10040 623 Biicl Annual Report
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
The Use of Management Consultants by the NHS and the Department of Health
House of Commons Health Committee The use of management consultants by the NHS and the Department of Health Fifth Report of Session 2008–09 Report, together with formal minutes and oral evidence Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 30 April 2009 HC 28 [Incorporating HC 28-i and 340-i] Published on 4 June 2009 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £14.50 The Health Committee The Health Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Department of Health and its associated bodies. Current membership Rt Hon Kevin Barron MP (Labour, Rother Valley) (Chairman) Charlotte Atkins MP (Labour, Staffordshire Moorlands) Mr Peter Bone MP (Conservative, Wellingborough) Jim Dowd MP (Labour, Lewisham West) Sandra Gidley MP (Liberal Democrat, Romsey) Stephen Hesford MP (Labour, Wirral West) Dr Doug Naysmith MP (Labour, Bristol North West) Mr Lee Scott MP (Conservative, Ilford North) Dr Howard Stoate MP (Labour, Dartford) Mr Robert Syms MP (Conservative, Poole) Dr Richard Taylor MP (Independent, Wyre Forest) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk. Publications The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at www.parliament.uk/healthcom Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Dr David Harrison (Clerk), Adrian Jenner (Second Clerk), Laura Daniels (Committee Specialist), David Turner (Committee Specialist), Frances Allingham (Senior Committee Assistant), Julie Storey (Committee Assistant) and Gabrielle Henderson (Committee Support Assistant). -
Mouszaörvfinal
Governance by Academics: The Invention of Memoranda of Understanding Jan Klabbers1 I Introduction II The Intellectual Non-history of the MoU III The Origins of the MoU: Fawcett’s Classic Contribution IV Beyond Fawcett V The 1980s and Beyond VI A Popular Misapprehension VII The Nail in the Coffin Abstract This contribution aims to sketch how a single article published in a legal journal came to influence generations of international lawyers worldwide, despite not being a very good article, and despite its main proposition not being supported by much empirical evidence. The article concerns is James Fawcett’s ‘The Legal Character of International Agreements’, published in 1953 in the British Yearbook of International Law, which more or less single-handedly invented the (binding, but ostensibly not legally binding) Memorandum of Understanding. This contributions traces Fawcett’s forerunners, dissects his argumentation, and scrutinizes its reception in both the academy and the practice of Foreign Office lawyers. It does so in order to illustrate how power can be shaped through epistemic means and can be exercised even by academics, in this case by means of a journal article. Keywords: Memorandum of Understanding James Fawcett Law of Treaties Epistemic Authority Expert Governance 1 Professor of International Law, University of Helsinki. An earlier version of this paper was presented at a panel discussion at the United Nations during International Law Week, 23 October 2018. I. Introduction Students of international affairs are increasingly aware that governance is not merely the province of formal decision-making processes, but can take place in many different ways and by many different people. -
Inaugural One Day Conference Friday 22 January 2021
Inaugural One Day Conference Friday 22 January 2021 Registration from 08.45 Conference 09.15 - 17.05; Drinks reception 17.05 - 18.00 ARDL is pleased to announce details of its Inaugural Professional Discipline and Regulation Conference, which will take place on Friday 22 January 2021 at the Museum of London. There is a back-up date of Friday 26 March 2021 in the event that ARDL cannot hold the conference in January. The conference will be of interest to members of ARDL practising in all aspects of professional discipline and regulation and will involve updates on key developments and interesting insights from the 'coalface'. ‘Why Regulation Still Matters in 2021’ We are delighted to confirm that The Rt. Hon. Lord Dyson, former Master of the Rolls and Justice of the Supreme Court in the United Kingdom, has agreed to present the opening session of the conference. 'Corporate Governance for Public Bodies and Regulators – Has Regulation Failed?' ARDL welcomes David Gomez, author of the leading healthcare regulatory law textbook "The Regulation of Healthcare Professionals: Law, Principle and Process (2nd Ed. Sweet & Maxwell)" and a well-known lawyer in the field of regulation and professional discipline, latterly as the senior lawyer at the Professional Standards Authority, to present this key address. Conference Speakers include: Jonathan Dillon, Executive Director of Fitness to Practise, Social Work England 'Why a Regulator Established in 2019 Looks a Little Different' Kenneth Hamer, Henderson Chambers 'Regulatory Case Law Update' James Stuart, -
