December 9-15, 2000 Developments in international law, prepared by the Attorney-Editors ofInternational Legal Materials The American Society of International Law
Ethiopia-Eritrea: Agreement between
the Government of the Federal Democratic Republic of
Ethiopia and the Government of the State of Eritrea
(December 12, 2000)
Ethiopia and Eritrea ("Parties") recommitted themselves
to the Agreement on Cessation of Hostilities of June
18, 2000. Preamble. The Parties agreed to permanently
terminate military hostilities between themselves, and
to refrain from the threat or use of force against each
other. Art. 1.1.
The Parties further agreed to: 1) release and repatriate
"without delay" all prisoners of war and all other persons
detained as a result of the armed conflict; 2) afford
"humane treatment" to each other's nationals and persons
of each other's national origin within their respective
territories. Art. 2. The Parties agreed to fully cooperate
with an investigation into the conflict's origins by
an independent, impartial body to be appointed by the
Organization of African Unity ("OAU") Secretary General
in consultation with the U.N. Secretary-General and
the Parties. Art. 3.
The Agreement establishes two neutral bodies, a Boundary
Commission and a Claims Commission, both seated in The
Hague and with the power to serve final and binding
decisions upon the Parties. Arts. 4-5. The Agreement
prohibits either of the Commissions from making decisions
ex aequo et bono. Id. The Commissions
shall adopt their own rules of procedure, based upon
the 1992 Permanent Court of Arbitration Optional Rules
for Arbitrating Disputes Between Two States. Id.
The Boundary Commission has a mandate to "delimit and
demarcate the colonial treaty border based on pertinent
colonial treaties . . . and applicable international
law." Art. 4.
The Claims Commission shall decide "through binding
arbitration all claims for loss, damage or injury" arising
from the Parties' conflict. Art. 5. The Claims Commission
shall accept claims by Parties on behalf of themselves
and their nationals, including both natural and juridical
persons, that: 1) relate to the conflict; and 2) result
from violations of international humanitarian law, including
the 1949 Geneva Convention, or other violations of international
law. Id. The Parties agreed to honor all decisions
and pay promptly any monetary awards rendered against
them. Id.
The Parties authorized the OAU Secretary-General to
register the Agreement with the U.N. Secretariat pursuant
to Article 102(1) of the U.N. Charter. Art. 6. BM
Editor's Note: The hard-copy text of the Agreement
was obtained from the U.S. State Department.
U.S.-Russia: Agreement on the Conservation
and Management of the Alaska-Chukotka Polar Bear Population
(October 16, 2000)
The U.S. and Russia ("Parties") agreed to cooperate
with the "goal of ensuring": 1) the conservation of
the Alaska-Chukotka polar bear population ("Bears")
and its habitat; and 2) the regulation of the Bears'
use by native people for subsistence purposes. Art.
II. In so doing the Parties affirmed their mutual interest
in and responsibility for the Bears. Preamble.
The Parties also expressed their desire to: 1) further
the goals of the 1973 Agreement on the Conservation
of Polar Bears ("1973 Agreement"); and 2) meet native
people's subsistence needs while affording further protection
to polar bears. Id.
The Parties agreed to undertake all necessary efforts
to conserve polar bear habitats, particularly denning
areas and those in which the Bears concentrate to feed
or migrate. Art. IV. The Agreement prohibits any taking
of Bears that is inconsistent with either the Agreement
or the 1973 Agreement. Art. V. Bears may be taken: 1)
for scientific research; 2) for rescuing or rehabilitating
orphaned, sick or injured animals; or 3) when human
life is threatened. Art. VI.2. Bears may be put on public
display if they are: 1) maintained in captivity for
rehabilitation; and 2) either Party determines that
they are not releasable to the wild. Id.
Native people may take Bears for subsistence purposes,
although the Agreement prohibits: 1) the taking of females
with cubs, cubs less than a year old, and bears entering,
leaving or occupying dens; 2) the use of aircraft or
large motorized vessels or vehicles in taking Bears;
and 3) the use of poisons, traps or snares. Art. VI.1.
The Parties did not intend the Agreement to: 1) authorize
the taking of polar bears for commercial purposes; or
2) limit the ability of native people under domestic
law to create, sell and use traditional articles associated
with native harvest of polar bears. Art. VII.1. The
Parties agreed to undertake necessary measures under
domestic law to prevent illegal trade in polar bears
or their parts and derivatives. Art. VII.2.
The Agreement establishes the U.S.-Russia Polar Bear
Commission ("Commission") to inter alia: 1) perform
necessary and appropriate functions for implementing
the Agreement; 2) coordinate measures for the conservation
and study of Bears; 3) promote cooperation between the
Parties, between the native people, and between the
Parties and the native people; and 4) determine annual
taking limits not to exceed the sustainable harvest
level. Art. VIII. The Commission will have a U.S. Section
and a Russian Section. Id.
