Hate Speech and International Criminal Law: The Mugesera Decision by the Supreme Court of Canada

On 28 June 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada rendered a decisionin Mugesera, bringing to an end the decade-long legal saga involvinga speech made by Leon Mugesera in November 1992 in Rwanda. Whilethe decision of the Supreme Court was handed down in the contextof an immigration case, its impact will be mostly felt in therealm of criminal law, as the court embraced international jurisprudencefor the international elements of crimes against humanity. Inaddition, the decision is important for three reasons: it (i)clarified the interrelationship between international and domesticcriminal law; (ii) examined the notion of hate crime; and (iii)analysed the concept of inchoate crimes.     

Lord Cooke of Thorndon (1926–2006): 51 Years in the Law

This article provides an in‐depth analysis of the landmark ‘cash for query’ judgment of the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court of India. The scope of parliamentary privileges in India, as well as in England and America, is examined, particularly with respect to the jurisdiction of the courts. The present position in the law of parliamentary privileges in India was laid down in the case of Raja Ram Pal v The Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha, &; Ors. The Supreme Court of India has extensively dwelled on the matter and has delivered a judgment, which is by far the most comprehensive decision in this field of law. The author notes in the analysis that the difference between the English and Indian constitutional systems is of crucial significance. The conflicts between the judiciary and parliament in England arose because of the sovereignty of parliament, and the judiciary had to fight for every inch of its jurisdiction in England. The judiciary had to contend with Parliament not only as a legislative body, but also by virtue of being the ‘High Court of Parliament’, as a superior court. Because of these reasons, the case law from British constitutional history does not have strict applicability in India. The decision of the Supreme Court of India in Raja Ram Pal v The Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha, &; Ors, is a clear expression of a very basic feature of the Indian constitutional mechanism: where the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and all governmental organs, which owe their origin to the Constitution and derive their powers from its provisions, must function within its framework.     

Adjudication of patent validity is sent home

The Court of Justice restrictively interprets the Brussels Convention,frustrating the development of transnational adjudication ofpatent infringement claims by precluding a court from consideringthe validity of a foreign patent even where the decision onlyhas effect between the parties.     

日本涉外民商事管辖权制度初探

日本法院分为四级简易法院、地方法院、高等法院和最高法院。《日本民事诉讼法》中的许多规则用于确定国际管辖权问题都不是很恰当,判例在国际民商事管辖权领域里起着相当重要的作用。最高法院在1981年10月16日做出的判决是关于日本法院国际管辖权的指导性判决,它确立了国际民商事管辖权的一般标准,即“正义和合理”标准。管辖权的排除主要表现在以下方面法院选择协议、仲裁协议以及主权和外交豁免。在实践中,下级法院创设了有关国际管辖权的一项规则,即“特殊情势主义”。对于外国的未决诉讼、不方便法院原则、择地行诉和禁诉命令制度,日本的立法或实践以及学者的观点富有特色。     

Institut Pasteur v. United States: the AIDS patent dispute, the Contract Disputes Act and the international exchange of scientific data

In the case of Institut Pasteur v. United States, the Institut Pasteur (Pasteur) claimed that the National Cancer Institute (NCI) had breached express and implied contracts to share research on AIDS virus samples provided to NCI by Pasteur. NCI scientists allegedly used the samples to acquire information which allowed NCI to file patent applications for an AIDS blood test kit. The United States Claims Court dismissed the complaint by holding that the Institut Pasteur had not complied with certain administrative procedures required by the Contract Disputes Act before bringing its suit. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the decision of the Claims Court by holding that the disputed contracts did not fit within the scope of the Contract Disputes Act. Soon after the Court of Appeals decision, President Reagan and Prime Minister Chirac announced a settlement agreement whereby the lawsuit was to be dropped, American and French scientists were to share credit for having discovered the AIDS virus, and both parties to the suit were to share the patent rights for the AIDS blood test kit. This settlement suggest that international legal disputes involving urgent scientific and medical matters may require dispute resolution techniques that serve as alternatives to national courts.     

