Volume XI, Issue II (September 2021)
Welcome to the second issue of King’s Student Law Review for the academic year 2020/2021. The publication has been considerably delayed as the Journal, like so much else, has been affected by the Covid-19 pandemic. We hope that we are going to press with greater optimism for education and academia than last time, with vaccination offering the hope that study, even international study, is now possible. However, this reopening also throws back into stark relief other pressing global challenges, in particular increasing health and economic inequality, increasing uncertainties about the future of the planet, and an increasing need to respond to populations on the move across the because of war, because of inequality and because of oppression. If we have learned anything from the last 18 months, it must be that humanity, like all living organisms on Earth, is fragile in the face of these globally-scaled events, whether they are mediated through disease or through other human factors, and that we need to cooperate to survive. All the articles in this edition are in some way pertinent to these issues. In all of these issues a role is being played, and needs to be played, by law.
Our publication this time has five articles. The first two were published as advance articles in May 2021, focussed on mandatory Covid-19 vaccination. Emily Ottley wrote on the potential compliance of mandatory vaccination policies with the State’s human rights obligations, asking whether mandatory Covid-19 vaccination for adults in England and Wales might be a justified interference with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. She suggests that such interference could be justified for the protection of health and the economic wellbeing of the country, supposing that the necessary legislation were enacted, but that this would be contingent on both the way in which the scheme was set up and the effectiveness of education/awareness campaigns. In a companion article Mary Lowth wrote an ethical consideration of mandatory Covid-19 vaccination asking when (if at all) it is morally right to compel individuals to act against their own preferences for the sake of others. She suggests that an argument for mandatory vaccination can be derived from the duty of easy rescue, but that there are limits both to the kind of decisions that can be coerced and the degree of coercion that is ethically permissible.
The last four articles are all published in September 2021, and all relate to the role of the law in addressing fairness in the face of globally-scaled challenges to equality, human rights and the planet itself.
The first concerns the need to share access to essential technologies. Akash Thomas Jose and Rida Ameen consider the issue of fair and equal access to licenses for standard essential patents, suggesting that the law has given insufficient attention to the requirement that access should be given on ‘fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory’ (FRAND). terms. They suggest that the ‘non-discrimination’ element of this obligation plays a vital antitrust role, but this has been hampered by the lack of clarity of what ‘non-discrimination’ means, and a failure of courts in the EU and the UK to specifically consider the interpretation of ‘non-discrimination’ from an antitrust point of view.
The second article concerns the response of states to the movement of populations. As the peoples of economically challenged, war-torn and oppressive States increasingly travel by irregular means to seek a better, safer home, Mitchell Hill writes on the pressing topic of refugee refoulement. He argues that refoulement principles are a peremptory legal norm now understood as aimed at protecting refugees from the rights violations which forced them to flee, but suggests that non-refoulement is failing. He explores the reasons for this, including manipulation of concepts like ‘safe State’ and ‘safe third country’, bilateral agreements limiting where refugees may seek asylum, push-back policies, non-binding Diplomatic Assurances which potentially undermine refoulement principles, and vagueness in concepts of permissible derogations which allow States leeway to determine them as they wish. He suggests that this is no longer aligned with the original intentions of the drafters of the 1951 Refugee Convention, and that we can no longer say that non-refoulement is the cornerstone of refugee protection.
The third article concerns Covid-19. Prateek Joinwal considers the impact of Covid-19 on human rights at a global level, as states try to balance the individual rights of citizens against the legitimate public interest in population health. He notes that at the time of writing over 94 countries had passed emergency declarations in the face of Covid-19, 46 of which affected the right to freedom of expression, and 128 of which affected the right to freedom of assembly. He finds that States wishing to circumscribe their liabilities under the multilateral human rights treaties may either rely on their ability with the Convention to limit the application of international convention(s) or may derogate from them altogether, but that it is often unclear which approach has been taken. He suggests that there is a pressing need for international oversight by human rights bodies, which in turn requires states to notify derogations in accordance with procedural guidelines. Not doing so risks allowing authoritarian regimes to unjustly breach their human rights obligations under the cloak of an emergency that has been illegally proclaimed.
