The issue, international organization for the protection of the environment perhaps more than those in any otherarea of international law, is characterized by the contestation of the policies and aspirations of developing and industrializedcountries. The discussions which preceded the 1972 Stockholm Conference concerned partly the type of internationalinstitutional arrangement required for addressing the environmental problems. As regards the institutional reforms withrespect to international environmental governance (IEG), the main question is whether to focus on the existing globalinstitution, i.e. UNEP, or to create a new functional international organization. After almost five decades of existence, turningUNEP into a ‘specialized agency’ within the UN system is a reasonable move. It would meet the long-felt need to elevate itsstatus and equip it with the necessary competence and financial stability for the demanding task it should have as an efficientglobal environmental organization.

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.

The relationship between Islam and international law has long been studied, primarily in the field of the law of war and international humanitarian law (Humanitarian Law, International). Particularly in the past two decades, this relationship has been expanded to some other international law areas including human rights and international terrorism. The main reason for this increased attention to the relevance of Islam for international law is States’ and non-State actors’ repeated references to Islamic legal rules for explaining or justifying a certain position in their relations with other international law actors. The relevance of Islam to international law should be assessed with due regard to substantive legal principles and rules that Islam contains. A prerequisite for an objective assessment is to contextualize them through a glimpse into the Islamic conception of international law, the sources of Islamic international law, and the legal history of this law.