In a society in which communication is increasingly mediated by electronic networks the methods of police investigation change. Instead of traditional methods like questioning and plain-view surveillance, the police increasingly prefer the surveillance of communications mediated by networks. The corresponding methods offer possibilities of gaining information which were not available before. Especially if the police use them without preliminary knowledge or a base suspicion at an early stage of the investigation, these methods are characterized by their scope: they result in the collection of a lot of irrelevant information and they affect many uninvolved and innocent persons. But at the same time they may furnish exactly the evidence the police are looking for: the phone number and whereabouts of the suspect; the conversation that verifies participation in an offense. It can be no surprise that these methods have become the central methods of investigation.

Newspapers abound with stories of corporate difficulties in connection with asbestos-related lawsuits. Internationally, most litigation to date has taken place in the United States, where high damages awards, comparatively liberal liability theories, and countless claims by not only the sick but also the so-called “worried well” – those who claim to have been exposed to asbestos but who have not yet contracted an asbestos-related disease – have clogged the judicial system and landed many companies in strife. Insurers have also been hit hard.

The Bundestag's 1998-2002 term witnessed an unprecedented agenda in private law legislation. Besides profound changes in various areas, including a radical overhaul of the German Law of Civil Procedure, the German Bundestag (parliament) enacted a sweeping reform of the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (German Civil Code). Compared to these radical changes the proposed Act to Prevent Discrimination in Private Law seemed a rather modest endeavor. The project nonetheless turned out to be more troublesome than expected. In May 2002, it was shelved, due also to heavy lobbying activities by, inter alia, the Catholic and Protestant Churches. Yet it will no doubt soon re-enter the stage as Germany is under an obligation to translate two EU anti-discrimination directives into national law.

On April 9th, the entire world watched as American troops threw a noose round the neck of the dictator and, surrounded by jubilant throngs of Iraqis, pulled him off his pedestal. The apparently unshakeable monument tottered, and then finally fell. But before it crashed satisfyingly to the ground, there was a momentary pause before the force of gravity could overcome the statue's grotesquely unnatural, horizontal posture. Bobbing gently up and down, the massive figure clung, for one last moment, to its horror.

The “post”-phase of a conflict has become the justification for both the possible action and the inaction of the Western states. It is not so much any longer that we would be averse to war in any circumstances, as the non-use of force principle in its absolute sense would require. Again, after a good fifty years of the UN and its raison d'etre – the guardianship of peace – we seem to have arrived at an era where ideological contestation no more has the deterrent effect that it did during the Cold War and, consequently, there are cases of the use of force that are accepted and even regarded as just as long as they are quick. When looking back at the NATO bombings of FRY in 1999 as the response to atrocities in Kosovo many are able to accept that ‘though illegal they were legitimate’ in some sense. This is the conclusion irrespective of whether one, at the time, was for action or inaction. Such a ‘condoning condemnation’ has become the popular middle road as so many other paradoxes in world politics. Through the cases of Afghanistan and Iraq the paradox has gained in strength. Although there is quite strong and unequivocal opposition to the wars and a condemnation for their illegality, the political elite of the West seems to be quick in forgetting scruples and taking a keen interest in the “post”-management of the targets, i.e. the states that are about to be or already have been ‘bombed into the stone age’ or into shambles in any case. There is a general rush to the “post”-phase; both in the sense that the tacit requirement for the condoning condemnation is that the action be quick – the use of force should be very limited in time – and, secondly, in the sense that already before the bombs fall (or during) the major reconstruction plans and projects are dealt. This article outlines some points of critique that could be launched at the phase when the majority cannot be bothered to re-analyze the wrongs committed ex ante.

As soon as major fighting was over the public discussion focussed on the question who would reconstruct Iraq and repair the damages caused by the hostilities. While the most discussed question concerned the countries or companies actually carrying out the reconstruction, the question of who would finance it played a minor role in the public discussion.

It is the primary task of Law Schools around the world to educate young promising adults who choose the responsible profession of a lawyer, be it in the role of an attorney, a lawyer in administrative services, in industry, or a judge. Apparently, in almost all countries, admission to these important professional roles is highly regulated, be it by law, be it by professional tradition or be it by a mixture of both of these factors. It generally requires a university degree and/or the successful passing of an examination administered by the State or a professional organization. For a law school, which feels any responsibility towards its students, legal education must first of all aim to equip them with the methodological, theoretical and practical knowledge, insights and basic skills necessary to fulfill the requirements for these degrees and exams, hoping at the same time that these requirements are those that enable the former students to properly, conscientiously and ethically perform their important roles in their respective national societies. Accordingly, the law of my home state requires that “the aim of legal education is the enlightened lawyer who thinks critically and acts rationally and is aware of his or her responsibility as a guardian of a free, democratic, social state, governed by the rule of law, and is able to recognize his or her obligation to further develop the law.”