International human rights bodies with responsibility for monitoring the implementation and enforcement of rights protected by human rights treaties are usually empowered to indicate interim, or provisional, measures of protection in cases of urgency in order to safeguard the rights and persons of victims of alleged violations of human rights.1 Whether State parties are obliged to comply with a request for interim measures of protection has been the subject of some debate. The purpose of this note is to examine the issue of the binding force of interim measures of protection in the United Nations human rights system in light of the views of the Human Rights Committee (hereafter the Committee) in Piandiong, Morailos and Bulan v The Philippines.2 Before doing so, however, we need to recall briefly the Committee's role in securing the rights of the individual.

International commercial arbitration has long been a popular method for resolving cross-border business disputes. The opportunity for parties to choose their adjudicators and the dispute resolution procedure, the scope for privacy and the greater capacity for enforcement of awards compared to court judgments are all important reasons that parties prefer international arbitration over litigation. Reinforcing this trend in favour of international commercial arbitration has been a general consensus among national courts and legislatures that support, rather than interference, should be provided to the arbitral process. Such a philosophy is apparent, for example, in the requirements in the widely adopted New York Convention for States to recognize and enforce both foreign arbitration agreements and awards, and in international instruments such as the 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, which authorize national courts to assist, rather than intervene, in the conduct of arbitrations within their borders. Moreover, international commercial arbitration has proven to be sufficiently flexible as a dispute resolution method to be used both in disputes between private parties, and between private and State entities.

As a consequence of the state unity theory, the conduct of all state organs is attributed to the state in an undifferentiated manner. It follows that, in both international and European Union law, state liability can be based on the substance of judicial decisions despite the independence of the judicial branch. However, beyond the matter of attribution, there is a significant divergence between the two legal systems. In international law, the judicial origin of challenged decisions does not influence the application of liability criteria, whereas, in EU law, the liability criteria can be applied to judicial decisions in a tightened manner. This article has the twofold aim of establishing and explaining this difference.

Since the resumption of China's sovereignty over Hong Kong in 1997, academic and policy interest in its unique status has largely subsided. This may be attributed to the fact that the issue has formally been settled and the absence of effective mechanisms for monitoring and enforcement of compliance with the bilateral accord underpinning the new legal order. The marginalization of the subject has arguably left an analytical vacuum as several dimensions of the post-1997 picture merit attention on the part of international lawyers. One topic that continues to be of both practical and theoretical importance—the unconstrained pursuit, within the ‘One Country, Two Systems’ framework, of key strategic goals in the external arena—is addressed in this paper.

In an economic climate plagued by the risk of insolvency, sellers will not wish to sell unless they can be sure of getting paid. At the same time most sellers would go out of business if they asked for cash on delivery and did not sell on credit. In Europe one way to combine these conflicting business realities is by selling goods subject to a reservation of title clause or a clause de réserve de propriété or an Eigentumsvorbehalt (hereafter RTC). An RTC may be defined as “merely an agreement between the parties as to the time when ownership is to pass”. By reserving title in the goods sold until they are paid for, it ensures that goods revert to the seller in case of the buyer's insolvency, and hence escape from the hands of the liquidator. The sale fails but the seller's losses are minimised. This is particularly important in the current context of insolvency practice where the legal order for the distribution of assets is very unfavourable to the supplier of goods who does not use an RTC. As an unsecured creditor he will receive any money owed only after the costs of the insolvency procedure and the shares of preferential and secured creditors are subtracted from the assets. He will, in the blunt words of Templemann LJ, ‘receive a raw deal’.

On 28 October 2010, the Standing Committee of the Eleventh National People's Congress adopted China's first statute on the Conflict of Laws: the ‘Act on the Application of Laws over Foreign-related Civil Relationships’ (‘Conflicts Act’).1 The adoption was an historic event in Chinese legislative history, as it indicates China has modernised its conflict-of-law rules after many years of unremitting efforts made by legislators and scholars. More importantly, it means that ‘a socialist legal system with Chinese characteristics’ has been successfully established, and allows China to claim to have a systematic legal system.2

The Treaty of Amsterdam enshrines in Article 2 (formerly Article B) of the Treaty on European Union under the new Title I called “Common Provisions” (which contains, with some amendments, the provisions of the former Articles A to F) a new objective for the Union, namely:

“to maintain and develop the Union as an area of freedom, security and justice in which the free movement of persons is assured in conjunction with appropriate measures with respect to external border controls, asylum, immigration and the prevention and combating of crime.”

Family law may not be an area one immediately associates with the European Community but in recent years it has rapidly emerged as an important element of the ever-expanding portfolio of the Justice and Home Affairs Directorate General.1 Facilitating the circulation of family law orders through the harmonization of private international law rules is viewed in Community circles as essential if the free movement of persons is to be guaranteed within the European Union.2 The merits of this policy and the manner in which the transformation of the Brussels II Convention3 into a Council Regulation4 was used to acquire wider competence in respect of family law matters have both previously been considered.5 In the present paper such policy considerations are left aside to allow for a detailed analysis of those rules which deal with divorce and their effect on English and Scottish law.

In June 1992 the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) took place in Rio de Janeiro; 1993 was the year of the World Conference on Human Rights, 1994 the year of the Cairo International Conference on Population and Development, and in March 1995 it was the turn of the World Summit for Social Development in Copenhagen.