Export Cartels: Is there a need for Global Rules?

One of the reasons sometimes given in support of internationalcompetition rules is the need to curb export cartels. Exportcartels, however, are not necessarily competition or welfarereducing. They are just as likely to enhance competition andwelfare. The evidence reveals that opinions are quite divided.However, there is one constant: no country has a strong incentiveto ban export cartels unilaterally. The reason for this is thatmost of the adverse effects generated by the cartel are experiencedabroad, not locally. Therefore, if there is a case for curbingexport cartels, the alignment of incentives means that an internationalagreement is probably necessary. This article suggests one possiblearrangement.     

Cannabis Profiling Based on Its Elemental Composition—Is It Possible?

Abstract: Elemental composition of 85 cannabis samples was established using GF AAS and ICP OES methods. The robustness of the method was determined by analyzing eight independently prepared replicates from a single cannabis plant. The accuracy of the method was established by analyzing four plant certified reference material samples. The ability of discriminant analysis using elemental compositions to distinguish between fiber cannabis samples collected from four different regions of Poland was evaluated. Then, a classification model was developed that correctly classified selected samples of known origin. Cannabis samples confiscated by law enforcement agencies have also been subjected to discriminant analysis. A classification model has been developed for four locations in Poland (Bia?ystok, Ko?cierzyna, the environs of Skar?ysko Kamienna, and Bydgoszcz), to help determine where samples of unknown origin could have been grown.     

EU Merger Control: From Separate Jurisdictional Zones to a More Cooperative Architecture—A Possible Way Forward?

The paper is a call to re-ignite the debate over the future shape of the EU’s concentration or merger control architecture in the longer-term. The paper contributes to this debate by considering the efficacy of replacing the current merger control architecture of separate jurisdictional zones with a more cooperative approach. It demonstrates that the adoption of the cooperative architecture would result in a number of benefits relative to the operation of the current architecture. For in effectively resolving a major problem that has dogged the operational effectiveness of the current architecture since it became law in 1990, the misallocation problem, the proposed architecture would also lead to a strengthening of the application of the principle of subsidiarity in this field, be supportive of the reinterpreted more appropriate authority goal, and resolve the multiple notification issue. Further, by ending the multiple notification issue, the valued one-stop shop approach to merger regulation would be reinforced. Yet the paper recognises that the cooperative architecture itself is not concern free, for the cooperative approach in granting Member state regulators the right for the first time to apply EU merger law, albeit in certain circumstances only, creates the possibility of inconsistent decision-making across this network. This would distort the regulatory level playing field, undermining what the architecture is supposed to guarantee, the Single European Market. With this in mind, necessary safeguards are explained. The paper concludes by briefly commenting upon key systems that need to be in place to ensure the operational effectiveness of the cooperative architecture. Of course, and at the cost of stating the obvious, improving the protection of competition in the field of merger control in the longer-term requires a willingness on the part of the key stakeholders to look beyond the current architecture of separate jurisdictional zones.     

The Future of International Investment Regulation: Towards a World Investment Organisation?

With growth in foreign investment and in the number of companies investing in foreign countries, the application of general principles of public international law has not been deemed adequate to regulate foreign investment and there is, as yet, no comprehensive international treaty on the regulation of foreign investment. Consequently, states have resorted to bilateral investment treaties (BITs), regional trade and international investment agreements (IIAs) and free trade agreements to supplement and complement the regime of protection for foreign investors. In the absence of an international investment court, states hosting foreign investment or investor states have opted for investor-state dispute settlement mechanism (ISDS). This mechanism has brought about its own challenges to the international law of foreign investment due to inconsistency in the application and interpretation of the key principles of international investment law by such arbitration tribunals, and further, there is no appellate mechanism to bring about some cohesion and consistency in jurisprudence. Therefore, there are various proposals mooted by scholars to address these challenges and they range from tweaks to BITs and IIAs, the creation of an appellate mechanism and the negotiation of a multilateral treaty to proposals for reform of ISDS only. After assessing the merits and demerits of such proposals, this study goes further, arguing for the creation of a World Investment Organisation with a standing mechanism for settlement of investment disputes in order to ensure legal certainty, predictability and the promotion of the flow of foreign investment in a sustainable and responsible manner.

     

The Comparability of Data on Convictions and Sanctions: Are International Comparisons Possible?

This article looks at the availability of data on convictions and on sanctions and measures in European countries, on the basis of the European Sourcebook data. It emphasises the limitations in the use that can currently be made of this data, although it has a wide potential in helping to understand criminal justice policy. The differences are, for instance, to be found in offence definitions, statistical rules, and political changes. Moreover the data collection for the Sourcebook on the four categories of sanctions/measures (fines, non-custodial sentences, suspended custodial sentences and unsuspended custodial sentences) was sometimes difficult. Attention is paid to the information collected, the comparability and, as an illustration, to three specific offences (completed homicide, rape and all thefts). The conclusion is that wide differences exist in the level of convictions found and the use of sanctions by the courts. Such differences will reflect both different levels of criminality, diversion away from the courts but also different recording practices. However, even with these caveats what is available does provide a useful starting point in identifying countries on which further research may be carried out.     

Negotiating Effective International Environmental Agreements: Is an Objective Approach to Differential Treatment Possible?

