Examining two recent cases of police officers committing serious crimes, including the abduction and murder of Sarah Everard, this article scrutinises the application of Whole Life Orders (WLOs) in such instances. Analysing the Couzens and Carrick cases, it assesses judicial interpretations of WLO eligibility and the impact of legal precedents. Proposing legislative reforms, the article advocates for clearer criteria considering misuse of office as a decisive factor, emphasising the need for balanced sentencing that upholds justice and public trust while ensuring the judicious use of WLOs as a last resort.
{"title":"\u0000 \u0000 \u0000Couzens and Carrick – Whole Life Orders for Police Officers after R v Couzens [2022] EWCA Crim 1063 \u0000 \u0000","authors":"Fee Robinson","doi":"10.61315/lselr.706","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.61315/lselr.706","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 \u0000 \u0000Examining two recent cases of police officers committing serious crimes, including the abduction and murder of Sarah Everard, this article scrutinises the application of Whole Life Orders (WLOs) in such instances. Analysing the Couzens and Carrick cases, it assesses judicial interpretations of WLO eligibility and the impact of legal precedents. Proposing legislative reforms, the article advocates for clearer criteria considering misuse of office as a decisive factor, emphasising the need for balanced sentencing that upholds justice and public trust while ensuring the judicious use of WLOs as a last resort. \u0000 \u0000 \u0000","PeriodicalId":514338,"journal":{"name":"LSE Law Review","volume":"5 23","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140241570","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
English jurisprudence has long established that only those with a legal interest in land may bring an action for nuisance. Although thought to have been challenged by the Court of Appeal in Khorasandjian v Bush, the House of Lords in Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd affirmed the original position, noting the importance of nuisance as a tort against land. With the highest Court in the nation in Fearn v Tate Gallery reframing nuisance as a tort against land, it appears that Courts have conclusively closed the prospects of relief under nuisance for those whose rights fall short of a legal interest in land such a licensees. Yet the policy imperatives advocating for the converse are not insignificant. Licences are important not only in both the domestic and commercial context. This paper seeks to examine the principles on standing to sue for nuisance to consider whether there is anything to gain from extending its protection to licensees. It argues that there is sufficient reason to afford some protection for licensees, albeit it might best be done not by expanding the tort of nuisance, but through the development of a new tort following Manchester v Dutton as identified by Professor Adam Baker.
英国判例长期以来一直规定，只有对土地拥有合法利益的人才可以提起妨害诉讼。虽然上诉法院在 Khorasandjian 诉 Bush 一案中对这一观点提出了质疑，但上议院在 Hunter 诉 Canary Wharf Ltd 一案中肯定了这一最初的立场，并指出了妨害作为一种针对土地的侵权行为的重要性。随着美国最高法院在 Fearn 诉泰特画廊一案中将妨害行为重新定义为针对土地的侵权行为，法院似乎已经彻底关闭了对那些权利不属于土地法定权益的人（如持证人）进行妨害救济的前景。然而，主张反其道而行之的政策要求并非无足轻重。许可证不仅在家庭和商业环境中都很重要。本文试图研究有关妨害诉讼资格的原则，以考虑将其保护范围扩大到持牌人是否有任何益处。本文认为，有足够的理由为被许可人提供一定的保护，尽管最好的办法可能不是扩大妨害侵权行为的范围，而是按照亚当-贝克教授（Professor Adam Baker）提出的曼彻斯特诉达顿（Manchester v Dutton）一案，发展一种新的侵权行为。
{"title":"The Licensee Called - He Wants His Peace Back!","authors":"Nabil Rashad Winarso","doi":"10.61315/lselr.656","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.61315/lselr.656","url":null,"abstract":"English jurisprudence has long established that only those with a legal interest in land may bring an action for nuisance. Although thought to have been challenged by the Court of Appeal in Khorasandjian v Bush, the House of Lords in Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd affirmed the original position, noting the importance of nuisance as a tort against land. With the highest Court in the nation in Fearn v Tate Gallery reframing nuisance as a tort against land, it appears that Courts have conclusively closed the prospects of relief under nuisance for those whose rights fall short of a legal interest in land such a licensees. Yet the policy imperatives advocating for the converse are not insignificant. Licences are important not only in both the domestic and commercial context. This paper seeks to examine the principles on standing to sue for nuisance to consider whether there is anything to gain from extending its protection to licensees. It argues that there is sufficient reason to afford some protection for licensees, albeit it might best be done not by expanding the tort of nuisance, but through the development of a new tort following Manchester v Dutton as identified by Professor Adam Baker.","PeriodicalId":514338,"journal":{"name":"LSE Law Review","volume":"71 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140237243","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The corporate governance literature often focuses on either equity-side or debt-side actors, taking one as a control variable to study the impact of variations in the characteristics of the other. This Article considers how the interplay between the nature debt and equity investments can be analyzed through a theoretical framework to further the understanding of differences in governance outcomes across jurisdictions. Therefore, it builds upon existing literature on controlling shareholders, financial intermediation, and creditor governance to analyze the mirroring setup between controlling and noncontrolling shareholders on the equity side, and private and public lenders on the debt side. It studies the dynamic interaction of these characteristics across jurisdictions where different combinations of debt and equity prevail, before evaluating how this framework can potently explain cross- and intra-jurisdictional variations in governance outcomes.