我国行政诉讼原告资格制度发展的社会背景及其得失评价——以最高人民法院2000年有关司法解释为对象

20世纪90年代是我国社会转型的关键十年。这一时期,市场经济体制逐步发展,民主政治体制逐步发展,行政法制建设不断进步,行政法治理论不断成熟。在社会变迁的大背景下出台的新司法解释对我国行政诉讼原告资格进行重新界定,转变了原告资格的价值取向,明确了不可诉行为的范围,赋予更广泛的行政相对人以原告资格。但新司法解释在行政诉讼原告资格的属人因素及属事因素上作出了限制性规定,有些规定甚至是对行政诉讼法规定的倒退。为使我国行政诉讼原告资格继续向逐步放宽的世界性趋势发展,最高人民法院在这类司法解释方面还将承担更为艰巨的重任。     

当代中国社会保障权之可诉性透视——基于《人民法院案例选》（1992-2010）的文本分析

国家义务是实现社会保障权的法定义务。探讨社会保障权的可诉性,对全面把握和评判社会保障权之国家义务履行状况,具有决定性意义。以《人民法院案例选》（1992-2010）为参照系,当前中国对社会保障权的维护主要体现在社会保险权之工伤保险领域,在内容上主要表现为国家的尊重和保护义务。在明显具有给付性质或特征的社会保险权之养老保险、社会救助权、社会福利权等领域,国家对其法定义务的履行还任重而道远。在工伤认定案件中,法院对劳动者权利诉求的支持;以及在社会优抚权案件中,法院对《行政诉讼法》的扩张性解释,这些人性化举措都将如星星之火,可以燎原。     

Canada loses appeal of WTO panel ruling on minimum patent terms

In the last issue, we reported on a ruling of a Panel of the World Trade Organization (WTO) that Canada was in breach of the international Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (the TRIPS Agreement). The Panel found that Canada's Patent Act does not provide the minimum patent terms required by the trade agreement. Canada appealed that decision, but on 18 September 2000 the WTO Appellate Body upheld the Panel ruling.     

The Troika: The Interlocking Roles of Commission v. Luxembourg and Belgium,Van Gend en Loos and Costa v. ENEL in the Creation of the European Legal Order

Through comparisons with dispute resolution procedures in the North American Free Trade Area's Side Agreements, and with the debate over the direct effect of World Trade Organization obligations in the European legal order, this paper demonstrates that three of the European Court of Justice's most important decisions—Commission v. Luxembourg and Belgium, Van Gend en Loos and Costa v. ENEL—should be understood as combining to reorganise general international law's relationship between the EU Member States by substituting national court application of European obligations for the use of interstate retaliation as an enforcement mechanism, and thus providing the foundations for the EU's distinctive legal order.     

Disability,Reasonable Accommodation and the Employer's Obligations: Nano Nagle School v Daly

The duty on employers to provide reasonable accommodation is a well-established component of disability discrimination legislation, yet it continues to generate litigation in many jurisdictions. This article examines a recent decision of the Irish Supreme Court concerning the extent of the employer's obligations where, after having acquired an impairment, a worker is no longer able to perform all of the functions of her original job. The case also addressed the question of what procedures should be followed by an employer when considering the provision of reasonable accommodation, as well as the need for courts to justify awards of compensation. The issues in Irish law were intertwined with obligations arising from EU and international law instruments. Therefore, the decision is pertinent for other jurisdictions confronting similar challenges.     

Positive Obligations and the International Criminal Tribunals’ Law of Detention: Funding Family Visits and the ICC Presidency’s Ngudjolo Decision

This article addresses the issue of whether the international criminal tribunals are under an obligation to fund family visits for indigent detainees. It examines the concept of positive obligations and its relation to the detention situation and describes the practice of funding family visits as it has developed at the International Criminal Court. It further analyses relevant developments in the Court’s case law. It argues that the Court is indeed obliged to fund family visits. In this regard, the mere recognition of a detainee’s right to family visits in the tribunals’ legal frameworks andin international soft-law penological standards can be said to inadequately reflect the particularities of international detention.

     

2009年香港海商法判例综述

2009年期间,香港法院审理了一定数量的海商海事案件,案件领域包括提单运输、《汉堡规则》的解释、承运人在普通法下的责任、船舶碰撞和海上保险等。大部分案件在香港高等法院原诉法庭审结,部分上诉至香港高等法院上诉法庭,甚至香港终审法院。通过对若干代表性案件的描述和分析,一方面展现香港海商法判例的发展,另一方面有助于对中国内地海商法的比较研究。     

The “process” of patenting: Why should we care about a potential U.S. Supreme Court decision in Bilski v. Doll?

