DOCSLIB.ORG

Report Template

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Report Template Annual Report 2011 Prelims 14/6/12 11:29 am Page i ANNUAL REPORT 2011 www.biicl.org Annual Report 2011 Prelims 14/6/12 11:29 am Page ii The British Institute of International and Comparative Law Charles Clore House 17 Russell Square London WC1B 5JP Telephone: +44 (0)20 7862 5151 Fax: +44 (0)20 7862 5152 Annual Report 2011 Prelims 14/6/12 11:29 am Page iii Contents GOVERNANCE v ADVISORY COUNCIL vi INSTITUTE STAFF vii INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW QUARTERLY BOARD OF EDITORS x DIRECTOR’S ANNUAL REPORT 2011 1 REPORT BY THE CHAIR OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES 3 SOME IMPACTS OF BIICL RESEARCH IN 2011 5 BIICL RESEARCH STAFF PROFILES 8 BINGHAM CENTRE FOR THE RULE OF LAW 20 INSTITUTE FORUMS Competition Law Forum 24 Investment Treaty Forum 28 Product Liability Forum 34 RESEARCH PROJECTS Armed Conflicts, Peacekeeping, Transitional Justice: Law as Solution (ATLAS) 38 Training and Research on Treaty Law and Practice 39 Comparative Study on Sensitive Information in Civil Proceedings 40 European Contract Law Briefing Notes 40 Climate Change and its Impact on Security and Survival 41 Collective Redress Web Resources 42 Conflict of Laws Rules on Assignment and Subrogation— Article 14 Rome I Regulation 43 Human Rights and Pre-Trial Procedures: Requirements for Police and Prison Authorities 44 Human Rights Responsibilities in Oil and Gas Operations: Applying the UN Guiding Principles 45 Iraqi Government Lawyers Investment Law Training 46 iii Annual Report 2011 Prelims 14/6/12 11:29 am Page iv Reparation for Education-Related Violations of International Law 47 International Law and Education in Situations of Insecurity and Conflict 48 PUBLICATIONS 49 CONFERENCES, LECTURES, SEMINARS AND OTHER EVENTS 51 INSTITUTE DEVELOPMENT 53 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 57 iv Annual Report 2011 Prelims 14/6/12 11:29 am Page v Governance President of the Institute Dame Rosalyn Higgins DBE QC Vice-Presidents of the Institute The Rt Hon Lord Collins of Mapesbury The Rt Hon Sir David Edward KCMG QC Sir Christopher Greenwood CMG QC Board of Trustees Chairman of the Board of Trustees Sir Franklin Berman KCMG QC (from September 2011) Alexander Layton QC (until September 2011) Trustees Clare Algar Mr Justice William Blair Gary B Born Susan Bright Lord Justice Stanley Burnton (from September 2011) Michael Hutchings OBE (until September 2011) Ian Hobbs FCA, CEDR Acc Professor Sir Francis Jacobs KCMG, QC Adam Johnson Professor Rosa Lastra (from September 2011) Paul Lomas Professor Dawn Oliver (from September 2011) Timothy Otty QC (from September 2011) Martin Paisner CBE (until September 2011) Lord Justice Bernard Rix (until September 2011) Keith Ruddock Professor Malcolm Shaw QC Mr Justice Rabinder Singh (from September 2011) Professor Stephen Weatherill Dame Juliet Wheldon DCB QC Advisors to the Board of Trustees Lady Justice Mary Arden DBE Martin Paisner CBE (from September 2011) v Annual Report 2011 Prelims 14/6/12 11:29 am Page vi Advisory Council Dapo Akande Judge David Anderson CMG Sir Christopher Bellamy QC Sir Daniel Bethlehem KCMG QC Professor Alan Boyle The Hon Sir Nicolas Bratza The Rt Hon Lord Justice Carnwath CVO Victoria Cochrane Tim Cowen The Hon Mr Justice Cranston Professor James Crawford SC FBA Clare Dyer Professor Piet Eeckhout Professor Malcolm Evans CBE Helen Fletcher Rogers Lady Fox CMG QC Dr David Freestone Professor Sir Roy Goode CBE LLD FBA QC The Rt Hon Baroness Hale of Richmond Professor Jonathan Harris The Rt Hon Lord Hoffmann PC The Rt Hon Lord Hope of Craighead Alan Jenkins Judge Koen Lenaerts Sir Elihu Lauterpacht CBE QC Mr Justice Lloyd Jones John Louth The Rt Hon Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin The Rt Hon Lord Mance HE Judge Thomas Mensah