Each Party shall inter alia monitor polar bear
harvests in areas subject to its national jurisdiction.
Art. X. The Agreement does not limit each Party's right
to take additional polar bear protection measures for
areas under its national jurisdiction. Art. XI. The
Commission shall examine any point of disagreement between
the Parties at either Party's request. Art. XII. PH
Editor's Note: This document was provided in hard
copy by Lee A. Kimball, ILM Corresponding Editor for
the Environment.
Tribunal de Grande Instance de
Paris: LICRA v. Yahoo! Inc., No. RG 00/05308
(November 20, 2000)
In a suit brought by inter alia the Ligue Contre
le Racisme et l'Antisemitisme (i.e. League Against
Racism and Antisemitism), the Tribunal de Grande Instance
de Paris ("Tribunal") on May 22, 2000 ordered Yahoo!
Inc. to take measures to inter alia render impossible
on yahoo.com access to any Nazi item auction, or to
any site or service either defending Naziism or disputing
Nazi crimes.
The Tribunal also ordered Yahoo!'s French subsidiary
Yahoo! France to provide each user, prior to use of
a link permitting research, with a message concerning
the risks taken in visiting such sites.
The parties thereafter presented conclusions concerning
the orders, including inter alia technical issues
involved in suppression.
In its November 20, 2000 ruling the Tribunal noted
that mere showing of Nazi items constituted a violation
of Article R.645-1 of the French penal code. The Tribunal
rejected Yahoo! Inc.'s reiterated claim of the Tribunal's
incompetence, on the ground that Yahoo!'s link with
France had been sufficiently established. The Tribunal
ordered Yahoo! Inc. to fulfill the May 22, 2000 order
within three months or face a FF 100,000/day penalty.
The Tribunal also ordered Yahoo! Inc. to pay each of
the plaintiffs FF 10,000.
The Tribunal found that it was possible to determine
users' physical locations, and moreover that Yahoo!
could identify French users, given Yahoo!'s use of French-language
banner ads. The Tribunal also determined that up to
90% filtering could be achieved.
The Tribunal concluded that "with a little goodwill"
Yahoo! Inc. could convince itself of the utility of
suppressing photographs and descriptions of Nazi symbolic
objects, as Yahoo! Inc. had done with the French-language
version of the antisemitic Protocol of the Wise Men
of Zion. The Tribunal pointed out that Yahoo! refused
auctions of inter alia human organs and cigarettes,
in spite of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment
guaranteeing liberty of opinion and expression.
The Tribunal noted that Yahoo! France had added a warning
to its conditions of use message, and confirmed that
Yahoo! France's efforts at providing warnings had satisfied
in large part the letter and spirit of the May 22, 2000
decision. The Tribunal nevertheless ordered Yahoo! France
to provide users within two months with warnings at
each link made to yahoo.com. The Tribunal inter alia
refused to prescribe further measures against Yahoo!
France.
The Tribunal reserved the penalty's eventual liquidation.
The Tribunal, however, awarded costs against Yahoo!
Inc., except for those arising from the plaintiffs'
claim against Yahoo! France, which were to be provisorily
borne by the parties. PH
Last week's virus apparently
entered our outside mailer's computer from a (possibly
forged) Italian dial-up account. Fortunately, there
were few reports of damage, and we appreciate the many
supportive e-mails that we have received. Steps have
been taken by our mailer to prevent further such incidents,
and hopefully we can now all settle back to enjoying
international law's developments.
The American Society of International Law has
issued two new Insights. The first, by Frederic
L. Kirgis and entitled "Pinochet Arrest in Chile,"
is located at http://www.asil.org/insigh58.htm.
The second, by Montserrat Gorina-Ysern and entitled
"OAS Mediates in Belize-Guatemala Border Dispute,"
is located at http://www.asil.org/insigh59.htm.
To subscribe to Insights, visit http://www.asil.org/insights.htm
To international law professors: Having your
Spring 2001 students subscribe to International
Law In Brief gives them a highly useful
(and free) class supplement that can be used as both
a talking point in class and a guide to international
law online. Subscription information is located at /ilibsub.htm
International Law In Brief - Copyright 2000 - The American
Society of International Law Editors: Peter C. Hansen, Esq., Branislav
A. Maric
To learn more about the sources covered in this publication,
visit /ilmlinks.htm
To comment on this publication, send an e.mail message
to Peter C. Hansen, Editor at phansen@asil.org
For membership information, visit us on the Internet http://www.asil.org
