Recueil des cours, Tome 422

A transnational class action raises fundamental questions in regards of the class action court's jurisdiction over the defendant and the class members, on how to choose the applicable law, and ultimately on how to deal with the judgment if and when it comes up for enforcement or recognition before a foreign court. At times these questions and the complications they give rise to, become part and parcel of the class action court's consideration whether to certify the class action as such. In these lectures, I will identify the major private international problems that are endemic to transnational class actions and how these were handled, principally by courts in the US, Canada and Israel. I will also offer an analytical legal framework that can better assist us in dealing with the private international law questions pertaining to transnational class action and that so by identifying three different categories of class actions, with each category demanding a separate and more surgical treatment. Self-Defence and "Unwilling or Unable" States, by Said Mahmoudi. A frequently debated question in international law after the terrorist attacks against the United States on 11 September 2001 has been whether the right to self-defence is available for a victim state when the non-state actor responsible for the attack is located in and operates from another state, which is unwilling or unable to forestall the attack. The ICJ has established that the right to self-defence enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter can be invoked against non-state actors' armed attacks provided the attacks are attributable to the state hosting such actors. The purpose of the 'unwilling or unable' standard is to do away with the attribution requirement. It is thus claimed that the mere fact that an armed attack is carried out by a non-state actor active in the territory of another state should entitle the victim to use of force in self-defence against that actor within the territorial state. The present text discusses whether state practice, the jurisprudence of the courts and the doctrine of international law in the past two decades indicate any change in the scope of the right to self-defence and its application against armed attacks by non-state actors. Its conclusion is that there has not yet been any change and the 'unwilling or unable' standard remains as controversial as when it gained currency in the aftermath of the 9/11 events.