The negotiation of international environmental agreements is rendered less effective and more costly than necessary on account of the incentives for rent seeking. This article argues that the problem of rent seeking in this context is complicated by the legitimate demand for the differential treatment of relevant heterogeneity, when insufficient information is available to distinguish between demands based on legitimate differences and rent-seeking. In order to reduce the overall costliness of the totality of international resource agreements, the general rule should be that differential treatment should be provided only in exceptional circumstances. A corollary to this rule is that differences that do not affect future negotiating costs may be considered in current negotiations. This points to differences that are exogenous to the bargaining process, such as a country's physical location. It is argued that development status of a country is another such factor, since the incentives to pursue development are unlikely to be affected by its recognition in current negotiations. Furthermore, the failure to recognise development status as a legitimate basis for differentiated treatment implicitly rewards the early identification and exploitation of unmanaged resources. Restriction of differential treatment to a small number of such differences enables the focusing of negotiations, and the structuring of discussions. A case study of the Montreal Protocol illustrates how the differential impacts of a uniform standard may be estimated, once the range of impacts is delimited.     

Mt. Laurel: Is it Based on Wishful Thinking?

“The people of New Jersey should welcome the result reached by the Court in this case, not merely because it is required by our laws, but, more fundamentally, because the result is right and true to the highest American ideals.” With these words Justice Pashman, in his concurring opinion, set forth the underlying assumption upon which the New Jersey Supreme Court based its decision to make the validity of municipal zoning dependent upon a new and complex standard. Mt. Laurel clearly establishes a new judicial standard for judging the validity of municipal zoning. However, whether that standard is likely to achieve its laudable objectives or whether its chances of success will be limited by political realities' that belie the noble ideals upon which the decision is based, remains to be seen.     

Commentary on “Studying Eyewitness Investigations in the Field”: A Look Forward

Schacter et al. (2007, this issue) address the controversy surrounding an Illinois pilot project that attempted to compare sequential versus simultaneous police lineup formats. The statement by these experts will guide the design and execution of future field lineup experiments. This commentary discusses three aspects of field studies that pose challenges as lineup experiments are interpreted: the imprecise meaning of the dependent measure (eyewitness decisions), the limitations of single studies, and the necessity to devise public policy from incomplete knowledge. A combination of laboratory and field information provides the means to determine best practices in eyewitness identification procedures.     

Is “Contribution to the Host States Development” An Essential Criterion to Define Investment Under International Investment Law?: A Search Through the Lens of Arbitral Awards

Liverpool Law Review - International Investment Arbitration proceedings often deliver its Award in two parts: (i) Jurisdiction and (ii) Merit. One of the most debated and controversial elements in...     

Civil-common Law Divergence on Penalties: Is it a Thing of the Past?

Liverpool Law Review - This article examines the rationale for the common law’s penalty rule and finds it lacking. It examines the rule as applied in different common law systems since the...     

Is Differentiation of Frequently Encountered Foreign Bodies in Corpses Possible by Hounsfield Density Measurement?

Abstract:  The radiological determination of foreign objects in corpses can be difficult if they are fragmented or deformed. With multislice computed tomography, radiodensities—referred to as Hounsfield units (HU)—can be measured. We examined the possibility of differentiating 21 frequently occurring foreign bodies, such as metals, rocks, and different manmade materials by virtue of their HU values. Gold, steel, and brass showed mean HU values of 30671–30710 (upper measurable limit), mean HU values for steel, silver, copper, and limestone were 20346, 16949, 14033, and 2765, respectively. The group consisting of objects, such as aluminum, tarmac, car front-window glass, and other rocks, displayed mean HU values of 2329–2131 HU. The mean HU value of bottle glass and car side-window glass was 2088, whereas windowpane glass was 493. HU value determination may therefore help in preautopsy differentiation between case-relevant and irrelevant foreign bodies and thus be useful for autopsy planning and extraction of the objects in question.     

Is good-time appropriate for offenders on electronic monitoring?: attitudes of electronic monitoring directors

Since the development of electronic-monitoring programs in the early 80s, questions have surfaced concerning the similarities between institutionalization policies and electronic-monitoring policies. In the Commonwealth of Virginia, recent debate has centered on whether offenders on electronic monitoring should be awarded good-time credits. This article addresses the use of good-time for electronically monitored offenders by content analyzing comments of thirty electronic-monitoring program supervisors surveyed by the Virginia State Crime Commission in 1997. The data suggest that good-time policies can be useful for electronic-monitoring programs in some situations.     

Whose Business Is It: Is Public Business Conducted on Officials’ Personal Electronic Devices Subject to State Open Records Laws?

State and local officials are increasingly using their own computers, smart phones and personal email accounts to do their jobs. State public records laws do not necessarily prohibit the practice, but a number of these officials have contended that the emails, text messages and other records conducting public business are not subject to state sunshine laws when communicated on these private accounts and devices. They argue that ownership of the device or account determines if the records are open. This article found that in states where authorities have decided the issue, the majority has rejected the notion that ownership trumps content. The article examines the reasoning put forth and determines which arguments have found the most support among state courts and attorneys general asked to decide the issue. The article also suggests solutions to separate those communications that should be public from those that are properly considered private.     

A time to regulate? Possible implications of European human rights law on abortion in Northern Ireland

Since the introduction of the Abortion Act 1967 the legality and status of abortion in Northern Ireland, being excluded from the provisions of the 1967 Act, has remained shrouded in uncertainty. In light of the introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998, this article will explore whether this inconsistency in the UK is in breach of the provisions laid down in Articles 8 and 14. It will be shown that while compelling arguments can be built under these provisions, perhaps the most persuasive arguments in favour of law reform are the inequities that the current legal regime has perpetuated.