In the fourth article Osama Shaaban focusses on accountability for online hate speech. Prior to the Online Harms White Paper and the subsequent Draft Online Safety Bill, victims of social media hate had to resort to civil claims against perpetrators or claims against the social media companies through the E-commerce Directive, both of which had a narrow application and were not helpful to the victims. Civil claims often result in expensive litigation and do not adhere to the needs of the victims; particularly that the social media post(s) be taken down promptly. He analyses the UK’s new regulatory regime, which assigns Ofcom with the responsibility of imposing obligations and issuing penalties on social media companies in cases of non-compliance with the codes of conduct. He suggests both that defined terms in the White Paper and the Online Safety bill would benefit from greater precision and that liability through contract law could and should be placed on social media companies.
We would like to congratulate all our authors on having their work published. The quality of submissions is always very high, but the topicality of these articles made them stand out. We hope you enjoy Volume XI, issue II.
Dr Mary Lowth, Editor-in-Chief, Kings Student Law Review.
In light of the Covid-19 pandemic and the Grand Chamber’s recent decision in Vavřička and others v the Czech Republic, it is time to re-examine the contentious issue of mandatory vaccinations. This raises a number of difficult political, ethical, and legal issues. However, the focus of this paper is on compliance with human rights obligations. More specifically, it asks whether mandatory Covid-19 vaccinations for adults in England and Wales would be a justified interference with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The question of mandating vaccines for adults has so far been under analysed in the case law and legal literature. The conclusion reached here is that the interference could be justified for the protection of health and the economic wellbeing of the country. This supposes that the necessary legislation will be passed by Parliament. It is also contingent on both the way in which the scheme is set up and the ineffectiveness of education/awareness campaigns.
The moral duty to choose to be vaccinated is a duty to exercise autonomy unselfishly, taking proper account of the duty of rescue. This does not imply a community ‘right’ to coerce such duties, since only selfish choices can justifiably be coerced, since these reject the moral duty of easy rescue. Since the ease of choosing to rescue is subjectively determined, for those with extreme aversion vaccination may be too difficult to be required by the duty. Even for those who do choose selfishly the permissible degree of coercion of selfish choices will necessarily be limited to those that do not impair the voluntariness of consent since, irrespective of law, medical ethics do not permit invasion of the bodies of patients without consent. The permissible level of coercion therefore cannot exceed that which permits an ‘all things considered’ decision made for normatively reasonable reasons, as opposed to a choice between evils.
Licenses for standard essential patents must be given on ‘fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory’ (FRAND) terms to ensure that every licensee gains access to standardised technology without being treated unfairly. However, their compliance depends on the scope of each obligation which has not been defined accurately. In particular, the ‘non-discrimination’ obligation has been overlooked, although it is vital to restrict patentees’ monopoly power. This article highlights the lacuna existing in the European Union (EU) and the United Kingdom (UK) regarding the interpretation of this obligation and the courts’ failure to interpret the ‘non-discriminatory’ aspect of FRAND obligations from the antitrust perspective. It further analyses the effects of price and non-price-based discrimination on competition in the market resulting in economic inefficiencies. The article recommends certain guiding factors to be considered by the courts if discrimination between licensees is allowed. It further suggests a model agreement to fulfil the ‘non-discriminatory’ obligation from the antitrust lens.
Non-refoulement prevents States from expelling or returning a refugee to any location where they may face any form of discriminate persecution. This internationally-renowned rule is often referred to as the cornerstone of refugee protection. Despite this, States can be seen adopting a variety of measures which both explicitly and implicitly undermine (or in some instances, wholly violate) the operation of this rule. This situation has become visibly worsened as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. With this in mind, this paper seeks to determine the extent to which non-refoulement truly remains the cornerstone of refugee protection.
Fundamentally, this paper aims to contribute to ongoing discourse within the field of public international law, more particularly international refugee law. Thus, it aims to bring together both the theoretical and factual scene underpinning the non-refoulement principle, assessing this in light of measures arising both before and after the emergence of COVID-19.
The outbreak of the novel coronavirus and its impact on the enforcement of human rights have been subjected to a lot of deliberation in the past few months. States around the world have been looking for measures to balance the conflicting interests of guaranteeing citizens their individual rights with that of protecting the health of the general population, most notably by restricting their liability under international law for the breach of the former rights. This endeavour has inevitably revived the debate on the contours of the right of the State(s) to either limit the application of international convention(s) or to derogate from them altogether. In an attempt to test the murky waters surrounding these two inter-related concepts, this paper aims to discuss the avenues available for member States to circumscribe their liabilities under the multilateral treaty regime, with a special focus on the framework of human rights treaties.