The Rt Hon Lord Neill of Bladen QC Sir Peter North CBE DCL FBA QC The Rt Hon Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers The Rt Hon Lord Justice Richards Professor Jonathan Rickford CBE Joshua Rozenberg The Rt Hon Sir Konrad Schiemann The Rt Hon Lord Justice Sedley Advocate-General Eleanor Sharpston QC Judge Bruno Simma Judge Christiaan Timmermans Andrew Trollope QC Stephen Walzer vi Annual Report 2011 Prelims 14/6/12 11:29 am Page vii Institute Staff Professor Robert McCorquodale Director of the Institute Professor Sir Jeffrey Jowell KCMG QC Director of the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law Jill Barrett Dorset Senior Research Fellow in Public International Law Dr Jonathan Bonnitcha Research Fellow in Business and Human Rights (from July 2011) N Jansen Calamita Senior Research Fellow in International Investment and Trade Law, Director of the Investment Treaty Forum Diane Denny Development Director Rosie Dickinson Development Administrator and Reception (from April 2011) Katherine Eden-Haig Marketing and Events Manager (maternity cover from July 2011) Dr Duncan Fairgrieve Senior Research Fellow in Comparative Law, Director of the Product Liability Forum Michael Hall Database Manager Kristin Hausler Research Fellow in Public International Law Sandra Homewood Executive Assistant to the Institute and Bingham Centre Administrator Bart Kolerski IT Support Hayk Kupelyants Research Fellow in Private International Law (from June 2011) Dr Eva Lein Herbert Smith Senior Research Fellow in Private International Law vii Annual Report 2011 Prelims 14/6/12 11:29 am Page viii Faria Medjouba Research Fellow on the ATLAS Project Dr Philip Marsden Senior Research Fellow in Competition Law, Director of the Competition Law Forum Jane Nicholson-Biss Marketing and Events Manager Liz Osborne Publications Coordinator (from July 2011) Geoffrey Sautner General Manager Darryl Seaman Director of Finance Jayantha Sivanathan Finance Officer Justine Stefanelli Maurice Wohl Research Fellow in European Law Nicole Urban Research Fellow in International Humanitarian Law (from August 2011) Alexa van Sickle Publications Coordinator (until June 2011) Danielle Wright Events Coordinator Bingham Centre Fellows Jonathan Cooper Director of Training and Education (part-time) Professor Adam Tomkins Tom Hickman Michael Fordham QC Naina Patel viii Annual Report 2011 Prelims 14/6/12 11:29 am Page ix Visiting Fellows Prof Margot Horspool Marco Rizzi Jane Welch Montserrat Abad Castelos Joseph Perkovich Dr Armin Kammel Dr Robert Schuetze Eunyoung Kim Oliver Jones Dr Conor McCarthy Dr Ali Abrishami Ben Milligan Stefano Cherti Dr Heli Askola Paul Barnett Dr Marta Requejo Dr George Barker Sahib Singh Alex Bates Dr Santiago Alvarez-Gonzalez Tim Cowen Prof Matthias Lehmann Andrew Dickinson Dr Justyna Bazylin´ska Dr Ferdinando Franceschelli Annabel Lee Raphael Heffron Prof Franco Silvano Toni di Cigoli Hugh Hollman Prof Jane Stapleton Vincent Smith Chulsoo Kim Thiago Lins Daesoo Son Sunil Rao Jeremy Gauntlett SC Dr Barbara Woodward Frank Pelser Prof Beatriz Campuzano Diaz Prof Anton Cooray Interns Bahar Hatami Alamdari Kati Kaarlehto Rhonson Salim Natalya Barylko Stephanie Law Victoria Sementsova Anna Blachura Nadia Syed Sarah Sheppard Sam Bright Annabel Lee Kirsten Sjovoll Clara Cesar Polly Wen-Hui Lee Linda Strazdina Dodo Chochitaichvili Felix-Anselm van Lier Olivia Wybraniec Alexis Cooke Oliver Linch Elena Mirela Ursache Camille Dropsy Giovanna Lojacono Lina Vitolo Jasmine Fisher Caroline Mair Ruth Wainwright Rebecca Francis Veronika Minkova Daniel Wand Mathilde Groppo Hemeeni Mistry Camilla Wee Jenny Hartmann Sophie Pattison Charlotte Yan Willa Huang Cristina-Raluca Racota Charles Yu Louise Hubert Catalina Rojas Maria Zaveta ix Annual Report 2011 Prelims 14/6/12 11:29 am Page x International and Comparative Law Quarterly Board of Editors General