Directory of Members
1 Table of Contents Chancery Bar Association Committee Full Members London Midlands North South East Wales & West International Overseas Members Academic Members Index of Members 2 Chancery Bar Association Committee Chair Penelope Reed QC Vice-Chair Amanda Tipples QC Treasurer Mark West Hon. Secretary Eason Rajah QC Seminar Secretary Richard Millett QC Ordinary Members Amanda Hardy QC Rebecca Stubbs QC John Machell QC Michael Green QC Julia Beer Jonathan Davey Lyndsey de Mestre Alexander Learmonth Anna Markham Eleanor Holland Ruth Hughes Oliver Phillips London Co-Optees Andrew Twigger QC, William East, Josh Lewison, James McWilliams Regional Co-Optees Lesley Anderson QC, Hugh Jory QC, Nicola Preston, Alex Troup Website www.chba.org.uk All communications should be sent to the Administrator: Francesca Compton Chancery Bar Association Flat 46, 4 Grand Avenue Hove BN3 2LE Tel: 07791 398254 E-mail: [email protected] All rights reserved; not to be reproduced without the written permission of the Chancery Bar Association (application to be made to the Chancery Bar Association). 3 Full Members This section lists the full members of the Association by Chambers, broken down into the following regions. London Chambers Midlands Chambers North Chambers South East Chambers Wales & West Chambers International Chambers 4 London Arden Chambers Tel 020 7242 4244 DX DX 29 Chancery Lane 20 Bloomsbury Square Website http://www.ardenchambers.com/ London Members James Sandham 2003 Sandham, James WC1A 2NS 36 Bedford Row Tel 020 7421 8000 DX DX 360 LDE London -
The Bar Council Integrity
Annual Bar Conference and Young Bar Conference 2015 Saturday 17 October 2015 Westminster Park Plaza, London Book by Friday 3 July 2015 to receive the early booking discounts The Bar Council Integrity. Excellence. Justice. Programme 09:30 - 10:30 This year’s theme has been developed to ecompass issues that are both current and important. The Advocate: Our role in the The opening keynote session will set the tone to ensure a full day of balance between state and sessions focussing and addressing the increasing pressures facing the Programme Programme citizen. Bar due to economic or other political pressures, as well as a widening of Welcome alternative services available to the public. Kama Melly, Conference Chairman, Park Square The Keynote Address will ensure the importance of maintaining ‘The Barristers Advocate’ as the focus in all discussions, with regards to what the Chairman’s Address elements of change or restrictions mean for members of the Bar and Alistair MacDonald QC, Chairman of the Bar how they can be used as an advantage or overcome to ensure continual Council success. Keynote Address Baroness Helena Kennedy of the Shaws QC 09:30 - 10:30 The bringing together of the two Conferences provides a fantastic opportunity for the Young Bar to take part in a day that provides Young Bar Opening Keynote learning opportunities from many sectors. However, the day is also Welcome about addressing areas of concern or potential areas of development that Daniel Sternberg, 9-12 Bell Yard, Young Bar are specific for the Young Bar. Committee Chairman Sir Terence Etherton was called to the Bar in 1974, Grays Inn. -
PRIVACY NOTICE for MENTORING SCHEME 1. One Essex Court, Brick
PRIVACY NOTICE FOR MENTORING SCHEME 1. One Essex Court, Brick Court Chambers, Blackstone Chambers, Essex Court Chambers, Fountain Court Chambers and 3VB (“Chambers”) are data controllers for the purposes of processing mentoring scheme applicants’ data. 2. This policy applies in relation to any application for the mentoring scheme at the participating Chambers and during the course of a mentorship. The General Data Protection Regulation (the “GDPR”) requires us to provide this notice to you. COLLECTION OF PERSONAL DATA 3. Personal data processed and collected by us includes: a. personal data collected during the application process or during the course of the mentoring relationship, or from any further correspondence by phone, email or otherwise; b. personal data collected by and on behalf of the participating Chambers to enable us to process payments to mentees; c. personal data received via the centralized application process; and d. personal data collected from third parties in the course of taking references in support of an application. We will seek information from third parties with your consent only. 4. The personal data collected includes any personal details including name, address, contact details, education and training, employment, right to work in the UK and financial information where relevant. 5. Sensitive personal data collected with your consent may include information about medical or health conditions, including whether or not you have a disability for which Chambers needs to make reasonable adjustments; and information about your racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, trade union membership, sex life and sexual orientation and religion or philosophical belief. WHY WE PROCESS PERSONAL DATA 6. -