{"title":"Complicating the Comparative Taxonomy: the Impact on Corporate Governance of the Dynamic Interaction of Creditors and Shareholders","authors":"Louis Noirault","doi":"10.61315/lselr.614","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.61315/lselr.614","url":null,"abstract":"The corporate governance literature often focuses on either equity-side or debt-side actors, taking one as a control variable to study the impact of variations in the characteristics of the other. This Article considers how the interplay between the nature debt and equity investments can be analyzed through a theoretical framework to further the understanding of differences in governance outcomes across jurisdictions. Therefore, it builds upon existing literature on controlling shareholders, financial intermediation, and creditor governance to analyze the mirroring setup between controlling and noncontrolling shareholders on the equity side, and private and public lenders on the debt side. It studies the dynamic interaction of these characteristics across jurisdictions where different combinations of debt and equity prevail, before evaluating how this framework can potently explain cross- and intra-jurisdictional variations in governance outcomes.","PeriodicalId":514338,"journal":{"name":"LSE Law Review","volume":"12 21","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140241050","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Faced with the impact of COVID-19, WHO Member States agreed to draft and negotiate an agreement on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. A proposal for negotiating text of this WHO Pandemic Agreement was prepared by the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body’s Bureau and shared with its Drafting Group in October 2023 for its consideration. This process should lead to the adoption of a legally binding accord. This article considers the usefulness of this international instrument for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response in relation to intellectual property (IP) to ultimately recognise such usefulness but to argue that the negotiating text could be more ambitious. It focuses on the Agreement potential to mitigate the impact of IP regulations that favour developed countries and their pharmaceutical industries. The article first highlights how the international IP system, through the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, disempowered developing countries in their battle against COVID-19. It then focuses on provisions relating to IP law found in the negotiating text to explore and question its potential to contribute to IP equity for developing countries for future pandemics. Finally, the article proposes recommendations to strengthen the impact of a WHO Pandemic Agreement in the fight for IP equity.
{"title":"Fighting for IP Equity: A Zoom on the Forthcoming Who Pandemic Agreement","authors":"Marie-Denise Vane","doi":"10.61315/lselr.666","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.61315/lselr.666","url":null,"abstract":"Faced with the impact of COVID-19, WHO Member States agreed to draft and negotiate an agreement on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. A proposal for negotiating text of this WHO Pandemic Agreement was prepared by the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body’s Bureau and shared with its Drafting Group in October 2023 for its consideration. This process should lead to the adoption of a legally binding accord. This article considers the usefulness of this international instrument for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response in relation to intellectual property (IP) to ultimately recognise such usefulness but to argue that the negotiating text could be more ambitious. It focuses on the Agreement potential to mitigate the impact of IP regulations that favour developed countries and their pharmaceutical industries. The article first highlights how the international IP system, through the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, disempowered developing countries in their battle against COVID-19. It then focuses on provisions relating to IP law found in the negotiating text to explore and question its potential to contribute to IP equity for developing countries for future pandemics. Finally, the article proposes recommendations to strengthen the impact of a WHO Pandemic Agreement in the fight for IP equity.","PeriodicalId":514338,"journal":{"name":"LSE Law Review","volume":"13 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140237486","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article examines to what extent Pillar One Amount A of the OECD's new ‘Two-Pillar’ solution effectively taxes the largest digital multinational enterprises (MNEs). The original purpose behind the OECD’s proposal was to tax the digital economy by defining a sales-based allocation key. However, the metrics behind Amount A – a global turnover of €20bn, a profitability margin of 10% and a limited list of excluded industries – diverge from that policy. This article first examines the policy objective of ‘taxing the digital economy’, and how Amount A is understood to work by exploring how the ‘residual profits’ criterion and the allocation key apply. By comparing the UNCTAD’s list of the top 100 digital MNEs to those meeting the Amount A metrics using the Orbis database, it is concluded that the majority of digital MNEs would not be subject to Amount A. This article then analyses the economic incidence of Amount A and concludes that, if ‘residual profits’ is a proxy for economic rent and the allocation key remains sales-based, Amount A could successfully target digital MNEs, as they are prone to producing such economic rent and cannot reduce their tax burden by shifting it onto other economic players.