Editors Professor Catherine Redgwell, University College London Professor Robert McCorquodale, Institute Director Board of Editors Professor Malcolm Evans, University of Bristol Christine Chinkin, London School of Economics Professor James Fawcett, University of Nottingham Professor Christine Gray, University of Cambridge Professor Paula Giliker, University of Bristol Professor Jo Shaw, University of Edinburgh Assistant Editor Liz Osborne Editors of Current Developments Sections Public International Law Professor Dominic McGoldrick, University of Liverpool Dr Sarah Williams, University of New South Wales European Union Law Professor Joe McMahon, University of Dublin Decisions of International Courts and Tribunals Professor Craig Barker, University of Sussex Private International Law Professor Peter McEleavy, University of Dundee Book Review Editors Professor Francesco Giglio, University of Manchester Dr Andrew Lang, London School of Economics Therese O’Donnell, University of Strathclyde x Annual Report 2011 14/6/12 11:30 am Page 1 Director’s Annual Report 2011 2011 was a momentous year in international events, with the Arab Spring leading to changes of government, financial turmoil in European economies and the creation of a new State (of South Sudan), being just some events that had global impacts. International and comparative legal issues were relevant to these events and the Institute responded with interesting and engaging seminars and discussions. At the same time, the Institute worked on a range of matters that were not always at the fore- front of the media but which have deep impact on the daily lives of people, companies, governments and organisations. These included research on education-related violations in insecurity and conflicts, events on changes to competition law processes, investigations into comparative collective redress measures, reports on security measures, and studies on harmon- isation of private international law. We also celebrated 60 years of the International and Comparative Law Quarterly. These,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Constitution Unit Monitor 63 / June 2016
    1 Constitution Unit Monitor 63 / June 2016 In addition, important questions relate to the referendum The EU referendum: process itself. Democracy requires that referendums be conducted fairly, but the rules surrounding referendums in a fair process? the UK remain deeply contested. As reported in Monitor 61 (page 12) and 62 (page 11), the legislation enabling the The forthcoming referendum on whether the UK referendum passed through parliament last year amidst should remain a member of the European Union or leave much controversy and only after multiple government – to be held on 23 June – has raised many important concessions. Since David Cameron announced the date constitutional questions. of the vote on 20 February, five important aspects of referendum conduct have received particular attention. In part, these concern the implications that a vote for Brexit would have for the constitution and the First, in line with the Prime Minister’s announcement distribution of power in the UK and the EU. As reported in January, ministers have been allowed to campaign elsewhere in this edition of Monitor, these issues have against the government’s position of supporting a been addressed in a series of Constitution Unit seminars vote to remain in the EU. Five full members of cabinet and briefing papers in recent weeks (see page 14). The have done so (one of whom – Iain Duncan Smith – has briefing papers, as well as videos of the seminars, are subsequently resigned), as have a number of junior available online. The process of Brexit has also been ministers. This is only the third time that ministers examined in detail on the Constitution Unit blog by from the same party have been allowed to disagree so Alan Renwick.