Legality of the Use of Force Against Iraq International Law and the War with Iraq
FEATURE — LEGALITY OF THE USE OF FORCE AGAINST IRAQ INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE WAR WITH IRAQ International Law and the War with Iraq ALEX J BELLAMY* [The United States-led invasion of Iraq prompted a widespread debate about the legitimacy and legality of the use of force without explicit United Nations authorisation. Some argued that the invasion enjoyed the implied authorisation of the Security Council, suggesting that Resolution 678, a remnant of the first Gulf War, continued to authorise the use of force to ensure Iraqi compliance with the Gulf War cease-fire. The US government further argued that Iraq posed an imminent threat to its neighbours, to the US and to international peace and security. On this basis, the US asserted a right to pre-emptive self-defence. This article evaluates these legal claims in depth. It exploring the background to the war, and asks whether or not the Security Council did implicitly authorise the war. Having assessed the statements of Security Council members, it suggests that the resolutions passed at the time of the first Gulf War were not intended to authorise subsequent uses of force. Nor, it is argued, did Resolution 1441, passed in November 2002, provide implicit authorisation for the use of force. Given the substance of the reports of Hans Blix, Executive Chairman of the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, and the subsequent failure to discover weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the self-defence argument is also untenable. Indeed, to accept either of the legal justifications proposed -
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). -
THE BRITISH INSTITUTE of INTERNATIONAL and COMPARATIVE LAW Charles Clore House, 17 Russell Square, London WC1B 5JP
THE BRITISH INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW Charles Clore House, 17 Russell Square, London WC1B 5JP Tel: (+44)(0)20 7862 5151 E-mail: [email protected] Fax: (+44)(0)20 7862 5152 No. 2 www.biicl.org APRIL 2004 NEWSLETTER Development Appeal: £2 million target reached in donations and pledges Due to the hard work of the Development Appeal Committee, chaired by Lord Goff of Chieveley, the generosity of individuals and trusts and the willingness of companies and firms to become more actively involved in the Institute on an ongoing basis, we are pleased to announce that our initial target of raising £2 million has been achieved. Through the activities of the Appeal we have been able to establish a number of new activities. Last year saw the launch of both the Competition Law Forum and the Data Protection Research and Policy Group, and the establishment of the Company Law Centre. The Dorset Fellow in Public International Law is funded for five years. Our successes have encouraged us that there is strong support for the Institute both within the profession and beyond. It is evident that there is much that the Institute could achieve, given the funds and opportunity to do so. It is to this end that the Institute has established a Development Board to continue to look at ways in which the Institute can increase its activity and develop its role as the leading institute for international and comparative law. The Development Appeal and Development Board aim is to increase the funding of ongoing activities of the Institute. -
Runnymede Trust Conference: What Magna Carta and the Race