本文探讨了经合组织（OECD）新 "双支柱 "方案中的第一支柱A在多大程度上有效地对最大的数字化跨国企业（MNE）征税。经合组织提案的初衷是通过定义基于销售额的分配关键点来对数字经济征税。然而，金额 A 背后的衡量标准--全球营业额 200 亿欧元、利润率 10%、有限的排除行业清单--却与该政策背道而驰。本文首先探讨了 "对数字经济征税 "的政策目标，以及如何通过探索 "剩余利润 "标准和分配关键点来理解 A 额的作用。本文随后分析了 A 额的经济影响，并得出结论：如果 "剩余利润 "是经济租金的代表，而分配关键仍以销售额为基础，那么 A 额就可以成功地针对数字多国企业，因为它们很容易产生这种经济租金，并且无法通过将其转嫁给其他经济参与者来减轻税负。
{"title":"Does Pillar One Amount A Effectively Tax the Digital Economy?","authors":"Ilsu Erdem Ari","doi":"10.61315/lselr.649","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.61315/lselr.649","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines to what extent Pillar One Amount A of the OECD's new ‘Two-Pillar’ solution effectively taxes the largest digital multinational enterprises (MNEs). The original purpose behind the OECD’s proposal was to tax the digital economy by defining a sales-based allocation key. However, the metrics behind Amount A – a global turnover of €20bn, a profitability margin of 10% and a limited list of excluded industries – diverge from that policy. This article first examines the policy objective of ‘taxing the digital economy’, and how Amount A is understood to work by exploring how the ‘residual profits’ criterion and the allocation key apply. By comparing the UNCTAD’s list of the top 100 digital MNEs to those meeting the Amount A metrics using the Orbis database, it is concluded that the majority of digital MNEs would not be subject to Amount A. This article then analyses the economic incidence of Amount A and concludes that, if ‘residual profits’ is a proxy for economic rent and the allocation key remains sales-based, Amount A could successfully target digital MNEs, as they are prone to producing such economic rent and cannot reduce their tax burden by shifting it onto other economic players.","PeriodicalId":514338,"journal":{"name":"LSE Law Review","volume":"15 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140257870","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper examines how UK ‘hard laws’ can adapt to regulate algorithmic bias in the healthcare context. I explore the causes of algorithmic bias which sets the foundation for how the law will address this issue. I critically analyse elements of the tort of negligence, the Equality Act 2010, and the Medical Devices Regulations 2002 which reveal the inadequacies of these frameworks in their application to algorithmic bias. Following this, I make recommendations on how the law can adjust to ensure that algorithms do not perpetuate existing biases and discriminate against patients. This paper acknowledges that addressing algorithmic bias will involve a mixture of hard and soft law measures, but in the final section, it will be argued that urgent systemic change (data sharing and workplace diversity) is also needed to enable the law to address the effects of algorithmic bias in the healthcare context.