    [Show full text]
  • High Court Judgment Template
    Appeal No: SC/116/2012 Hearing Date: 13 and 14 February 2014 Date of Judgment: 15 April 2014 SPECIAL IMMIGRATION APPEALS COMMISSION Before: THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE IRWIN “D2” APPELLANT and SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT RESPONDENT JUDGMENT ON PRELIMINARY ISSUE: DISCLOSURE For the Appellant: Mr H Southey QC and Mr Edward Grieves Instructed by: Wilson Solicitors LLP For the Respondent: Mr Tim Eicke QC and Mr Robert Wastell Instructed by: The Treasury Solicitor Mr Justice Irwin : 1. In this judgment I address a preliminary issue in the appeal, namely what is required as a minimum by way of disclosure in these proceedings. The Appellant seeks to establish, by one or both of two discrete legal routes, that there is an obligation imposed on the Respondent to disclose “an irreducible minimum” of the national security case against the Appellant. Mr Hugh Southey QC for the Appellant argues firstly that by reason of developing jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, the decisions of the English Court of Appeal in IR(Sri Lanka) and others v SSHD [2012] 1 WLR 232 and R(BB) v SIAC and SSHD [2013] 1 WLR 1568 are wrongly decided. As a further argument, Mr Southey submits that the decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union in ZZ(France) v SSHD [2013] 3 WLR 813 (Case C – 300/11) and the Court of Appeal in ZZ v SSHD [2014] EWCA Civ 7 have the effect of importing an obligation of an “irreducible minimum” of disclosure of the national security case, effectively the same as that which has been held to arise where the facts of a case engage the prohibition on arbitrary detention contrary to Article 5(4) of the ECHR, as decided by the Strasbourg Court in A v United Kingdom (2009) 49 EHRR 29 and confirmed by the House of Lords in AF(No.3) v SSHD [2010] 2 AC 269.
    [Show full text]
  • OSJI-Strengthening from Within.Indd
    STRENGTHENING from WITHIN LawLaw andand PracticePractice in thethe SSelectionelection ofof HumanHuman RightsRights JudgesJudges andand CommissionersCommissioners OPEN SOCIETY JUSTICE INITIATIVE Strengthening from Within Law and Practice in the Selection of Human Rights Judges and Commissioners Strengthening from Within Law and Practice in the Selection of Human Rights Judges and Commissioners A report of the Open Society Justice Initiative and the International Commission of Jurists Copyright © 2017 Open Society Foundations. This publication is available as a pdf on the Open Society Foundations website under a Creative Commons license that allows copying and distributing the publication, only in its entirety, as long as it is attributed to the Open Society Foundations and used for noncommercial educational or public policy purposes. Photographs may not be used separately from the publication. The Open Society Institute Budapest Foundation constitutes a foreign financed organi- zation under the par. 1.1 of the Act LXXVI of 2017. ISBN: 978-1-940983-75-2 Published by Open Society Foundations 224 West 57th Street New York, NY 10019, USA www.opensocietyfoundations.org For more information, please contact: Christian M. De Vos Advocacy Officer Open Society Justice Initiative [email protected] Róisín Pillay Director, Europe Programme International Commission of Jurists [email protected] Cover designed by Judit Kovács l Createch Ltd. Text layout and printing by Createch Ltd. Table of Contents Acknowledgments 9 Abbreviations 11 Executive Summary and Recommendations 13 I. Introduction 23 II. Judicial Selections and Appointments: The International Legal Framework 29 III. Law, Standards, and Procedures for Regional Human Rights Courts and Commissions 35 A. European Court of Human Rights 35 1.
    [Show full text]
  • INSURANCE CONTRACT LAW Issues Paper 6 Damages for Late Payment and the Insurer’S Duty of Good Faith the LAW COMMISSIONS – HOW WE CONSULT
    The Law Commission and The Scottish Law Commission INSURANCE CONTRACT LAW Issues Paper 6 Damages for Late Payment and the Insurer’s Duty of Good Faith THE LAW COMMISSIONS – HOW WE CONSULT About the Law Commissions: The Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission were set up by the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are: The Rt Hon Lord Justice Munby (Chairman), Professor Elizabeth Cooke, David Hertzell, Professor Jeremy Horder and Frances Patterson QC. The Chief Executive is Mark Ormerod CB. The Scottish Law Commissioners are: The Hon Lord Drummond Young (Chairman), Laura J Dunlop QC, Professor George L Gretton, Patrick Layden QC, TD and Professor Hector L MacQueen. The Chief Executive is Malcolm McMillan. Topic: We ask whether a policyholder should be able to claim damages from their insurer for the late or non-payment of an insurance claim. We consider whether this might be achieved by reform of the insurer’s post-contract duty of good faith. We welcome views on our provisional recommendations. Geographical scope: England and Wales, Scotland. Duration of the consultation: from 24 March 2010 to 24 June 2010. How to respond Please send your responses either – By email to: [email protected] or By post to: Martyn Naylor, Law Commission, Steel House, 11 Tothill Street, London SW1H 9LJ Tel: 020 3334 0286 / Fax: 020 3334 0201 If you send your comments by post, it would be helpful if, where possible, you also send them to us electronically (in any commonly used format).
