The Bush Doctrine Revisited: The 2006 National Security Strategy of the USA

In its 2006 National Security Strategy, the USA reaffirms thecontroversial doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence as crucialin the "war on terror" proclaimed after the attacks of 9/11.But it does not provide a detailed examination of pre-emption.The questions left open in the 2002 US National Security Strategyas to what will trigger pre-emptive action, when action againstnon-State actors will be permissible and what degree of forcewill be proportionate in pre-emptive action are still unresolved.The promise that "The reasons for our actions will be clear,the force measured and the cause just" does not offer much inthe way of specific guidance. It is very striking that in thiscontext, the US strategy makes no reference to internationallaw or to the role of the UN Security Council. The other mainfocus of the strategy is on the "promotion of democracy", butit does not go so far as to assert any legal right to use forcefor this purpose, and it makes only passing reference to humanitarianintervention. The EU 2003 Security Strategy provides a markedcontrast in that it does not adopt the doctrine of pre-emptiveself-defence, does not expressly identify "rogue States" anddoes profess respect for international law and for the roleof the UN. Other States have not generally shown themselveswilling to accept a Bush doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence.They agree that there are new threats facing the world frominternational terrorists and the danger of proliferation ofweapons of mass destruction, but the 2005 World Summit showedclearly that there is no general acceptance of pre-emptive action.Moreover, the International Court of Justice still follows acautious approach to self-defence. The 2006 National SecurityStrategy largely reaffirms the doctrines of the earlier 2002Strategy, but whereas the focus in the 2002 Strategy was onthe threat posed by Iraq and North Korea; attention has nowshifted to Iran and Syria, accused of being State sponsors ofterror by Hizbollah and Al-Qaida. The article ends with a discussionof the recent conflict in Lebanon: this raised the crucial questionwhether the war on terror gave Israel a wide right to use force,even a pre-emptive right. The conflict highlights dramaticallythe practical significance of the divisions on the scope ofthe law of self-defence with regard to action against non-Stateactors, pre-emption and proportionality.     

Treaty Interpretation and the WTO Appellate Body Report in US - Gambling: A Critique

‘Before the game begins players should agree on a dictionaryto use in case of a challenge.’ (from the Official Rulesof SCRABBLE®)

Treaty interpretation in WTO law continues to represent a topicof highly theoretical and practical importance. The Panel’sand the Appellate Body’s reports in the recent US –Gambling dispute have critically turned on ascertaining themeaning of the United States’ GATS Schedule and ArticleXVI GATS on the basis of the public international law rulesof treaty interpretation as codified in the Vienna Conventionon the Law of Treaties. The paper’s principal aim is toreview the interpretative approach followed in particular bythe Appellate Body in reaching its decision in US – Gambling.Its main argument is that, although the Appellate Body appearsto be trying to emancipate itself from a rigorous textual approach,it has not yet embraced a holistic approach to treaty interpretation,one in which the treaty interpreter looks thoroughly at allthe relevant elements of the general rule on treaty interpretationpursuant to Article 31(1) of the Vienna Convention.     

Universities and the teaching of forensic sciences to lawyers—a note *

This article presents the findings of the survey conducted among business and accountancy students of the Nanyang Business School, Singapore, on the teaching of business law. The article is organised in three main sections. Section 1 formulates the framework for the research by outlining the three basic approaches adopted across many jurisdictions for the legal education of business students—the traditionalist ("black‐letter law"), the environmentalist and mixed approaches. Section 2 briefly describes the survey questions drawn up in the light of four principal objectives that, according to legal educators, the teaching of business law should achieve. Section 3 presents and examines the findings. The article concludes that law teaching at the Nanyang Business School conforms to the traditional approach. The author accordingly makes recommendations for the transformation of current teaching and assessment medthods: an injection of a great deal of “environmental” content and context‐based education; more use of actual and current cases, practical examples and a link to the business environment.     

Michelin II: A Per Se Rule Against Rebates by Dominant Companies?