In Bilski v. Doll, the U.S. Supreme Court is called to define one of the categories of patent-eligible subject matter, “process” patents. In 2008, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the category has a narrow meaning, and that to be eligible for a process patent under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the invention must involve a machine or apparatus or involve a transformation to a different state or thing, ultimately rejecting the patent application as unpatentable subject matter. The patent applicants have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to determine two issues: first, the meaning of “process” in 35 U.S.C. § 101 and whether the lower court properly relied on a “machine-or-transformation” test, and second, the test's potential conflict with 35 U.S.C. § 273, which provides protection for “method[s] of doing or conducting business.” The Court's decision could change the way that research and business are done, and patent protection for such investments. Parts 1 and 2 of this article address Bilski directly and what is and is not in dispute. Part 3 addresses the “machine-or-transformation” test, while Parts 4 and 5 address reasons not to adopt such a test.     

Judicial postponement of death recognition: the tragic case of Mary O'Connor

A recent New York Court of Appeals decision seriously impedes the ability of incompetent patients to control their medical care. In the case of Mary O'Connor, the court virtually eliminated an incompetent's rights to bodily integrity and privacy. The court relied on formalistic evidentiary arguments to vitiate the patient's refusal of death-prolonging treatment. This Case Comment examines both the doctrine and policy underlying the O'Connor decision, suggesting that the court erred in its holding and reasoning. An alternative framework is presented, arguing that courts should honor competently expressed patient decisions concerning medical treatment. New York's highest court, instead, posited an incompetent patient who becomes competent for a moment to render a decision. This legal fiction is nothing more than a thinly masked technique for imposition of the judges' values on the patient. This Case Comment argues that in the absence of clear direction from the patient, family and loved ones generally should make care decisions for the patient.     

Military Courts and Prosecution of Offences by National Defense Forces in the Dawn of the Complementarity Regime: The Case of Uganda

With the coming into force of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC Statute) and its complementarity regime, much emphasis has been placed on the role of national courts in prosecuting international crimes. Some states have demonstrated their commitment to this regime by; inter alia, ratifying the ICC Statute, enacting national legislation to implement the ICC Statute and establishing national judicial forums for prosecution of international crimes. Uganda is a prime example of states rising up to this challenge. Uganda ratified the ICC Statute in 2002. In 2008, it established the International Crimes Division (ICD) to prosecute international crimes and in 2010, it enacted the International Criminal Court Act to implement the ICC Statute. Even before these reforms, Uganda’s military courts had always relied on service offences to prosecute members of the national defence force. Worthy to note, members of the Uganda Peoples’ Defence Forces (UPDF) have been implicated in a number of atrocities, some of which can be categorised as international crimes. However, military courts continue to prosecute UPDF soldiers for these atrocities on the basis of service offences. The situation current in Uganda highlights a number of legal issues relating to: first, the adequacy of service offences to advance accountability for the international crimes allegedly committed by UPDF soldiers; secondly, the jurisdiction of military courts over international crimes; and thirdly, the effect of concurrent jurisdiction by the ICD and military courts on the rule against double jeopardy.     

论国际法规范的位阶

条约法公约首次在国际法上规定了强行法概念。国际法学者以强行法、对一切义务、国际罪行等的出现为根据,提出了位阶理论,主张国际法规范已经产生类似于国内法的"规范等级"。在实践中,位阶理论在确定国际法等级以及效力层次上的作用也极为有限。国际法院的判决在某种程度上仅仅是指明某些义务具有基础性,而并不能证明强行法规范具有高于一般规范的效力。尽管如此,位阶理论的提出仍使特定国际法规范的效力在某种程度上超出"同意",也在某种程度上解决了条约义务与国际社会根本义务相冲突的情形。     

In vitro fertilisation and the limits of consent

In Evans v United Kingdom (2006) 43 EHRR 21; [2006] ECHR 200 the European Court of Human Rights was asked to overrule domestic legislation in the United Kingdom which stipulated that either the male or female provider of gametes could withdraw their consent to proceed at any time prior to implantation of embryos. The court held by a majority of five to two that such a legislative regime is compatible with current human rights instruments applicable in Europe. Ms Evans has appealed the European Court's decision to the Grand Chamber. However, compelling public policy arguments suggest that both parties to proposed in vitro fertilisation treatment should be permitted to withdraw their consent until the point of implantation.     

The Italian torpedo is dead: long live the Italian torpedo

A recently published decision of the Milan Court of First Instancenot only confirms that a cross-border claim for a declarationof non-infringement of a European patent is unlikely to succeedbefore an Italian court unless it is brought against an Italiandomiciled party, but also shows that the longstanding traditionof Italian torpedoes is not yet defunct, contrary to predictionsafter a landmark decision of the Italian Supreme Court in 2003.