Through the joint ‘North Seas Countries Offshore Grid Initiative’ the states bordering the North Seas are establishing shared large-scale offshore electricity infrastructure in order to exploit their offshore wind energy resources. The article argues that this international governance of oceans space comes about legally because international law, European law and national law each fulfil a specific function. The climate regime provides the normative impetus, the law of the sea allocates competences, and European law contains principles of cooperation, which are then implemented through coordinated national law. International law, European law and national law thus become functionally integrated. This analysis has significance beyond shared offshore electricity infrastructure. It illustrates the way in which the functional integration of international law, European law and national law is emerging as a distinct legal institution in its own right, separate and distinct from the various legal orders themselves.

Article 4 of the Rome Convention determines the law governing a contract in the absence of choice by the parties. Despite its practical importance, and several decisions of the Court of Appeal, the correct construction of Article 4 remains unclear. This article considers the existing approaches and the Commission's proposal for reform, ventures to suggest an alternative, and analyses the recent cases in this light.

For a long time it looked as though comparative law was a matter for academic research, difficult and, surely, very interesting; beautiful to know something about, but not immediately relevant to the daily life of the law. Practising lawyers would admit the importance of comparative law in theory, but they would add that they themselves were, of course, too much occupied with the latest cases on trade marks, or with recent developments in the law of negligence.1

In 1976 the United Kingdom ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and extended it to Hong Kong. Under the Covenant the United Kingdom assumed an obligation to submit periodic reports to the Human Rights Committee on the measures it has adopted to give effect to the rights recognised by the Covenant and on the progress made in the enjoyment of these rights.1 The United Kingdom has submitted four periodic reports on Hong Kong, in 1978,2 1988,3 19914 and 1995.5

International sports law is more than a static set of rules and principles: it is better described as a process for avoiding and resolving disputes. Recent cases highlight its significance. The Swiss Equestrian case,1 decided by the Swiss Federal Tribunal, demonstrates the efficacy of using this process in cases involving issues of eligibility for competition. By contrast, the Reynolds case,2 decided by US federal courts, shows the folly of ignoring non-judicial remedies prescribed by international sports law. As a result, Reynolds became a sort of Dickensian struggle involving three years of litigation and some nine decisions before the case was finally dismissed. The courts could have, and should have, reached the same result by simply enforcing decisions of the appropriate international sports federation and the arbitral tribunal that had upheld the federation's decision. The Harding case,3 which was also decided in the United States, demonstrates that adjudication outside the prescribed process of international sports law is fundamentally unstable.

Until relatively recently the question of whether it is possible to get damages for breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause was very rarely considered by the courts and had attracted little academic interest. But when considered alongside recent developments in cases covered by the Brussels regime, the subject becomes of potentially much greater practical significance. The main purpose of this article is to consider how the newly developing common law principles might apply in that context.

On 1 July 2011 the UK Bribery Act 2010 and accompanying guidance finally came into force, marking the end of years of controversy about how and when the United Kingdom would implement the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention. The United Kingdom's very delayed implementation of the Convention provoked an increasingly threatening response from the OECD Working Group on Bribery, and highlighted this body's lack of binding enforcement procedures. By contrast, the OECD's reliance on non-binding guidelines has proved successful in that the UK Guidance draws heavily upon the OECD's guidance on how corporations should prevent the bribery of foreign public officials.

International anticorruption treaties create an almost universal requirement that States sanction legal persons for the crime of foreign bribery. However, the vast majority of corporate foreign bribery cases are ‘settled’ between governments and firms. Analysing key anticorruption instruments and treaty body reports, it appears there is a dearth of express rules on settlements in international law but a qualified implicit endorsement of domestic settlement laws and practices. The international regime is investigated in terms of its move towards common standards for the use of settlements, and whether recommendations are consistent with stated objectives. The analysis discloses an irony: States and international organisations fail to clearly articulate their expectations on settlements, while calling for transparent, effective and predictable domestic settlement rules.

The EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) was conceived of as an area ill-suited for full judicial review by the Court of Justice of the European Union. The Lisbon Treaty confers on the Court limited jurisdiction which the recent case law has interpreted in broad terms. This article will place this case law in the broader constitutional setting of the EU legal order and will provide a critical analysis of its implications for both the EU's and domestic courts. The analysis is structured on the basis of three main themes. The first is about the position of CFSP in the EU's constitutional architecture: the article will analyse the constitutional ambivalence that characterizes this position and how it is conveyed by the provisions of the Treaty on the European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union governing the Court's jurisdiction. The second theme is about the recent case law, and the integrationist approach that the Court of Justice has adopted to the scope of its jurisdiction. The third theme is about national courts: the article will argue that recent case law has been too quick to dismiss them, and that primary law renders them an essential part of the judicial review system governing CFSP.

In the light of the Supreme Court decision in OFT v Abbey National on unarranged overdraft fees in current account contracts, this article analyses the price term exemption at the heart of Directive 93/13 in its European context, and on a comparative basis. It argues for an interpretation in line with the ‘market for lemons’ rationale, which best fits the regulatory outline of Directive 93/13, and the European Court of Justice's case law. Under this approach, only those contract terms that are subject to the correcting forces of markets and competition are part of the ‘main subject matter of the contract’ and should be exempt from assessment of fairness under Directive 93/13.

The EU and the US have long called for the linking of trade and labour standards in trade agreements at both the multilateral and bilateral level. This article examines their practice of including labour provisions in trade agreements, with a particular focus on recent attempts to include such provisions on so-called ‘mega-regionals’, which were presented by their proponents as providing the benchmark for labour protection in future trade agreements. It discusses the rationale behind the inclusion of such provisions and their practical limitations, and examines the extent to which mega-regionals address these limitations. It is argued that whilst the EU and the US have been keen advocates for trade-labour linkages, there has also been an unwillingness to convert this rhetoric into practice, raising questions about the extent of their commitment to these values.

Prior to the rise of international investment treaties and institutionalization of investor–state arbitration, the protection of foreign investors from mistreatment in the host state courts was the preserve of customary international law, which prohibited a denial of justice and provided for diplomatic protection as a principal means of dispute settlement. In contrast, contemporary international investment law offers a whole array of legal standards that can be invoked in seeking redress for the acts of national courts before international arbitral tribunals. In addition to relying on the customary prohibition of denial of justice, investors can challenge judicial conduct under the treaty standards on expropriation, fair and equitable treatment and, in some cases, the obligation to ensure effective means of asserting claims. Although the multiplicity of standards available to aggrieved investors can be regarded as an inalienable part of an effective regime for the protection of foreign investment, it also gives rise to a number of fundamental problems relating to the application of procedural mechanisms designed to control the review of the conduct of national judiciary by international courts and tribunals. Focusing on arbitral cases in which claims of a denial of justice were brought under the rubric of ‘a judicial expropriation’ and ‘a failure to provide effective means of asserting claims’, this article seeks to ascertain when investor claims relating to the administration of justice in the host state courts become amenable to arbitral scrutiny. It argues that, by providing a variety of standards under which the acts of judiciary can be challenged, investment treaty law allows investors to circumvent procedural barriers and thus muddles the boundaries demarcating the scope of international review of national judicial conduct.

This paper seeks to explore the relationship between the framework of transition and the enactment of a new constitution for Egypt. It does so by using the relatively under explored concept of transitional constitutionalism, interrogating some of the key claims on which transitional constitutionalism is based, and questioning their application in the Egyptian context. By doing this the paper explores the broader paradox of the imposition of a framework of transition that is rooted in principles of liberalism in the context where liberalism is far from the agreed or prevailing political model.

This article considers points of connection and coherence between and among the Rome I Regulation, the Rome II Regulation, and Regulation 1215, and relevant predecessor instruments. The degree of consistency in aim, design and detail of conflict of laws rules is examined, vertically (between/among consecutive instruments) and horizontally (across cognate instruments). Symbiosis between instruments is explored, as is the interrelationship between choice of court and choice of law. Disadvantaged parties, and the cohesiveness of their treatment under the Regulations, receive particular attention.