In its Michelin II judgment of September 2003, the CFI foundthat Michelin breached Article 82 EC by setting up a systemof rebates that could potentially induce loyalty and excludeits competitors. This paper comments extensively on MichelinII and other cases, with a focus on what sort of competitionpolicy is desirable as regards rebates by dominant companies.Contrary to Michelin II, pricing policies of dominant companieswhich are not linear and not strictly reflecting economies ofscale are not necessarily anticompetitive and may indeed havesignificant pro-competitive effects. Furthermore, a requirementthat a rebate scheme be "economically justified" is very difficultto apply in practice, and the Court should not have put theburden of proof for the justification of quantitative rebatesupon the dominant company. Most preoccupying is the Court'srejection of the effect criterion when deciding on the legalityof a rebate: Such an approach, which differs markedly from USand UK law as well as from the OECD report on fidelity discounts,will generally result in a disproportionate per se-prohibitionof any pricing behaviour and in economic inefficiencies. A fairerand clearer approach could therefore distinguish between rebatesthat are per se allowed and other rebates that ought to be prohibitedonly if they have effects on the market.     

国际经济管制法的范围、体系和内容

本文将国际经济法界定为管制法,由此时我国国际经济法教科书的范围、体系和内容等问题进行技术层面的探讨。在范围上可以从广义国际经济法中剥离出国际商法;在体系安排上突出WTO法的核心地位,注重逻辑性和论题性;在内容上可以加大判例和立法阐述的比例。     

Does private copying need an update in the UK?

Legal context: Most European legal systems have limited the ‘exclusive’reproduction right of authors in their works to enable usersto copy, for private purposes and without the authorizationof the authors, legally acquired protected material. In exchange,authors receive compensation for their loss of control of theircreations. The UK Copyright Act does not generally permit privatecopying, but it does exempt a few acts from the exclusive rightsawarded to authors through copyright. Key points: The article examines the limitations to the reproduction rightprovided by IP law in the UK, such as time-shifting, in thelight of relevant case law—GEMA (1964), Sony v UniversalStudios (1984)—the European Copyright Directive and aEuropean sector inquiry. Many countries have established levieson copying-friendly media where their proceeds are distributedto authors as compensation. This article argues for the needto reform the IP law in the UK, arguing that time-shifting andother reproduction acts authorized by the statute are privatecopying in disguise. The paper only considers legal privatecopying, which should not be mistaken with piracy or file-sharingin P2P networks. Practical significance: Copying another's works in the privacy of one's home has becomeincreasingly popular on account of the fast-developing paceof technology and its supporting platform: the internet. Althoughlevies have often been imposed on physical media (CDs, CDRs),new technologies such as MP3 and MP4 players and USB flash drivesare often exempted, despite their widespread use as tools forprivate copying. The private copying trend is bringing greaterbenefits to the users than to the creators of protected workswho understandably would like to obtain a share of the overallprofits.     

借鉴与完善：遏制宗教极端主义的立法研究

我国打击宗教极端主义的立法不够清晰,限制宗教极端主义思想传播的法律制度落后。同时宗教管理也存在一定的缺陷。因此,须完善我国打击宗教极端主义的立法以及相关制度,要准确落实我国的宗教政策,将宗教限制在私人空间。在公共领域宗教并无自由。我国须加强国家意识和国民意识的教育,并完善打击宗教极端主义的相关立法。应当制定反恐法,将宗教极端主义行为及言论作为反恐法管制的对象之一。完善刑法规范以打击宗教极端主义。应当在刑法中增加“领导、组织宗教极端主义组织罪”、“领导、组织宗教极端主义活动罪”等,并完善互联网的相关立法。     

Can We Protect How We Do What We Do? A Consideration of Business Method Patents in Australia and Europe

In the long history of monopolies, business method patents area novel and recent edition. In the Digital Age, where time ismoney and speed is everything, innovative methods for undertakingbusiness are as important to a business as the products or servicesit provides to its clients. In recent years several reviews,conducted in both Australia and internationally,⁴ have questionedthe appropriateness of patenting business methods. This paperreviews the availability of business method patents in Australiain light of the 2006 decision of the Full Court of the FederalCourt in Grant v Commissioner of Patents,⁵ which confirmed theneed in Australia for a ‘useful product’ to issuefrom the working of a method (business or otherwise) in orderfor the method to be patentable. This paper will review argumentsboth criticising and defending business method patents and considerwhether business methods warrant special treatment.     