The appointment of Ofcom as the regulator for online harms raises a plethora of regulatory concerns for social media companies. Nevertheless, it remains undoubtedly clear that a core concern emanating from the new regulatory regime relates to the extent to which social media companies will be held to higher standards of accountability. Through evaluating the legal mechanisms entitling online hate speech victims to judicial redress prior to appointing Ofcom as a regulator, the paper develops a more holistic understanding of the socio-legal implications that arise following Ofcom’s appointment and whether this will sufficiently shield victims from hateful content. Upon establishing the contours of the new regulatory regime, the paper evaluates the excessively wide and nebulous duty of care proposed through the White Paper and recommends a more narrowly delineated duty in context with contractual mechanisms.
VOLUME XI ISSUE I (2020)
Welcome to the first issue of King’s Student Law Review for the academic year 2020/2021. Covid-19 has not prevented the submission of a broad range of excellent papers, and we hope that those we have selected for publication will attract a broad range of readership.
We publish in strange and interesting times. A pandemic that only epidemiologists and small, ignored, government departments had imagined 12 months ago, has changed the world. The UK’s longest-serving Supreme Court justice, Lord Kerr, today called it a ‘dystopian nightmare.’ In this dystopian nightmare the clarity of thinking and objectivity of positioning of the law has never been more important. Even in the UK, usually considered one of the world’s more open democracies, the government has sought to position the Supreme Court’s intervention regarding the exercise of powers as unjustified interference (R (on the application of Miller) (Appellant) v The Prime Minister (Respondent) Cherry and others (Respondents) v Advocate General for Scotland (Appellant) (Scotland)  UKSC 41.) It has recently created a ‘panel of experts’ to examine how judicial review challenges are dealt with by the courts, saying it wants to balance the right of citizens to question government policy in court against the executive’s ability to govern effectively. Lord Kerr reminded us, ‘if we are operating a healthy democracy, what the judiciary provides is a vouching or checking mechanism for the validity [of] laws that Parliament has enacted or the appropriate international treaties to which we have subscribed … The last thing we want is for government to have access to unbridled power.’
There are five articles in this edition of the Journal. Lord Kerr’s interview today is pertinent to two of them. In May 2020 he delivered the unanimous ruling of the Supreme Court, overturning the legality of interning Gerry Adams, the former Sinn Féin leader, nearly 50 years ago (R v Adams (Appellant) (Northern Ireland)  UKSC 19). The judgement was highly controversial, with Lord Sumption, who served on the Supreme Court until 2018, critical of its reasoning and its predicted consequences. Jack Bickerton addresses this controversial area when he discusses the tension between human rights legislation and the use of preventive detention as a counterterrorism mechanism. He suggests that this approach is suggestive of a war model of legislation rather than of a criminal model. He argues that this leads to interference with individual rights to liberty, fair trial, and due process, and asks when, if ever, this approach can meet the tests of reasonableness and proportionality which could justify such interference.
When asked (by The Guardian) to choose which had been his most important case, Lord Kerr opted for the 2018 legal challenge brought by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (In the matter of an application by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland) Reference by the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland pursuant to Paragraph 33 of Schedule 10 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (Abortion) (Northern Ireland)  UKSC 27), which ultimately led to reform of Northern Ireland’s abortion laws. Emily Ottley reflects on the continued criminalisation of abortion in England and Wales, suggesting that the law is long overdue for reform. She argues for abortion on request in early pregnancy, that request being made in the context of the patient-centred, ‘best interests’ approach of medical ethics rather than in the context of the criminal law, by considering both the incompatibility of the current law with human rights obligations and the modern prioritisation of respect for autonomy in both medical ethics and law.
As we go to press further stories are emerging from Xinjiang regarding the brutal suppression of the Uyghur people, whilst in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh, over a million Rohingya wait to see whether the International Criminal Court can address the wrongs they have experienced. Malwina Wojcik’s discussion of a European Court case considering Holocaust denial is as pertinent today as it ever was. It should challenge us all to consider the role of law in the understanding of and reflection on history, and on how we understand and value truth. Her article analyses the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Perinçek v Switzerland, which considered whether criminalising denial of the Armenian genocide conflicted with the right to free speech enshrined in Article 10 of the Convention. She examines the judgement in the light of the key arguments for distinct legal treatment of Holocaust denial, suggesting that in affirming different legal treatment of Holocaust denial and denial of other genocides the Strasbourg Court has created a problematic hierarchy of memories.
