Stefaan Smis

Complex Political Emergencies, the International Community & the Congo Conflict

The Democratic Republic of the Congo is presently confronted with the most severe crisis since its independence. It has been transformed into a battlefield where several African states and national armed movements are simultaneously fighting various wars. Confronted with this acute political emergency, the international community, which has a responsibility in promoting peace and security has given an ambiguous message. In the absence of a clear response, the Southern Africa Development Community played a leading role in the mediation process that ultimately led to the Lusaka Agreement of 10 July 1999. The agreement was, however, signed in a totally different context from the present one. Moreover, the primary objective of the Lusaka Agreement, to topple Laurent Désiré Kabila, has lost its relevance since his assassination and replacement by a (more Western friendly) government led by Joseph Kabila. With the Lusaka Agreement signed by most of the belligerents, the international community had a framework through which to channel its growing involvement. However, confronted by the signatories to the Lusaka Agreement who were not ready for peace and therefore continuously violated established rules of international law and found pretexts to not observe the agreement, the international community remained divided and unwilling to become more involved ‐ particularly in light of the Somalia and Rwanda debacles. In the absence of this commitment, however, the whole idea of African renaissance could be put in jeopardy.

New dimensions of the right to self‐determination: A study of the international response to the Kosovo crisis

The war in Kosovo has been dominating many news bulletins last year, and much has been said and written on the Kosovo issue. In these bulletins, law has been used and abused to defend political positions. The aim of this article is to shed light on one of these controversial issues, namely, whether the inhabitants of Kosovo are entitled to the right to self‐determination under international law; a right belonging to all peoples. The history as well as the content of this right is addressed, after which it is applied to Kosovo in particular. The analysis concludes that, notwithstanding the fact that the ethnic Albanians of Kosovo cannot be considered as a people, this right is indeed applicable to Kosovo. The scale of the human rights violations makes that the ethnic Albanians of the region are entitled to self‐determination in the form of political autonomy or ‐ if these gross violations persist ‐ even secession.

The Court of Justice of the European Union and Other Regional Courts

This chapter identifies three dimensions within which jurisdictional or adjudicative interregionalism may be invoked: (i) the need for comity that is attested by frequent judge-to-judge meetings; (ii) cross-referencing by judges to the decisions of other regional courts; and (iii) the inclusion of dispute settlement clauses in interregional agreements. The authors conclude that the degree to which the Court of Justice of the European Union can forge interregional cooperation between the EU and other regions depends on whether one is hoping for better judge-to-judge meetings, cross-referencing in decisions or active participation in interregional dispute settlements. This last dimension presents specific challenges. However, the work of the Venice Commission and the accelerating jurisprudence in the regional protection of human rights leave one with the hope that judges of regional courts will converse more with their peers and that this will lead not only to better decisions but to better interregional politics.