien international sont les suivants: durant la phase aérienne du transport, le transporteur est responsable de plein droit des dommages causés tant aux personnes qu’aux biens transportés. Cependant, selon l’article 20 de la Convention de Varsovie, le transporteur a la possibilité de s’exonerer en rapportant la preuve que lui et ses préposés ont pris toutes les mesures nécessaires pour éviter le dommage, ou qu’il leur était impossible de les prendre (cas de force majeure). D’autre part, en ce qui concerne le transport de marchandises et de bagages, la responsabilité du transporteur disparaît, s’il prouve que ce dommage provient d'une faute de pilotage, de conduite, de navigation et que, a tous autres égards, lui et ses préposés ont pris toutes les mesures nécessaires pour éviter le dommage.

The basic fact of Québec as a coastal entity creates interesting questions when considering the implications of its independence. A historical survey of its maritime boundaries further confirms the importance of maritime boundaries for an independent Québec. The author examines Québec's possible claims in the light of recent international law cases and conventions. He also explores the application of various methods of maritime boundary delimitation on (Québec and Canada. Finally, the author explores the possibility of joint sovereignty in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the application of the condominium concept to Canada and Québec.

Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) provides for suits by foreign investors from the NAFTA Parties against one of the other Parties. The author reviews this provision and discusses its possible ambit in light of the decisions so far rendered. The author considers that, properly interpreted, Chapter 11 will provide an extraordinary means of redress and will not open the floodgates to all kinds of claims that second-guess legitimate governmental legislative activity or policymaking.

This article addresses the problems related to the use of the Internet in Canada in an international context. Does international law allow Canada to regulate the Internet and its actors even if they are located abroad? Under the constitution, which level of government has the authority to do so? In which circumstances have the courts in Québec and in the common law provinces personal jurisdiction over persons using the Internet in an international context and which law do these courts apply? When are Canadian courts prepared to recognize and enforce foreign judgments involving the Internet and its actors? The author deals with these questions and is of the opinion that in most situations the federal Parliament has the jurisdiction to prescribe and the Canadian courts have the jurisdiction to adjudicate with respect to the Internet and its actors in an international context without violating international law. However, to avoid conflicts of jurisdiction, it would be better to adopt an international convention covering the various aspects of the Internet.

On March 26, 2002, an ad hoc arbitration tribunal determined the line of delimitation dividing the respective offshore areas of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador and the province of Nova Scotia. In making its decision, the tribunal, which was established by the federal minister of natural resources, applied the principles of international law governing maritime boundary delimitation and, pursuant to its terms of reference, treated the two provinces as if they were states subject to the same rights and obligations as the government of Canada. The tribunal had issued a Wrst decision in May 2001, ruling that the delimitation line had not already been established by agreement between the provinces, as Nova Scotia had contended. The tribunal’s decision on the boundary line is Wnal and binding on the two provinces. It awards to Newfoundland and Labrador the greater part of the offshore area that had been in dispute. The tribunal’s decision marked the end of the uncertainty created by the provincial disagreement and paved the way for the commencement of hydrocarbon exploration in the formerly disputed area.

International institutions involved in the fight against corruption and in the protection of human rights have evolved in isolation since their inception. However, recent studies have shown the need to integrate, within anti-corruption policies, an approach oriented towards the protection of human rights. This need flows from the negative impacts that institutionalized practices of corruption have on the enjoyment of human rights. The American continent is no exception to this reality: it is, on the one hand, struggling with grave problems of corruption that have important repercussions for the protection of human rights in the region. It has, on the other hand, institutional and regulatory frameworks related to the fight against corruption and the protection of human rights, which have evolved in parallel. This article therefore assesses the extent to which Inter-American human rights standards may effectively contribute to improving anti-corruption policies and strategies on the continent.

In 1998, a Canadian oil company, Talisman Energy Incorporated of Calgary, acquired part interest in an oil concession in southern Sudan. In 1999, it began exporting oil from the region and paying royalties to the Sudanese government, some of which have been used to fund government forces engaged in a civil war against separatists in the south. The war has caused numerous human rights abuses. Talisman’s investment in Sudan therefore raises concerns about corporate operations in countries where there are serious and frequent human rights violations. What are Talisman and Canada’s obligations at this particular juncture — a point of fertile development in the field of international corporate social responsibility? This comment examines this question in light of recent events.

La façon dont les divers acteurs de l’ordre juridique international ont appréhendé la relation entre les piliers économique et environnemental du développement durable témoigne d’une évolution: alors qu’une première interprétation estimait que cette relation se fondait sur la recherche d’une conciliation, une seconde interprétation a par la suite considéré qu’elle était au contraire caractérisée par l’existence d’un soutien mutuel. Si cette seconde conception, qui conduit à extraire du développement durable toute idée de tension entre l’environnement et l’économie, a connu une influence grandissante au cours des dernières années, la Cour internationale de Justice a réaffirmé dans l’ Affaire des Usines de pâte à papier sur le fleuve Uruguay son attachement à la première interprétation de la relation entre les piliers économique et environnemental. Il semble donc actuellement coexister en droit international deux lectures opposées du développement durable, l’une se fondant sur le paradigme de la conciliation, l’autre sur le paradigme du soutien mutuel.

Depuis les Années Quarante, les Etats n'ont cessé de prendre conscience de l'intérêt économique que représentait pour eux le plateau continental. Les menaces de rationnement et de pénurie en hydrocarbures n'ont certes pas freiné cette évolution, compte tenu des réserves que recèle le plateau continental. Or, et de façon paradoxale, nombre de plateaux continentaux restent indéfinis dans leurs limites, souvent dans des régions “chaudes” du globe. Le Canada n'échappe pas à cette constatation, puisqu'il n'a pu délimiter son plateau jusqu'ici avec aucun de ses voisins, é une exception près.

This article explores and appraises international legal developments regarding the right to self-defence against vicarious aggression — that is, armed attacks by non-state entities that are sponsored or hosted by a foreign state. Despite efforts to develop a normative framework and mechanisms of accountability to curb states’ use of non-state entities as proxies for armed activity, some states continue to view these entities as valuable tools for the realization of their foreign policy goals. Consequently, international practice shows general recognition of a right of self-defence against non-state armed entities. There is also an emerging body of authoritative opinion, backed by an evolving state practice, that supports the extension of the application of this right against a non-state entity’s host or sponsoring state, provided some conditions are met.