This yearbook contains documentary texts of treaties and other materials concerning the legal status and activities of the United Nations and related inter-governmental organizations. It also presents the judicial decisions on questions related to the Organization. A bibliography on jurisprudence is included.

This report was prepared for the Working Group on the Crime of Aggression at the 8th session of Preparatory Commission, held in September-October 2001. The paper consists of four parts relating to: the Nuremberg tribunal; tribunals establish pursuant to Control Council Law number 10; the Tokyo tribunal; and the United Nations. Annexes contain tables regarding aggression by a State and individual responsibility for crimes against peace. The paper seeks to provide an objective, analytical overview of the history and major developments relating to aggression, both before and after the adoption of the UN Charter.

The Special Tribunal of the Lebanon is the first international Tribunal established to try the perpetrators of a terrorist act: the murder of the Lebanese Prime Minister in 2005. This book, written by practitioners with experience of the court and experts in international criminal law, provides a detailed assessment of its unique law and practice.

The world has changed radically since 1989, when the General Assembly declared the period from 1990 to 1999 as the United Nations Decade of International Law. During that time, the international community claimed some major achievements as reflected by the adoption of conventions and treaties. This publication presents a collection of essays from legal advisers of States and international organizations, all of whom are among those committed to promoting respect for international law. Their contribution provides a practical perspective on international law, viewed from the standpoint of those involved in its formation, application and administration.

In this paper, Michael Schmitt explores the legality of the attacks against Al Qaeda and the Taliban under the "jus ad bellum," that component of international law that governs when a State may resort to force as an instrument of national policy. Although States have conducted military counterterrorist operations in the past, the scale and scope of Operation Enduring Freedom may signal a sea change in strategies to defend against terrorism. This paper explores the normative limit on counterterrorist operations. Specifically, under what circumstances can a victim State react forcibly to an act of terrorism? Against whom? When? With what degree of severity? And for how long? The author contends that the attacks against Al Qaeda were legitimate exercises of the rights of individual and collective defense. They were necessary and proportional, and once the Taliban refused to comply with U.S. and United Nations demands to turn over the terrorists located in Afghanistan, it was legally appropriate for coalition forces to enter the country for the purpose of ending the ongoing Al Qaeda terrorist campaign. However, the attacks on the Taliban were less well grounded in traditional understandings of international law. Although the Taliban were clearly in violation of their legal obligation not to allow their territory to be used as a terrorist sanctuary, the author suggests that the degree and nature of the relationship between the Taliban and Al Qaeda may not have been such that the September 11 attacks could be attributed to the Taliban, thereby disallowing strikes against them in self-defense under traditional understandings of international law. Were the attacks, therefore, illegal? Not necessarily. Over the past half-century the international community's understanding of the international law governing the use of force by States has been continuously evolving. The author presents criteria likely to drive future assessments of the legality of counterterrorist operatio7.