Walking the groundless threats minefield

Legal context. It is one of the peculiarities of UK law thatthreatening litigation of IP rights can, in some circumstances,give rise to an action for "groundless threats". This has thepotential to cause great disruption to the right-holder's case.There is even the potential for professional advisors to endup in the dock where they made the threat on their client'sbehalf, raising the possibility of a conflict of interest preventingthe advisers from continuing to act. Key points. To minimise the risk of these scenarios, intellectualproperty law advisors, be they patent or trade mark attorneysor solicitors, should be aware of the provisions that governgroundless threats actions for the various IP rights, particularlyin light of the recent changes brought in by the Patents Act2004 and the further changes expected to the groundless threatsprovisions relating to designs. These alterations increasinglycomplicate what has always been a nebulous area of the law.In addition, there is considerable tension between the "talkfirst, sue later" philosophy underlying the Civil ProcedureRules and the "sue first, talk later" approach traditionallyused to circumvent threats actions. Reckitt recently confirmedthat the groundless threats provisions, while running counterto the purpose of the CPR, cannot be ignored by the Courts.This article provides an overview of the current state of thegroundless threats provisions that apply to the various IP rights,and considers how IP owners and their advisors can best navigatethe groundless threats minefield. Practical significance. Groundless threats form a complex andchanging area of IP law in the UK, which advisers need to takeinto account in virtually every dispute. Amendments made toSection 70 of the Patents Act 1977 have not provided a threatspanacea to patent holders and it remains to be seen how thesection will be interpreted by the Courts. What is clear isthat the threats provisions contained in the IP legislationwill remain in force in one form or another for the foreseeablefuture and that they remain a trap for the unwary.     

Disrupting Conventional Law Firm Business Models using Document Assembly

Document assembly software is a technology that is fundamentalto disrupting law firms. This article uses the framework setout by Clayton Christensen in The Innovator’s Dilemmaand subsequent books to examine the range of business modelsthat use document assembly software, from those that are sustainingin relation to law firms to those that are disruptive in relationto law firms. It looks at three barriers that slow down thepace of disruption: a shortage of the right people, rules againstunauthorised practice, and inadequate capitalisation of lawfirms. These barriers will be overcome on a piecemeal basisas disruptive forces advance and undercut the billable hour.     

论法律意义上的仲裁地点及其确定

The paper studies the concept of the place of arbitration in comparing with the legislation and practices of international commercial arbitration. It also stresses on the connection and distinction between the place of arbitration, the place of hearing, and the place where the arbitration tribunal deliberates the case, as well as the method of deciding the place of arbitration. The author also analyzes the current legislation and practices of the determination on the place of arbitration in China. The paper pointed out that it is important in both theory and practice to promote international arbitration in China and amend domestic arbitration legislation in determing place of arbitration properly. Zhao Xiuwen, professor, has been teaching international business law in the law school of Renmin University of China since 1984. She used to be a Fulbright research scholar in Georgetown Law Center of George Washington University and other universities (USA), and as a visiting professor in universities and research institutes (UK, Germany, Italy, Austria and Australia). She also works in the panel of China International Economic & Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC), World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb), Singapore International Arbitration Center (SIAC) and some local arbitration commissions in China. She is the author of several books and dozens of articles in the field of international business law and commercial arbitration, i.e. arbitration system in Hong Kong, international economic law, private international law, copyright, international commercial arbitration, international economic and trade arbitration law, etc.     

Should I stay or should I go?