    [Show full text]
  • Discussion Paper on Heritable Securities: Pre-Default
    (DISCUSSION PAPER No.168) Discussion Paper on Heritable Securities: Pre-default discussion paper Discussion Paper on Heritable Securities: Pre-default June 2019 DISCUSSION PAPER No 168 This Discussion Paper is published for comment and criticism and does not represent the final views of the Scottish Law Commission NOTES 1. Please note that information about this Discussion Paper, including copies of responses, may be made available in terms of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. Any confidential response will be dealt with in accordance with the 2002 Act. We may also (i) publish responses on our website (either in full or in some other way such as re-formatted or summarised); and (ii) attribute comments and publish a list of respondents' names. 2. Where possible, we would prefer electronic submission of comments. A downloadable electronic response form for this paper as well as a general comments form are available on our website. Alternatively, our general email address is [email protected]. 3. Please note that all hyperlinks in this document were checked for accuracy at the time of final draft. 4. If you have any difficulty in reading this document, please contact us and we will do our best to assist. You may wish to note that the pdf version of this document available on our website has been tagged for accessibility. 5. © Crown copyright 2019 You may re-use this publication (excluding logos and any photographs) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0. To view this licence visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3; or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, TW9 4DU; or email [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • The Government's Independent Review of the Human Rights
    House of Commons House of Lords Joint Committee on Human Rights The Government’s Independent Review of the Human Rights Act Third Report of Session 2021–22 Report, together with formal minutes relating to the report Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 23 June 2021 Ordered by the House of Lords to be printed 23 June 2021 HC 89 HL Paper 31 Published on 8 July 2021 by authority of the House of Commons and House of Lords Joint Committee on Human Rights The Joint Committee on Human Rights is appointed by the House of Lords and the House of Commons to consider matters relating to human rights in the United Kingdom (but excluding consideration of individual cases); proposals for remedial orders, draft remedial orders and remedial orders. The Joint Committee has a maximum of six Members appointed by each House, of whom the quorum for any formal proceedings is two from each House. Current membership House of Commons Harriet Harman QC MP (Labour, Camberwell and Peckham) (Chair) Karen Buck MP (Labour, Westminster North) Joanna Cherry QC MP (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh South West) Angela Richardson MP (Conservative, Guildford) Dean Russell MP (Conservative, Watford) David Simmonds MP (Conservative, Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) House of Lords Lord Brabazon of Tara (Conservative) Lord Dubs (Labour) Lord Henley (Conservative) Baroness Ludford (Liberal Democrat) Baroness Massey of Darwen (Labour) Lord Singh of Wimbledon (Crossbench) Powers The Committee has the power to require the submission of written evidence and documents, to examine witnesses, to meet at any time (except when Parliament is prorogued or dissolved), to adjourn from place to place, to appoint specialist advisers, and to make Reports to both Houses.
    [Show full text]
  • Speakers / Panelists 9 December 2020 10:00 A.M. – 5:30 P.M. 70 Years of the European Convention on Human Rights Safeguarding H
    Speakers / Panelists 9 December 2020 10:00 a.m. – 5:30 p.m. 70 Years of the European Convention on Human Rights Safeguarding Human Rights in Germany and Europe Heiko Maas Federal Foreign Minister Born in Saarlouis on 19 September 1966. Heiko Maas was appointed Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs on 14 March 2018. Before that, he served as Federal Minister of Justice and Consumer Protection in the previous government from 2013 until 2018. Before he was appointed Federal Minister in 2013, Heiko Maas had been a member of the Saarland State Government and a member of the Saarland Landtag (State Parliament) since 1994. In the Saarland, he served as Minister of Environment, Energy and Transport between 1998 and1999 and as Minister of Economics, Labour, Energy and Transport as well as Deputy Minister-President of Saarland from 2012 until 2013. He holds a law degree from the University of Saarland. Christine Lambrecht Federal Minister of Justice and Consumer Protection Christine Lambrecht has held the office of German Federal Minister of Justice and Consumer Protection since June 2019. She completed her law degree in 1995 and has been a Member of the German Bundestag since 1998. Among other positions, she has served as Member of the Bundestag’s Council of Elders and as Parliamentary State Secretary at the Federal Ministry of Finance. 1 Dr. Bärbel Kofler Federal Government Commissioner for Human Rights Policy and Humanitarian Assistance at the Federal Foreign Office Dr. Bärbel Kofler has been the Federal Government Commissioner for Human Rights Policy and Humanitarian Assistance since 2016. Her mandate includes advising the Federal Government on Germany’s human rights and humanitarian aid policies.