The rise of virtual currencies, the incomprehensibility, to most of us, of exactly what they are and what guarantee of value ‘lies beneath’ them challenges the ingenuity of the law. The systems on which governments have relied to understand and regulate the movement of money have traditionally been based on the nature of conventional currencies as issued by a monetary authority, and underpinned by something ‘real.’ Virtual currencies are not controlled or regulated through traditional means, and their value is determined by the supply and demand of their market. Ilias Ioannou writes on the law’s response to the tension between their extraordinary potential to function as a means for good, and their equally extraordinary utility for facilitating the intentions of illicit actors. After considering the regulation of virtual currencies in the European Legal Area, he suggests a more comprehensive legal response is needed, one which involves embedding Virtual Currencies into the financial system by redirecting regulation towards the uniqueness of their underlying technology.
Finally, in an article pertinent to the values of fairness, autonomy and choice and how they are balanced against the group ‘good,’ Adyasha Samal examines the Group of Companies Doctrine which prescribes a test to determine whether a non-signatory is bound by an arbitration agreement whose scope is extended to them when this is necessary (or even the only way) in order to resolve the dispute. The Doctrine addresses the (presumed) intention of the parties to arbitrate. She considers the Doctrine’s requirements – for a tight group structure, involvement of the third party in the conclusion of the contract, and common intention of all parties to bind the third party to the agreement – arguing that this focus on behaviour and written agreement functions to uphold arbitration’s core tenet of consent. These considerations of fairness and good faith when ‘deeming consent’, both general principles of contract law in many civil law jurisdictions, are pertinent to consent to many other areas of law, including the criminal law and medical law and the article stands as evidence not only of scholarship on one area, but of the fact that broad reading across many areas can cross-pollinate legal thinking, only to its benefit.
We hope you enjoy Volume XI, issue I.
Dr Mary Lowth, Editor-in-Chief, Kings Student Law Review.
KSLR Vol XI Issue I
Jack Bickerton discusses the legal and moral issues around the use of preventive detention as a counterterrorism mechanism. He suggests that the widespread use of preventive detention as an ‘exceptional measure’ is suggestive of a war model of legislation rather than a criminal model. He argues that this leads to interference with individual rights to liberty, fair trial, and due process, and questions the circumstances in which this approach meets the tests of reasonable and proportionality which might justify such interference
Ilias Ioannou writes on virtual currencies, and the law’s response to the tension between their ingenious potential to function as a means for good, and their equally ingenious utility to illicit actors. After considering the regulation of virtual currencies in the European Legal Area, he suggests a more comprehensive legal response, embedding Virtual Currencies into the financial system by redirecting regulation towards the uniqueness of their underlying technology.
Emily Ottley addresses the criminalisation of abortion in England and Wales, suggesting that the law is long overdue for reform in this area. She argues for abortion to be made available on request in early pregnancy, that request being made within the context of the patient-centred and best interests approach of medical ethics rather than within the context of the criminal law. She approaches this by considering both the incompatibility of the current law with human rights obligations and the modern prioritisation of respect for autonomy in both medical ethics and law.
Adyasha Samal examines the Group of Companies Doctrine which prescribes a test to determine whether a non-signatory is bound by an arbitration agreement whose scope is extended to them when this is necessary in order to resolve the dispute. The Doctrine relies for its justification on a concept of presumed consent. She argues that the Doctrine’s requirements – for a tight group structure, involvement of the third party in the conclusion of the contract, and common intention of all parties to bind the third party to the agreement – arguing that this focus on behaviour and written
agreement functions to uphold arbitration’s core tenet of consent.
Malwina Wojcik analyses the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Perinçek v Switzerland, which considered whether criminalising the Armenian genocide denial conflicted the right to free speech enshrined in Article 10 of the ECHR. She examines the judgement in the light of the key arguments for distinct legal treatment of Holocaust denial, and suggests that in affirming different legal treatment of Holocaust denial and denial of other genocides the Strasbourg Court has created a problematic hierarchy of memories.