Legal context: The European Patent Convention inherently allows parallel revocationproceedings to take place in the EPO and the domestic patentcourts. As a result, parties to UK patent proceedings frequentlyapply for a stay pending the outcome of proceedings in the EPO.There is commonly assumed to be a presumption in favour of thisstay, so long as it does not amount to an injustice. Key points: This article reviews the UK case law that has followed the Courtof Appeal decision in Kimberly-Clark, to see if this presumptionin favour of a stay is sustained. These cases show that, whendeciding whether to order a stay, judges perform a balancingexercise of a number of considerations. In practice it appearsthat these considerations easily topple the presumption. Practical significance: By providing a comparison of the considerations put before thecourts in the past, this article seeks to aid practitionersin judging those factors likely to affect the success of a stayapplication. It also highlights the lack of authority at appellatelevel on whether it is lawful for patent courts not to ordera stay.     

Computer-related inventions: from CFPH to Macrossan

Legal context: The recent joint decision of the Court of Appeal in AerotelLtd v Telco Holdings Ltd and othersand Patent Application byNeal William Macrossan concerns the proper application of theexclusions to patentability under Article 52 of the EuropeanPatent Convention (EPC) and in particular the exclusions concerningcomputer implemented inventions and methods of doing business. Key points: Before this decision, the proper approach to this area of thelaw had been thoroughly discussed and reformulated by DeputyJudge Prescott QC in CFPH followed by a string of first instancecases. There were also numerous decisions of the European PatentOffice, not all of which were consistent. Accordingly, thisis an area fraught with difficulty where it has been difficultto find an overreaching rationale to exclusions based on individualpolicy. The Court of Appeal has now set a new four stage test by whichcomputer implemented inventions should be approached, as wellas patents to which the other exclusions might apply. Practical significance: This new test may not reduce the difficulty of assessing inventionson a case by case basis, but it provides one source of authoritythat can now be followed. Furthermore, it may also prove helpfulthat each of the cases featured in this decision falls on eitherside of Article 52. As such the decision provides a useful,if sketchy, illustration of the dividing line between patentableand non-patentable subject matter.     

Claim construction and the extent of patent protection: A comparative analysis of the Phillips en banc Federal Circuit decision

Legal context. The United Kingdom's House of Loads in Kirin-Amgenand the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuitin Phillips addressed similar issues with respect to the methodologyof claim interpretation and the fundamental rules and policiesfor determining the extent of patent protection. This articlewill review Phillips and Kirin-Amgen from the comparative lawperspective. It will compare the UK and US rules and patentpolicies with their German and Japanese counterparts, discussingthe bases for these differences and examining them from theperspective of patent policies, specifically with respect tofair protection and legal certainty. Key points. Despite the use of the same rule and methodology,legal commentators and patent professionals emphasize the differencesin the extent of patent protection in different jurisdictions.Such differences result from the availability of the doctrineof equivalents. For jurisdictions such as the UK, the US andJapan, where courts seldom apply the doctrine of equivalents,the differences result from the way in which the courts conductclaim construction. These courts use the perspective of a hypotheticalperson to support a broad or narrow claim construction, reflectingthe weight given to the competing patent policies. Practical significance. This article cites key cases for claimconstruction and the doctrine of equivalents in four major patentjurisdictions: the UK, the US, Germany and Japan. Knowledgeof the case law trends in these jurisdictions is essential fordrafting patents documents and enforcing patents.     

Violence and Massacres -- Towards a Criminal Law of Inhumanity?

The law's responses to massacres seem to vacillate between twomodels: (i) the model of the ‘criminal law of the enemy’inspired by the national criminal law and rendered topical againby the attacks of September 11; (ii) the model of the ‘criminallaw of inhumanity’ symbolized by the paradigm of crimesagainst humanity. The latter model is better suited to takeaccount of the qualitative dimension of massacres, i.e. thefact that they, besides being mass offences (quantitative criterion),also offend against humanity. To establish a ‘criminallaw of inhumanity’ as a model with a universal, or universalizable,dimension, three conditions are necessary, which concern (i)the definition of the crimes, (ii) the assignment of responsibilityand (iii) the nature of the punishment. As for the definitionof the crime, one could implicitly deduce from the list of actsconstituting crimes against humanity (Article 7 of the InternationalCriminal Court Statute) that humanity so protected has two inseparablecomponents: the individuality of each human being, not reducibleto membership in a group, and the equal membership of each inthe human community as a whole. With regard to the second condition,it is not sufficient to hold responsible the de jure or de factoleaders; intermediaries and perpetrators, at all levels of hierarchy,must also be held accountable. As for the third condition, itis not sufficient to content oneself with the watchword of thefight against impunity without bringing up the nature and functionsof the punishment; hence the necessity not only to rethink therole ‘criminal’ law can play in a policy of punishment,but also to focus on prevention, reparation and reconciliation.Finally, the author suggests that the proposed model of a ‘criminallaw of inhumanity’ must be built through the interplaybetween municipal law and international law. On the one hand,the wealth of national legal systems — also with regardto penalties and responsibility — should be better integratedinto international criminal justice; on the other, nationalcriminal systems should be better adapted to conditions of internationallaw, through the introduction into domestic law of the definitionsof the crimes and also the rules for assigning criminal responsibility.     