{"title":"How Can the Law Address the Effects of Algorithmic Bias in the Healthcare Context?","authors":"Zoya","doi":"10.61315/lselr.651","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.61315/lselr.651","url":null,"abstract":"This paper examines how UK ‘hard laws’ can adapt to regulate algorithmic bias in the healthcare context. I explore the causes of algorithmic bias which sets the foundation for how the law will address this issue. I critically analyse elements of the tort of negligence, the Equality Act 2010, and the Medical Devices Regulations 2002 which reveal the inadequacies of these frameworks in their application to algorithmic bias. Following this, I make recommendations on how the law can adjust to ensure that algorithms do not perpetuate existing biases and discriminate against patients. This paper acknowledges that addressing algorithmic bias will involve a mixture of hard and soft law measures, but in the final section, it will be argued that urgent systemic change (data sharing and workplace diversity) is also needed to enable the law to address the effects of algorithmic bias in the healthcare context.","PeriodicalId":514338,"journal":{"name":"LSE Law Review","volume":"61 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140257116","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Digital Markets Act (DMA) represents the culmination of over a decade of debate and litigation on how to deal with the impact of the largest technology companies on the European economy. The DMA explicitly seeks to promote fairness and contestability. But it is also undeniable a key motivation behind the regulation was to promote competition and innovation in digital markets. This article aspired to partially address a simple, but complex question: Will the DMA promote innovation? It is argued that the DMA is concerned with the promotion of specific forms of competition innovation, with an emphasis on the structural redistribution of economic rents to achieve its aims. The article posits that the predominant forms of innovation competition promoted in the regulation both exemplify the DMA’s genius as well as its principal failing. By prioritising its pursuit of structural rent distribution, the DMA fails to acknowledge the idiosyncrasies of individual digital markets, instead favouring particular forms of innovation competition. As a result, the regulation is at risk of becoming a regulatory Leviathan: an overbearing set of rules whose objective is to impose or foster particular forms of competitive pressure in the digital sector, regardless of whether such competition is effective.
{"title":"The Digital Markets Act’s Innovation Paradox: Towards a Digital Magna Carta and Leviathan?","authors":"Ishmael Liwanda","doi":"10.61315/lselr.652","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.61315/lselr.652","url":null,"abstract":"The Digital Markets Act (DMA) represents the culmination of over a decade of debate and litigation on how to deal with the impact of the largest technology companies on the European economy. The DMA explicitly seeks to promote fairness and contestability. But it is also undeniable a key motivation behind the regulation was to promote competition and innovation in digital markets. This article aspired to partially address a simple, but complex question: Will the DMA promote innovation? It is argued that the DMA is concerned with the promotion of specific forms of competition innovation, with an emphasis on the structural redistribution of economic rents to achieve its aims. The article posits that the predominant forms of innovation competition promoted in the regulation both exemplify the DMA’s genius as well as its principal failing. By prioritising its pursuit of structural rent distribution, the DMA fails to acknowledge the idiosyncrasies of individual digital markets, instead favouring particular forms of innovation competition. As a result, the regulation is at risk of becoming a regulatory Leviathan: an overbearing set of rules whose objective is to impose or foster particular forms of competitive pressure in the digital sector, regardless of whether such competition is effective.","PeriodicalId":514338,"journal":{"name":"LSE Law Review","volume":"29 21","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140257674","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article criticallyexamines the role played by moral values in the scope and structure of criminal offences. In analysing the nature and practicality of legal moralism as a basis of criminalisation, comparisons will be made to notions of responsibility and judgement, and public accounts of criminal law. For focusing on the use of notions of morality per se, this article will not discuss in detail the differences between accounts of legal moralism and public morality. Based on the account of legal moralism advanced by Antony Duff and John Gardner, this article seeks to offer a revised and more nuanced account of the role played by legal moralism in offering a comprehensive account of the scope and structure of criminalisation based on moral wrongs and the State’s jurisdiction in punishing others.
{"title":"An Examination of the Practicability of Antony Duff and John Gardner’s Legal Moralism as a Basis of Criminalisation in Contemporary English Criminal Law","authors":"Thomas Yeon","doi":"10.61315/lselr.82","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.61315/lselr.82","url":null,"abstract":"This article criticallyexamines the role played by moral values in the scope and structure of criminal offences. In analysing the nature and practicality of legal moralism as a basis of criminalisation, comparisons will be made to notions of responsibility and judgement, and public accounts of criminal law. For focusing on the use of notions of morality per se, this article will not discuss in detail the differences between accounts of legal moralism and public morality. Based on the account of legal moralism advanced by Antony Duff and John Gardner, this article seeks to offer a revised and more nuanced account of the role played by legal moralism in offering a comprehensive account of the scope and structure of criminalisation based on moral wrongs and the State’s jurisdiction in punishing others.","PeriodicalId":514338,"journal":{"name":"LSE Law Review","volume":" 35","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141222192","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The growth of the gig economy sector presents challenges for employment lawyers. Firms such as Uber label their workforce as ‘independent contractors’, meaning many in the gig economy often lie outside the parameters of employment protection laws. Fortunately, recent cases show that courts are not prevented by the mere label of ‘independent contractor’ from holding those working in the gig economy as workers. However, as this paper argues, it is not satisfactory to rely solely on litigation to enhance rights at work in the gig economy. The Taylor Review 2017 suggests that updatingstatutory definitions of personal scope is needed to address the issue. Many commentators and think tanks have labelled this proposal as too pragmatic and argue that a uniform testof employment is preferable. The main thesis of this paper is that pragmatic change, building on the progress made in case law, would be more effective. This is because the retention of an intermediary category of worker, or ‘dependent contractor’, allowsfor both flexibility and enhanced rights. Nonetheless, the government has not implemented any form of legislative change, meaning that over one million people in the gig economy remain without the rights they should be entitled to. This paper concludes that legislative change is therefore greatly needed to protect gig economy workers.