VOLUME X ISSUE II (2020)
VOLUME X ISSUE I (2019)
VOLUME IX ISSUE II (2019)
VOLUME IX ISSUE I (2018)
VOLUME VIII ISSUE II (2017)
VOLUME VIII ISSUE I (2017)
Giulia Gentile – The “Crossed Judicial Scrutiny” of the European Court of Human Rights and International Court of Justice: A Plea for Reforms in Order to Enhance Coordination Between International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law
VOLUME VII ISSUE II (2016)
VOLUME VII ISSUE I (2016)
VOLUME VI, ISSUE I (2015) – Spring Issue
VOLUME V, ISSUE II – Winter 2014
Defining Tax Avoidance, pp. 16-32
Dworkin’s Argument on Abortion, pp. 33-51
Property Law: The Unsung Hero of North Sea Oil and Gas, pp. 52-66
Demetris Hadjiosif and Constantinos Yiallourides
Science, Expertise and Due Deference, pp. 83-98
VOLUME V, ISSUE 1 – Spring 2014
Asylum for Refusing to Fight: Charting the Development Towards the Right to Conscientious Objection, pp. 1-15
Amy F. W. Corcoran
Ownership as Authority, pp. 16-29
Freedom of Speech: A Pernicious Shroud for Homophobia, pp. 30-42
Do Children Require Special Protection Under International Human Rights Law?, pp. 43-57
Maximising Utility: Applying Utilitarian Theory to International Patent Law, pp. 58-77
Recognition of the English Solvent Schemes of Arrangement in Germany, pp. 78-91
VOLUME IV, ISSUE 2 – 2013 (Download)
An evaluation of reforms to auditor liability: a necessity or a step toofar? by Aureilia Jayne Storey, University of Birmingham
- Are International Human Rights selfish?
by Ervis Haziri, Queen Mary, University of London
- The UK and its ‘good tax system’: an analysis based on evolving criteria
by Ligali Ajibola Ayorinde, Queen Mary, University of London
- The future of Maltese tax litigation after John Geranzi Ltd. v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
by Nicola Jaccarini, University of Malta
- Absence of Precedent in Investment Arbitration: A Missed Opportunity to Clarify Standards of Protection
by Devrim Deniz Celik, University College London
- Development of Corporate Ownership and Control in China
by Min Yan, King’s College London
- House of Lords Reform: Where now?
by Scott Wallace, Girton College, University of Cambridge
- Negotiation and Mediation: Promoting a Culture of Injustice?
by Charitha Shashiraj, NALSAR University of Law, India
- Case Comment: Balancing Freedom of Religion in the Workplace, Eweida and Others v the United Kingdom (Application numbers 48420/10, 59842/10, 51671/10 and 36516/10)
by Natalie Pratt, University of Oxford
- Searching, Suggesting and Speaking: Does a Company Have Recourse for Defamation on Google?
by Donal Scott, London School of Economics and Political Science
VOLUME IV, ISSUE 1 – 2013 (Download)
- Two years later: revisiting the Supreme Court’s decision to eliminate expert immunity by Chintan Chandrachud, University of Oxford
- Engaging law with social reality for the legal protection of unmarried cohabiting couples by Kelly Reeve, University of Warwick
- Derivative Actions in the UK: Revised yet unimproved image about derivatives market
by Shaowei Lin, University of Edinburgh
- Religious Hate Speech Regulation: Counteracting Inequality or Counterproductive?
by John-Marjason-Stamp, University of Oxford
- The Relationship between European Union Law and International Law through the Prism of the Court of Justice’s ETS Judgment: Revisiting Kadi I
by Ana Júlia Maurício, University of Cambridge
- Albert Dzur, Punishment, Participatory, Democracy, and the Jury
- Andrew Keay, The Corporate Objective
VOLUME III, ISSUE 2 – APRIL 2012 (DOWNLOAD)
- English Public Law on Children has Found a More Acceptable Balance Between the Welfare of the Child on the One Hand and the Rights of the Child’s Parents on the Other than the Private Law on Residence and Contact Disputes
by Amarit Kaur Dhaliwal
- The Horizontal Direct Effect of Directives – Time For a Change in Direction?
