No abstract

This article focuses upon the writings of John R. Bolton who was for four years US Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. He is currently the US Ambassador to the United Nations. His position with regard to international law is, at least for non-Americans, extraordinary, but also extraordinarily important since it resonates with the views of many in the current Bush administration. In essence, he is sceptical of the entire category of international law and argues that it cannot ever be accepted as superior to US domestic law. He doubts that it can be distinguished from international relations. These views need to be taken seriously if the implications for the world of diplomacy and international relations, and indeed domestic law, are to be understood. This the article attempts to do.

No abstract

One way in which logistical challenges of multiple victim participants at the International Criminal Court are managed is through common legal representation. This looks set to effect significant changes in the nature of representation. First, minimising the number of groups into which victim participants are arranged rests on a problematic assumption that survivors share largely homoge nous interests in participation. Second, practical constraints challenge the effectiveness of common representation on this scale. Third, whilst the Court has sought to underline the importance of consultations about representation with victims, circumstances severely curtail their feasibility. Finally, the procedure for appointment raises the spectre that common legal representation could become an indirect tool to monitor counsel, prompting questions about who can legitimately claim to speak for victims. Taken together these factors risk reducing the range of voices in the courtroom and rendering representation more symbolic than real.