‘C’ is for commercial collaboration: enterprise and structure in the ‘middle market’ of counterfeit alcohol distribution

This article utilising the work of Pearson and Hobbs [1] defines the middle market in counterfeit alcohol. Drugs markets have a resemblance to counterfeit alcohol markets in as much that they share the illicit nature of the product and the need to distribute the product at the ‘street’ level. Drawing on two case studies taken from a European regulator the article details the dynamics of the market, the enterprise actions of the actors and how law enforcement responses can, in certain circumstances, make the task of the distributors easier. The traditional notions of organised crime are challenged and organisation of counterfeit alcohol markets is viewed as being reliant upon those who have legitimate access to the market and are able to develop networks of commercial collaborators who by their position in the legitimate market are able to conceal their illicit actions.     

Comment

Abstract

THIS article surveys some of the most significant issues facing Australian legal education today. Although referencing the research of others, the views expressed in this article are necessarily personal to the authors; they represent a “reflective practitioners'” insight into Australian legal education. The perspectives drawn in this article are painted with a broad brush on a large canvas and in an impressionistic style. As with all ‘overviews’, most of the areas discussed warrant further discussion and research. While some of the concerns raised will be of immediate interest to Australians, the broader issues encompass areas relevant to legal educators in countries facing similar problems and undergoing, as is the UK, a major review of legal education.¹     

The conference of European affairs committees: A collective voice for national parliaments in the European union

The role of national parliaments in the European Union has been the subject of intense debate in the last decade. The Maastricht and Amsterdam Treaties contained significant texts aimed at enhancing the role of national parliaments. Several major political figures in Europe have recently discussed the case for making the collective voice of national parliaments better heard and this issue is firmly on the ‘post‐Nice’ agenda.’ In parallel, an important debate has been running between the parliaments themselves about a collective role for national parliaments. Since 1989, a little‐known body has provided a forum for these debates. This article aims to set out the history of that body, and to highlight some of the issues surrounding an enhanced role for national parliaments.