Fourth Report on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property

This is the fourth of a series of reports on the topic of jurisdictional immunities of States and their property, prepared and submitted by the Special Rapporteur for consideration and deliberation by the International Law Commission. The series was preceded by an earlier study presented by the Working Group on the topic in July 1978 in the form of an exploratory report

The Process of Peace-Making Following Operation \u27Desert Storm\u27

On August 2, 1990, the whole world witnessed an unprecedented event in modern history, the unprovoked invasion of Kuwait by Iraqi armed forces. The invasion itself was historic in the sense that in this day and age it was still possible for one militarily powerful Asian Arab State to invade and overrun its relatively weaker sister State and to proceed to declare its annexation without fear of adverse reactions from the international community. That the Iraqi leaders miscalculated United States reactions and subsequent world-wide repercussions no one could today gainsay. Nor indeed could anybody deny Iraq\u27s overestimation of its own military might. But what actually transpired went well beyond Iraq\u27s nightmare. The series of continuing counter-measures in the form of corrective, punitive and remedial sanctions, adopted by the Security Council of the United Nations from the earliest stage of hostilities until today could not have been foreseen by any nation, Iraq included. In attempting an analytical exploration of the legal aspects the operations taken under the authority of the Security Council and the inevitable peace-making process, it would appear highly practical and useful to take into account the resurgence in this Decade of International Law of a new International Legal Order curiously resembling the new World Legal Order as envisaged by the framers of the San Francisco Charter in 1945, whose dreams were shared by many. We have come a long way since

The Principles of Good-Neighborliness in International Law

As we enter the second half of the Decade of International Law proclaimed by the United Nations in preparation for the new era of the twenty-first century, it has become more and more apparent that among the fundamental principles of international law currently ripening for codification, the principles of good-neighborliness deserve our utmost and urgent consideration, lest more of us will fall further victims to intolerance and succumb to the temptation of unneighborly conduct

Keynote Speaker: Professor Sompong Sucharitkul: Thailand on the Pacific Rim.

We are gathered here today as members and alumni of Golden Gate University School of Law, peacefully settled on the shores of the Oriental side of the Pacific Rim, sometimes known as the West coast of the United States. As is generally known, the ocean is named “Pacific” to introduce calmness, or to reduce the degree of calamity of this widest and wildest expanse of salt waters on earth. I have been specifically asked to tell a story, in my own words, about the thinking of Thailand some fifty years back, facing weather conditions and the unseasonal political storms within the seemingly endless ocean that we in the region have chosen to call “PACIFIC” to avoid any trace of its “stormy” propensity. My primary task is to present to you a meaningful picture of Thailand’s vision and perspective as an indigenous occupant of the Pacific Rim

Evolution of International Law: Thailand\u27s Experience at the Threshold of the Third Millennium

In the ensuing pages, an endeavor will be made to ascertain the actual existence, if any, of perspectives which can be said to be typically Asian in the perception of international law. The exercise will be based on historical facts tending to indicate that A part of Asia had escaped grosso modo the work of direct European domination. The question to be examined is whether the evolution of contemporary international law presents any specific challenges for one of the oldest Kingdoms of the world, THAILAND or SIAM, as we know it today, and as the European had preferred to call it in the not too distant past

Unification of Private Law and Codification of International Law

Unification of private law is principally a task undertaken by the Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT), while the codification and progressive development of international law constitute the dual function of the International Law Commission (ILC). The purpose of this brief essay is to illustrate how in several areas and in more aspects than one, the activities of UNIDROIT and the achievements of the Commission can be found in the same or similar, if not indeed identical, overlapping areas of study. It is not intended to attempt a comprehensive survey of past performance and experience of the two norm-formulating agencies. Both are inter-governmental in their constitution, while each working group and individual member acts in a personal, independent and expert capacity, not directly under the instruction or control of any Government, nor in any representative function. It is accordingly opportune to examine the various aspects of these two law-generating bodies and to compare, and in some cases contrast or distinguish, the aims and purposes of their functions, the different approaches and methods of work adopted for the study and preparation of draft articles in some selected topics that appear highly interesting and broadly similar, and the usefulness and utility of their final products, findings or recommendations

Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone

Among the latest developments inducing system compliance is the conclusion of the Treaty on Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone on December 15, 1995 during the Fifth ASEAN Summit in Bangkok. As the Author of a Note introducing this Treaty in a recent publication of the American Society of International law, I am particularly pleased to have been invited to present to the Workshop the impact and implications of the Bangkok Treaty

Globalizing the Rule of International Law at the Pre-Dawn of a New Millennium

This is the Ninth Regional Meeting of the American Society of lnternational Law for the West, Northwest and Southwest regions which Golden Gate University School of Law has the honor to host this year, prior to the regular Annual Meeting of the American Society in Washington D.C. in April 2000. It is at the same time the Tenth Annual Fulbright Symposium hosted by Golden Gate University School of Law with the cooperation and co-sponsorship of the Council of lnternational Exchange of Scholars (CIES) also with headquarters in Washington D.C. The combined sessions of the Regional Meeting of the ASIL and the Fulbright Symposium have now become the traditional forum for international lawyers, including publicists, privatists, comparatists and practitioners in the Bay Area and beyond and the Fulbright scholars of various legal disciplines from all comers of the world currently in residence in the United States. The ninth combined session will afford ample opportunities for international legal scholars to meet and exchange their views as well as share their experiences in this critical year of epoch-making transition from nationalization or Americanization to regionalization and eventual globalization

Rebirth of Chinese Legal Scholarship, A Personal Recollection

Paper presented at the International Business Law Seminar: Contract Negotiations with China in the 1990\u27s, held at the Northwestern School of Law, Lewis and Clark College, October 28, 1988

Jurisdiction, Terrorism and the Rule of International Law

In October 2001, approximately one month after the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States, Golden Gate University Law Professor Sompong Sucharitkul spoke to the students of Golden Gate University and others on the topic of jurisdiction, terrorism and the rule of international law. The following is an excerpt from the speech given by Golden Gate University Law Professor Sompong Sucharitkul