    [Show full text]
  • Spring 2011 Middle Temple Staff
    The Middle Templar The Honourable Society of the Middle Temple Issue 50 Spring 2011 Middle Temple Staff Under Treasurer Elect Catherine Quinn The Inn’s New Under Treasurer Executive Assistant & Catherine Quinn Head of Bench Administration Kristine McGlothlin 020 7427 4804 Catherine Quinn will join the Middle Temple as [email protected] Under Treasurer on 3 May 2011. Deputy Under Treasurer In her current role, she heads the grant-giving Chris Suckling operations of The Wellcome Trust, the world’s 020 7427 4868 second largest charitable foundation. As Head of [email protected] Grants Management, she is responsible for the management and strategic direction of core services Deputy Under Treasurer (Education) for the international biomedical science research Christa Richmond community. 020 7427 4800 [email protected] Prior to joining the Wellcome Trust in 2007, Catherine held several positions over a Director of Catering & Marketing period of 15 years at the University of Oxford, many of them bridging the academic- Colin Davidson business interface. Most recently, she led the Business Innovation and Consulting 020 7427 4820 Group at Isis Innovation Limited (Oxford’s wholly-owned technology transfer [email protected] company); and from 1999 to 2006, she was the University’s Director of Research Services, with a remit encompassing the provision of multi-site academic services, Director of Estates the University’s external research funding portfolio, intellectual property and Ian Garwood sponsor relations. 020 7427 4840 [email protected] In the 1990s, as Assistant Registrar, Catherine managed faculty board business and was Secretary to a number of mainstream strategy and policy committees.
    [Show full text]
  • CJSM Update at 24 May 2013
    Organisation Name Town/City Secure eMail Address A Ritchie GLASGOW [email protected] A.C. Miller & Mackay PERTH & KINROSS [email protected] A.C. Miller & Mackay PERTH & KINROSS [email protected] A.C. Miller & Mackay PERTH & KINROSS [email protected] A.C. Miller & Mackay PERTH & KINROSS [email protected] A.J. Gordon & Co GLASGOW [email protected] Aamer Anwar & Co GLASGOW [email protected] Aamer Anwar & Co GLASGOW [email protected] Aamer Anwar & Co GLASGOW [email protected] Aamer Anwar & Co GLASGOW [email protected] Aberdein, Considine & Co. ABERDEEN [email protected] Aberdein, Considine & Co. ABERDEEN [email protected] Aberdein, Considine & Co. ABERDEEN [email protected] Aberdein, Considine & Co. ABERDEEN [email protected] Adams Whyte EDINBURGH [email protected] Alex Muir NORTH AYRSHIRE [email protected] Alex. Brown & Co. HIGHLAND [email protected] Allan Kerr EAST AYRSHIRE [email protected] Anderson Shaw & Gilbert [email protected] Anderson Shaw & Gilbert [email protected] Anderson Shaw & Gilbert [email protected] Anderson Strathern LLP EDINBURGH [email protected] Anderson Strathern LLP EDINBURGH [email protected] Anderson Strathern LLP EDINBURGH [email protected] Anderson Strathern LLP EDINBURGH [email protected]
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Input Into Parliamentary Legislation V2 RH 21 Sept 2016 9121 Words
    Judicial Input into Parliamentary Legislation v2 RH 21 Sept 2016 9121 words Introduction This article arises from a much wider, AHRC-funded project on the Politics of Judicial Independence.1 During that project we developed in interest in the changing relations between the judiciary and Parliament, as senior judges recognised a growing need to give an account to Parliament of their stewardship of the judiciary and the courts after the Lord Chief Justice replaced the Lord Chancellor as head of the judiciary in 2006, and they became jointly responsible for the Courts Service in 2007.2 The main way in which judges explain their work to Parliament is by appearing before Select Committees, which they do with surprising frequency. Patrick O’Brien and Robert Hazell found 418 instances of judges giving oral and written evidence to parliamentary committees between 1979 and 2014, an average of 12 occasions a year.3 Most judicial evidence involved talking about the work of the courts and tribunals, or matters such as judicial appointments, but in a small proportion (around 20 per cent) of cases judges were invited to give evidence about proposed legislation to committees considering bills or draft bills. Judicial evidence on bills is of particular interest, because under the Guidance to Judges on Appearances before Select Committees the Judicial Executive Board has decreed that judges should not comment on, inter alia, ‘The merits, meaning or likely effect of provisions in any Bill or other prospective legislation and the merits of government policy’.4 Robert Hazell therefore decided to embark on a further study looking specifically at judicial evidence on bills, to find out what judges were able to talk about to Parliament without transgressing the guidelines.