On Her Majesty's Commercial Service: Bribery,Public Officials and the UK Intelligence Services

相似文献   

A Tarasoff for Europe? A European Human Rights perspective on the duty to protect

It has long been recognised by British courts that a psychiatrist can be permitted to depart from his/her duty of confidentiality, in order to issue a warning where a patient is deemed to present a real and serious threat to other parties. Until recently, however, it seemed that s/he would not be bound to give such a warning, or to take other steps to protect third parties. The approach adopted throughout much of the USA, and famously expounded in the Tarasoff judgment, appeared to have no relevance to British law. This article considers the possibility that the European Court of Human Rights' ruling in Osman v UK may be set to bring about a radical change in this respect, introducing something akin to the Tarasoff approach into the UK, and indeed throughout Europe. As well as the possible legal basis for such a duty, and the circumstances in which it would arise, it will consider how a psychiatrist might reconcile any such duty with other, more established, legal and ethical duties.     

Voting rules in insolvency law: a simple-game theoretic approach

A chief characteristic of modern insolvency law in Canada, Germany, the UK, and the US is the provision for ‘workouts’ or ‘schemes of arrangement’ by which insolvent companies can attempt to rehabilitate the business. If reorganization is chosen, the debtor has to devise a plan of action which will be voted upon by claimants. The voting rules, however, differ in each jurisdiction to a greater or lesser extent and as yet have not been analyzed in any rigorous manner. This paper provides an approach based upon the theory of simple games to analyze the rules in terms of the ease which each of these regimes can pass (or hinder) plans and how these rules distribute value among claimants. We pay particular attention to the role of classification and the effect of coalition formation.     

On the Use of Criminal Law Notions in Determining State Responsibility for Genocide

On the face of it the 1948 Convention on Genocide appears tobe a treaty that on the one hand obliges contracting statesto criminalize and punish genocide in their domestic legal systemsand, on the other, arranges for interstate judicial cooperationfor the repression of genocide. The International Court of Justice(ICJ), in the Bosnia v. Serbia judgment, has instead held thatthe Convention, in addition to providing for the criminal liabilityof individuals, also imposes on contracting states as internationalsubjects a set of obligations (to refrain from engaging in genocide,to prevent and punish the crime, and also to refrain for allthose categories of conduct enumerated in Article III: conspiracy,incitement, attempt, complicity). This approach raises two questions:(i) is it warranted so to broaden states' responsibility? (ii)when applying such Article III categories to state responsibility,should an international court such as the ICJ that pronounceson interstate disputes rely upon criminal law categories toestablish whether a state incurs responsibility for conspiracy,complicity, and so on? Or should it instead forge autonomouslegal categories better suited to state responsibility? Theauthor sets forth doubts about whether it is appropriate totranspose criminal law categories to the corpus of internationallaw of state responsibility. In particular, his misgivings relateto the category of ‘state complicity in genocide’as set out by the Court: once the Court decided to transplantthis criminal law category to state responsibility, arguablyit should have relied upon the rigorous concept of complicity,as derived by international criminal courts from case law andthe relevant practice of states, rather than apply a notionthat finds no basis in international criminal law, in comparativecriminal law or in state practice.