by Emma Morgaine Williamson
- Racially Biased Juries in the Criminal Court
by Paul Gavin
- Why Twail Must Not Fail: Origins & Applications of Third World Approaches to International Law
by Vikrant Dayanand Shetty
- Poets As Legislators: Robert Browning’s Influence on the Reform on Equity in the Victorian Era
by Morshed Mannan
- The Case for Kosovo’s Statehood and the Use of Principles of International Law
by Mustafa Latif-Aramesh
- Sadomasochism and the Criminal Law: A Human Rights Approach
by Stephen Doherty
- Morality in Laws and Victimless Crimes
by Danish X
- NAFTA Chapter 19: The Good, The Bad & The WTO
by Shivankar Sharma
- The Interpretation of the Doctrine of Piercing the Corporate Veil by the UK Courts is More Successful Than By the US Courts
by Florence Gakungi
- The Principle of Procedural Autonomy and the Principle of Eﬀectiveness of the Judicial Protection in the Recent ECJ Case Law: The Issue of Jurisdictional Rules
by Alessandro di Mario
- Francis N. Botchway (ed.), “Natural Resource Investment and Africa’s Development”
by Baskaran Balasingham
- Andrew D. Mitchell, “Legal Principles in WTO Dispute”
by Benedikte Barsett
- Renato Nazzini, “The Foundations of European Union Competition Law: The Objective and Principles of Article 102”
by Charlotte Vermeerschv
- Case Note on Sedjic And Finci v. Bosnia And Herzegovina
by Nasia Hadjigeorgiou
VOLUME III, ISSUE 1 – DECEMBER 2011 (DOWNLOAD)
- ‘Introducing a “British Bill of Rights”‘
by Emma Sau Hong Lui
- ‘Critical Analysis of the Concept of a “Reasonably Available Alternative Measure” in the Context of Article XX GATT, in the Light of the Panel and Appellate Body Rulings in Brazil-Tyres‘
by Corinna Paeffgen
- ‘Commutative Justice in Tort: Towards a “Pure” Rights-Based Theory’
by Jonathan Michael Cockfield
- ‘Can a Persuasive Case Be Made That the Monarch is an Efficient Part of the Constitution?’
by Dominic Bright
- ‘Gill v RSPCA: Law, Principle and Policy’
by Ranamit Banerjee
- ‘Behind the Walls of the Forbidden Court: How US Courts Bar Access to Foreign Claimants’
by Jacopo Crivellaro
- ‘Caribbean Court of Justice or the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council? A Discussion on the Final Appellate Court for the Commonwealth Carribean’
by Matthew Gayle
- ‘Tom Bingham’s “The Lives of the Law”‘
by Stefan Mandelbaum
VOLUME II, ISSUE 1 – DECEMBER 2010 (DOWNLOAD)
- ‘The EU Maintenance Regulation: A qualified success for European Family Law’
by Philip Bremner
- ‘Moral Hazard and How It Was Invoked in the Northern Rock Crisis of 2007’
by Andres Curia Miranda
- ‘Why the Criminal Law Principle of Correspondence Should Prevail Over the Pragmatism of Constructed Liability’
by Dominic JJ Bright
- ‘Selective Abortion: Selecting the right response’
by Chris Cowland
- ‘Procreative Liberty and Selecting for Disability: Section 14(4) Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008’
by Edward M Taylor
- ‘It’s Just Not Cricket: EU Competition Law and its Application to Sporting Rules’
by Eoin Kealy
- ‘The Right to Life Shall Be Secured to Everyone by Law: The Extent to Which the European Court of Human Rights has Developed the Concept of Positive Obligations in Relation to Article 2’
by Louise McCamphill
VOLUME II, ISSUE 2 – APRIL 2011 (DOWNLOAD)
- ‘Live and Let Die: Bringing Physician-Assisted Suicide to the UK’
by Tariq Teja
- ‘The Power of Party: A Critical Examination of Political Party Influence in the House of Commons and the Constituency’
by James Hockin
- ‘An Evaluation of Surrogacy Law and its Potential Development in the UK: Is There a Clear Way Forward?’
by Phillip Anderson
- ‘An Analysis of the Takeover Code’s Treatment of an Acquiring Company’s Shareholders: Stealing From the Rich to Give to the Already Wealthy?’
by Tiernan Fitzgibbon
- ‘How Relevant is Carl Schmitt’s Work Today?’
by Shehram Khattak
- ‘What is at State in the Debate on International Development’
by Romit Bhandari
VOLUME I, ISSUE 1 – 2009 (DOWNLOAD)
- ‘The Armenian Genocide: International Law and the Road to Recovery’
by Neshan Minassian
- ‘The Constitutional Right to Express Hatred: A Comparative Analysis’
by Hin-Yan Liu
- ‘Vicarious Punishment: An Employer’s Vicarious Liability for Exemplary Damages’
by Edward Taylor
- ‘Assessing the Contributions of the EC at the WTO in Facilitating Access to Affordable Medicines in Africa’
by Sharifah Rahma Sekalala and Kingah Sevidzen
- ‘Of What Value if Gramsci’s Concept of Hegemony to our Understanding of Law Today?’
by Sara Fantoni