    [Show full text]
  • Eversheds Sutherland & CC Restructure Tech Teams Fulcrum Solves Ebilling Crisis at Bradford & Barthel
    aka ‘The Orange Rag’ Top stories in this issue… Thomson Reuters’ wholesale restructure, p.4 Business Drivers for Document Management, p.9 How to Evaluate Legal Technology that Improves Efficiency, p.11 Blockchain special feature, p.14 What now for LexisOne, p.18 UK Top 50 IT profiles: Clifford Chance and Pinsent Masons, p.24 they are going to drift apart,” he says. “We have Eversheds one canoe that is keeping the platform working well, making sure you can log in anywhere in the world and Sutherland & CC that our clients’ data is being looked after. Then there is the opportunity that technology offers in terms of restructure tech disrupting the legal sector. That focus on the future and innovation is the other canoe. Trying to do both at the teams same time - not just me, but the team as well - is a real conflict of priorities.” Two top 20 law firms restructure technology capabilities to reflect changing demands EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND & CC RESTRUCTURE TECH TEAMS CONTINUES ON P2 Both Eversheds Sutherland and Clifford Chance have recently restructured their legal technology teams, separating client-facing innovation from back office IT. Fulcrum solves Eversheds Sutherland IT director Andrew McManus now focuses exclusively on client-facing technology eBilling crisis at and also spearheads the firm’s innovation push. “A separate team looks after the platform of Bradford & Barthel technology that sits behind the scenes, making sure we are billing correctly, storing our documents in the Fulcrum Global Technologies has built West Coast right place, that our emails are working and our data employment firm Bradford & Barthel a customised is secure,” McManus told Legal IT Insider as part of eBilling solution in place of Thomson Reuters’ our new series of profiles of the top 200 firms’ legal eBillingHub, after the firm says it was left with no technology operations.
    [Show full text]
  • OSJI-Strengthening from Within.Indd
    STRENGTHENING from WITHIN LawLaw andand PracticePractice in thethe SSelectionelection ofof HumanHuman RightsRights JudgesJudges andand CommissionersCommissioners OPEN SOCIETY JUSTICE INITIATIVE Strengthening from Within Law and Practice in the Selection of Human Rights Judges and Commissioners Strengthening from Within Law and Practice in the Selection of Human Rights Judges and Commissioners A report of the Open Society Justice Initiative and the International Commission of Jurists Copyright © 2017 Open Society Foundations. This publication is available as a pdf on the Open Society Foundations website under a Creative Commons license that allows copying and distributing the publication, only in its entirety, as long as it is attributed to the Open Society Foundations and used for noncommercial educational or public policy purposes. Photographs may not be used separately from the publication. The Open Society Institute Budapest Foundation constitutes a foreign financed organi- zation under the par. 1.1 of the Act LXXVI of 2017. ISBN: 978-1-940983-75-2 Published by Open Society Foundations 224 West 57th Street New York, NY 10019, USA www.opensocietyfoundations.org For more information, please contact: Christian M. De Vos Advocacy Officer Open Society Justice Initiative [email protected] Róisín Pillay Director of the Europe Regional Programme International Commission of Jurists [email protected] Cover designed by Judit Kovács l Createch Ltd. Text layout and printing by Createch Ltd. Table of Contents Acknowledgments 9 Abbreviations 11 Executive Summary and Recommendations 13 I. Introduction 23 II. Judicial Selections and Appointments: The International Legal Framework 29 III. Law, Standards, and Procedures for Regional Human Rights Courts and Commissions 35 A.
    [Show full text]