‘Pre-emptive military strikes against terrorist targets overseas are required for national self-defence and the legal basis on which they are carried out should be made more explicit to deal with increasing threat levels, the UK’s attorney general is due to say on Wednesday.’
The Guardian, 11th January 2017
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has dismissed a high profile challenge by four Portuguese state-owned transport companies to the jurisdiction of the English courts in a dispute over a commonly-used standard form derivatives agreement.’
OUT-LAW.com, 14th December 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Corporations are now widely seen as having responsibilities in regard to human rights abuses. This was thrown starkly onto the front pages recently when a number of high profile UK companies, including M&S and Asos, were caught up in allegations of child refugees from Syria working in very poor conditions for clothing suppliers based in Turkey. They are just one of many instances around the world where corporations have been shown to be involved in human rights abuses.’
OUP Blog, 19th December 2016
Source: www.blog.oup.com
‘This is an extremely important judgment from the Court of Appeal on the reach of the ECHR into war zones, in this case Iraq. The CA, with the only judgment given by Lloyd Jones LJ, disagreed in part with Leggatt J.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 11th September 2016
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘In 2007, I published an article that sought to show in detail how the Iraqi economy had been opened up to allow the transformation of the economy and the routine corruption that enabled a range of private profit-making companies to exploit the post-invasion economy. The article argued that the illegal war of aggression waged by a ‘coalition’ headed by George Bush and Tony Blair was tied to a series of subsequent crimes of pillage and occupation. These included the transformation of the economy and the political system that was explicitly illegal under the terms of the Geneva and Hague Convention; and the mobilisation of political and economic instruments to ‘liberate’ the oil. The recently published Chilcot Report recognizes this corruption – and indeed UK joint legal responsibility for the corruption – and yet the evidence for it has been buried. – See more at: http://blog.oup.com/2016/07/iraq-inquiry-chilcot-money/#sthash.UiY9VxUh.dpuf
OUP Blog, 31st July 2016
Source: www.blog.oup.com
‘Evanna Fruithof, Alexandria Carr and Gordon Nardell QC set out possible models for the UK’s relationship with the EU post-Brexit.’
Counsel, August 2016
Source: www.counselmagazine.co.uk
‘With the constitution of a new UK Government formed around a policy of ‘Brexit’, and the creation of the new ministerial position of ‘Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union’, the likelihood that Article 50 will actually be triggered has increased significantly. In addition to the cavalcade of recent posts addressing who is constitutionally empowered to make the Article 50 notification, attention has also been given to the question of whether an Article 50 notification made in conformity with the constitutional requirements of the UK could be subsequently revoked. An interesting argument raised by Charles Streeten is that ‘an Article 50 notification can be withdrawn unilaterally at any point prior to the expiry of the two year guillotine imposed by Article 50’. This post responds by challenging this argument on two grounds, arguing that ultimately a Member State cannot unilaterally revoke an Article 50 notification once it is made. It will do so by firstly outlining the argument made by Streeten, before explaining its difficulties and attempting to clarify the legal position. In concluding, it will be argued that the decision to trigger Article 50 is one that should be taken with the greatest care; relying upon technical legal arguments to provide a safety net risks creating further uncertainty and undermining the position of the UK in subsequent negotiations.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 27th July 2016
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘Nuclear doom is nearer than most of us believe, experts warn. Britain must set a moral lead by becoming the first of the ‘big five’ powers to reduce its arsenal
The Guardian, 15th July 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Khawar Qureshi QC provides an overview of recent trends and issues relating to the arbitral process’
Counsel, July 2016
Source: www.counselmagazine.co.uk
‘By acting in defiance of the UN charter, as I warned when I was a Foreign Office lawyer in 2003, we put our reputation at risk. So it has proved.’
The Guardian, 7th July 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Britain would still be bound by the judgments of international courts under any serious international free trade agreement with other countries, a leading legal academic has warned MPs.’
The Independent, 5th July 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘The legal case for using drone strikes outside of armed conflict needs “urgent clarification” from ministers, a cross-party parliamentary committee has said.’
BBC News, 10th May 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The British government’s claim that Saudi Arabia’s bombing campaign in Yemen has not breached international humanitarian law is “deeply disappointing” and contributes to an “anything goes” attitude from the opposing sides in the conflict, the international development select committee has said.’
The Guardian, 4th May 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The British government must challenge Saudi Arabia over whether it is using UK weapons to breach international humanitarian law by launching indiscriminate airstrikes in Yemen, a leading lawyer has told the UK arms export control select committee.’
The Guardian, 13th April 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The law in England and Wales will continue to be regarded as “gold standard” internationally despite the fact that the development of case law risks being stifled by the number of confidential arbitrations taking place in London, an expert has said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 4th April 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The parties were married in September 2001 and had one daughter born in October 2002. The husband, a Saudi national, was a businessman of substantial means who married again in 2012 when the parties’ marriage broke down. On their divorce the wife applied for financial relief under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984. The husband applied to strike out the wife’s application , claiming immunity from suit as the permanent representative of St Lucia to the International Maritime Organisation (“IMO”), a post to which he had been appointed on 1 April 2014. The United Kingdom was required, as a matter of international law, to grant privileges and immunities to personal representatives of member states to the IMO in accordance with the Specialised Agencies Convention and the Headquarters Agreement. A permanent representative was entitled to the same immunity from suit and legal process as the head of a diplomatic mission, except that, by article 15 of the International Maritime Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2002), a permanent representative who was permanently resident in the United Kingdom was only entitled to immunities and privileges in respect of his official acts. The Foreign Secretary certified that the Foreign Office had been informed by the IMO of the husband’s appointment as permanent representative of St Lucia, of his arrival date and had not been notified that his diplomatic functions had terminated. Although on the face of it that certificate was conclusive evidence of the husband’s appointment by virtue of section 8 of the International Organisations Act 1968, the judge balanced the husband’s claim to immunity against the wife’s rights to access to the courts under article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. He concluded that the husband had not undertaken any duties or performed any functions as permanent representative, that the appointment was an artificial construct to defeat the wife’s claims on the breakdown of the marriage and that, since the husband was permanently resident in the United Kingdom, he was entitled to immunity only in respect of official acts performed in the exercise of his functions. In consequence the judge refused to strike out the wife’s claim.’
WLR Daily, 22nd March 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The ease with which businesses will be able to win interim injunctions to defend against rivals’ infringements of their patents will be influential in determining whether companies engage with the new Unified Patent Court (UPC).’
OUT-LAW.com, 22nd February 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Downing Street is facing a legal challenge to restore 13 words deleted from the ministerial code that appeared to remove the government’s obligation to uphold international law.’
The Guardian, 11th February 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024