RUNNYMEDE TRUST CONFERENCE WHAT MAGNA CARTA AND THE RACE RELATIONS ACT MEAN TO US TODAY SIR RABINDER SINGH 29 JULY 2015 1. I am honoured to have been invited to address you today. The Runnymede Trust is the leading organisation in this country dedicated to the promotion of racial equality. When it was founded in 1968 by Jim Rose and Anthony Lester it took its name from the meadow by the Thames where the first Magna Carta was sealed in 1215. I am particularly pleased that, among the understandable and widespread commemorations of the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta, the opportunity has not been lost also to remember that this is the 50th Anniversary of the first Race Relations Act in this country. 2. At first sight it is not obvious that there is any link between the two. It is well- known that Magna Carta was sealed as part of a power struggle between King John and the Barons. They would hardly have been interested in creating an equal society. Furthermore, many of the references in Magna Carta itself are based on distinctions between people depending on their status: the reference to “all free men” clearly excluded those who were villeins. The institution of 1 serfdom was very much alive at that time. And there were provisions in the 1215 version of Magna Carta which on their face discriminated against Jews. 3. Lord Sumption, who is not only a Justice of the Supreme Court but a distinguished historian, has described the sentiments which often surround Magna Carta as “high minded tosh.”1 Although it is undoubtedly correct to question whether many of the modern readings of Magna Carta have any basis in historical fact, it is also important to recall that the mythology surrounding such documents can itself have continuing impact on a society. -
Black Letter Law 2006
Black Letter Law The presence of black and ethnic minorities in the legal profession A CRE/BLD publication for Black History Month Introductions Contents The idea to do this booklet came from Debo Nwauzu, Director of the Black Legal history 11 Rabinder Singh QC Lawyers Directory (BLD). The Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) 2 Ganendra Mohan Tagore 11 District Judge Ray Singh agreed to undertake this project thinking that it would be fairly simple to 2 Alexander Kennedy 12 Keith Vaz MP get the information from the Law Society and the Bar Council and put it all 2 Thomas Morris Chester 12 Thelma Stober together. But this has not been very easy. We approached the Law Society 3 Aviet Agabeg 13 Shami Chakrabarti and the Bar Council for their assistance in researching their records - they 3 Christian Frederick Cole 14 Courtenay Griffiths QC have been very helpful in making extensive enquiries - however, neither 3 Mahatma Ghandi 14 Anesta Weekes QC organisation had much information that was relevant. 4 Muhammad Jinnah 15 Sadiq Khan MP This lack of information is significant and reflects that until fairly 4 Jawaharlal Nehru 16 District Judge Shamim recently these organisations did not collect monitoring data on their 5 Cornelia Sorabji Qureshi members. This problem also illustrates how important it is to undertake 16 David Lammy MP monitoring. Legal history in the making 17 Icah Peart QC This is a work in progress. We hope to build on this publication in future 6 Nelson Mandela 17 Trevor Faure years so that there is a more detailed chronicle of black and minority ethnic 6 Dr John Roberts QC 17 Gifty Edila (BME) individuals in the legal profession who are or were in the vanguard 7 Baroness Patricia Scotland 18 Chris Boothman of the struggle to make the profession more diverse and representative. -
Forum Non Conveniens Doctrine in the United Kingdom After ‘Brexit’
\\jciprod01\productn\C\CIN\52-4\CIN404.txt unknown Seq: 1 17-JUL-20 14:52 (Br)exit Strategy: The Future of the Forum Non Conveniens Doctrine in the United Kingdom After ‘Brexit’ Jared Ham† Introduction ..................................................... 718 R I. The Modern Forum Non Conveniens Doctrine in the United States ............................................. 721 R A. Piper Aircraft v. Reyno ................................. 721 R B. Iragorri v. United Technologies.......................... 724 R II. Owusu v. Jackson and Forum Non Conveniens in the United Kingdom ................................................. 726 R A. Owusu v. Jackson ...................................... 727 R B. Owusu’s Progeny ...................................... 729 R C. Domestic Forum Non Conveniens in the United Kingdom ...................................... 730 R III. Brexit .................................................... 732 R A. The Referendum ...................................... 732 R B. Initiating Withdrawal from the EU ..................... 733 R C. Post-Brexit Uncertainty ................................ 739 R IV. The United Kingdom and the European Court of Justice After Brexit ............................................... 741 R A. Remaining in the European Court of Justice’s Jurisdiction ........................................... 741 R B. Initiating Withdrawal from the EU ..................... 742 R V. Adopting the Common Law Forum Non Conveniens Doctrine ................................................. 742 R A. The Specialness