The increasing flow across borders of so many things-goods, services, capital, people, pollutants, culture, and information-has increased the interdependence of nations. Moreover, in many ways, the end of the Cold War opened up space for international law. Not only was the world freed from bipolar tension, but the fall of communism also led to the creation of many more liberal democracies and optimism about the prospects for greater international cooperation. This may be one reason why in the 1990s, international regimes not only multiplied but increasingly began to take on a judicial flavour. To be sure, most international disputes never end up in court. Moreover, whereas previously international courts were predominantly concerned with claims brought by states against other states, now more of the courts (such as the European Court of Human Rights) give a voice to nonstate entities, including individuals, a factor which also tends to increase the number of cases brought. These twenty or so international courts and tribunals proper are just the tip of the iceberg; in addition, "e;there are at least seventy other international institutions, which exercise judicial or quasijudicial functions"e; but that do not meet all the criteria of being permanent institutions, composed of independent judges, that adjudicate disputes between two or more entities (at least one of which is either a State or an International Organisation); operate on the basis of predetermined rules of procedure; and render decisions that are binding on the parties. For every student, teacher and researcher in the subject it offers a solid basis for an in-depth understanding of the entire subject area.

The increasing flow across borders of so many things-goods, services, capital, people, pollutants, culture, and information—has increased the interdependence of nations. Moreover, in many ways, the end of the Cold War opened up space for international law. Not only was the world freed from bipolar tension, but the fall of communism also led to the creation of many more liberal democracies and optimism about the prospects for greater international cooperation. This may be one reason why in the 1990s, international regimes not only multiplied but increasingly began to take on a judicial flavour. To be sure, most international disputes never end up in court. Moreover, whereas previously international courts were predominantly concerned with claims brought by states against other states, now more of the courts (such as the European Court of Human Rights) give a voice to nonstate entities, including individuals, a factor which also tends to increase the number of cases brought. These twenty or so international courts and tribunals proper are just the tip of the iceberg; in addition, “there are at least seventy other international institutions, which exercise judicial or quasijudicial functions” but that do not meet all the criteria of being permanent institutions, composed of independent judges, that adjudicate disputes between two or more entities (at least one of which is either a State or an International Organisation); operate on the basis of predetermined rules of procedure; and render decisions that are binding on the parties. For every student, teacher and researcher in the subject it offers a solid basis for an in-depth understanding of the entire subject area.