{"title":"Regulating the Scope of Employment in the Gig Economy: Towards Enhanced Rights at Work in the Age of Uber","authors":"Luca Deon","doi":"10.61315/lselr.83","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.61315/lselr.83","url":null,"abstract":"The growth of the gig economy sector presents challenges for employment lawyers. Firms such as Uber label their workforce as ‘independent contractors’, meaning many in the gig economy often lie outside the parameters of employment protection laws. Fortunately, recent cases show that courts are not prevented by the mere label of ‘independent contractor’ from holding those working in the gig economy as workers. However, as this paper argues, it is not satisfactory to rely solely on litigation to enhance rights at work in the gig economy. The Taylor Review 2017 suggests that updatingstatutory definitions of personal scope is needed to address the issue. Many commentators and think tanks have labelled this proposal as too pragmatic and argue that a uniform testof employment is preferable. The main thesis of this paper is that pragmatic change, building on the progress made in case law, would be more effective. This is because the retention of an intermediary category of worker, or ‘dependent contractor’, allowsfor both flexibility and enhanced rights. Nonetheless, the government has not implemented any form of legislative change, meaning that over one million people in the gig economy remain without the rights they should be entitled to. This paper concludes that legislative change is therefore greatly needed to protect gig economy workers.","PeriodicalId":514338,"journal":{"name":"LSE Law Review","volume":" 35","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141221997","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The One Belt One Road Initiative (‘OBORI’ or ‘OBOR’) is a top-level project primarily aimed at increasing infrastructure output and investment. It has been implemented in more than 60 countries across the world and has had a far-reaching impact on transnational trade. In order to respond to the increasing need for legal services to assist in the implementation process, China endeavours to provide a fair and trustworthy legal environment by establishing innovative international commercial courts in certain cities and by reforming existing international arbitration rules. Meanwhile, there remain many challenges to construct a collaborative legal system which covers a large range of jurisdictions, legal customs, and business approaches. This essay contends that the Chinese approach to arbitration and adjudication, since the launch of the OBORI, has undergone a paradigm shift from a domestic approach towards a dynamic and internationalised one. This is a result of the enhancement of the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, the introduction of ad hoc arbitration, and the establishment of the China International Commercial Court (‘CICC’). However, to achieve China’s ambitious plan of promoting its dispute resolution mechanism to an international level, it could further enhance the independence and efficiency of its dispute settlement institutions.
{"title":"One Belt One Road Disputes: Does China Have Dispute Resolution Methods Fit for Purpose?","authors":"J. Zuo","doi":"10.61315/lselr.81","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.61315/lselr.81","url":null,"abstract":"The One Belt One Road Initiative (‘OBORI’ or ‘OBOR’) is a top-level project primarily aimed at increasing infrastructure output and investment. It has been implemented in more than 60 countries across the world and has had a far-reaching impact on transnational trade. In order to respond to the increasing need for legal services to assist in the implementation process, China endeavours to provide a fair and trustworthy legal environment by establishing innovative international commercial courts in certain cities and by reforming existing international arbitration rules. Meanwhile, there remain many challenges to construct a collaborative legal system which covers a large range of jurisdictions, legal customs, and business approaches. This essay contends that the Chinese approach to arbitration and adjudication, since the launch of the OBORI, has undergone a paradigm shift from a domestic approach towards a dynamic and internationalised one. This is a result of the enhancement of the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, the introduction of ad hoc arbitration, and the establishment of the China International Commercial Court (‘CICC’). However, to achieve China’s ambitious plan of promoting its dispute resolution mechanism to an international level, it could further enhance the independence and efficiency of its dispute settlement institutions.","PeriodicalId":514338,"journal":{"name":"LSE Law Review","volume":" 40","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141222168","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：