EDITORIAL

Nearly all the contributions in this issue of the Review are linked to maritime issues. We start with an agora on legal issues relating to ‘Vessel Protection Detachments’ and embarked private armed security teams in which various perspectives on this topic are presented. This is followed by an article on the legal framework under which the Belgian Navy operates against pirates off the coast of Somalia. Next, we are pleased to present the outcome of the Copenhagen Process on the Handling of Detainees in International Military Operations (having covered the start of this process in our 2007 volume). We return to maritime issues, albeit merely in order to address the topic of military justice, with some reflections on a Royal Navy court-martial tried in 1669 and on the evolution of military justice and human rights in this context. This contribution is included in a new section containing reflections and observations of interest which are not related to recent developments and do not constitute a fully-fledged article either..

Furthermore, I would like to inform our readers on the replies to the questionnaire on the Review which we circulated earlier. We received some 40 replies, so the results only give an indication of what our readers think about the Review. Nevertheless, they help us in further developing the Review and its editorial policy (you are welcome to still reply to the questionnaire on the Review‘s website if you have not yet done so). The main findings are the following:

• The content is seen as balanced between theory and practice – with nevertheless a slight preference for more practice oriented contributions – and between military justice on the one hand and the law of war and related areas of law on the other hand;
• The contributions from a historical perspective and book reviews are appreciated;
• The same goes for the recent developments section, although for some it may be expanded;
• The quality is assessed as ranging from good to excellent, with a positive evolution;
• Most respondents read contributions in more than one language and consider that the translations of the summaries are useful (but not essential);
• Opinions were split on the desirability of the Review being published twice a year instead of once – a slight majority was in favour and was prepared to pay slightly more for this – and of a possible publication in electronic form – a slight majority was in favour).

The editorial board will take this into account these findings and will reflect on the option of a twice yearly and/or electronic publication. We will also do our utmost to publish each volume sooner.