DOCSLIB.ORG

Scrutinising Statutory Instruments: Departmental Returns, 2007

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Scrutinising Statutory Instruments: Departmental Returns, 2007 House of Lords House of Commons Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments Scrutinising Statutory Instruments: Departmental Returns, 2007 Second Special Report of 2007–08 Report, together with formal minutes and appendices Ordered by The House of Lords to be printed 2 July 2008 Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 2 July 2008 HL Paper 139 HC 915 Published on 10 July 2008 by authority of the House of Lords and the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (JCSI) is appointed to consider statutory instruments made in exercise of powers granted by Act of Parliament. Instruments not laid before Parliament are included within the Committee's remit; but local instruments are not considered by JCSI unless they are subject to parliamentary procedure and instruments made by devolved administrations are not to be considered by JCSI unless they are required to be laid before Parliament. The Joint Committee is empowered to draw the special attention of both Houses to an instrument on any one of a number of grounds specified in the Standing Orders under which it works; or on any other ground which does not impinge upon the merits of the instrument or the policy behind it. Current membership House of Lords Lord Brett (Labour) Lord Campbell of Alloway (Conservative) Lord Dykes (Liberal Democrat) Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Labour) Lord Kimball (Conservative) Countess of Mar (Crossbench) Lord Walpole (Crossbench) House of Commons David Maclean MP (Conservative, Penrith and The Border) (Chairman) Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods MP (Labour, City of Durham) Mr Peter Bone MP (Conservative, Wellingborough) Michael Jabez Foster MP (Labour, Hastings and Rye) Mr David Kidney MP (Labour, Stafford) Mr John MacDougall MP (Labour, Central Fife) David Simpson MP (Democratic Unionist, Upper Bann) Powers The full constitution and powers of the Committee are set out in House of Commons Standing Order No. 151 and House of Lords Standing Order No. 74, available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk. Publications The reports of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of both Houses. All publications of the Committee are available on the Internet from www.parliament.uk. Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are John Whatley (Commons Clerk), Kath Kavanagh (Lords Clerk), and Jacqueline Cooksey (Committee Assistant). Advisory Counsel: Peter Davis, Peter Brooksbank and Christine Cogger (Commons) and Allan Roberts and Peter Milledge (Lords). Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, Delegated Legislation Office, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general inquiries is: 020 7219 2830; the Committee's e–mail address is: [email protected]. Scrutinising Statutory Instruments: Departmental Returns, 2007 1 Contents Report Page Departmental Returns, 2007 3 The work of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments 3 Monitoring Departments’ progress 6 Analysis of returns for instruments reported in 2007 8 Analysis of returns for instruments reported in 2006 and earlier 9 Previously highlighted Instruments on which action remains outstanding 9 Matters to which the particular attention of Departments is drawn 10 The progress of Affirmative Instruments and ensuing Debates 10 Supply of Affirmative Instruments to the Committees 11 Orders in Council 12 Actions outstanding on which the Department and Committee are not in agreement 12 Government Response to the Annual Report 13 Annex 1: Extract from request sent to Departments in 2008 14 Annex 2: Analysis of Departmental Returns 16 Table 1: Analysis of returns for instruments reported in 2007 16 Table 2: Analysis of returns for instruments reported in 2006 or earlier 16 Table 3: Analysis by Department of returns for instruments reported in 2007 17 Table 4: Analysis by Department of returns for instruments reported in 2006 and earlier 17 Table 5: Analysis by Department of all instruments with actions outstanding at 1 April 2008 18 Annex 3: Instruments reported and memoranda published 19 Annex 4: Departmental Returns 25 List of Tables 26 Appendix A 97 Letter from the Under Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 97 to the Chairman 97 Appendix B 98 Letter from the Chairman to the Under Secretary of State for Work and Pensions – Lord McKenzie of Luton 98 Formal Minutes 99 Scrutinising Statutory Instruments: Departmental Returns, 2007 3 Departmental Returns, 2007 The work of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments 1. Our role is to examine the technical qualities of almost every general statutory instrument and those local ones that involve some parliamentary control.1 Some of the instruments we consider are not statutory instruments (for instance, some Codes of Practice) which fall within our remit because they attract the affirmative procedure. We do not assess the merits of any instrument or the underlying policy. During the calendar year 2007, we scrutinised 1,473 statutory instruments and found cause to draw the special attention of each House to 70 instruments (marginally less than 5% of the total scrutinised) on one or more of the following grounds in accordance with our terms of reference: i) that it imposes, or sets the amount of, a charge on public revenue or that it requires payment for a licence, consent or service to be made to the Exchequer, a government department or a public or local authority, or sets the amount of the payment; ii) that its parent legislation says that it cannot be challenged in the courts; iii) that it appears to have retrospective effect without the express authority of the parent legislation; iv) that there appears to have been unjustifiable delay in publishing it or laying it before Parliament; v) that there appears to have been unjustifiable delay in sending a notification under the proviso to section 4(1) of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946, where the instrument has come into force before it has been laid; vi) that there appears to be doubt about whether there is power to make it or that it appears to make an unusual or unexpected use of the power to make it; vii) that its form or meaning needs to be explained; viii) that its drafting appears to be defective; ix) any other ground which does not go to its merits or the policy behind it. 1 A substantial proportion of delegated legislation (for example, local instruments, such as those that relate to temporary road closures, which have only to be published to become law) receives no parliamentary scrutiny. Some instruments are not formally laid before Parliament nor subject to any parliamentary proceedings although they may be scrutinised by the JCSI. An instrument subject to the negative procedure becomes law on the date stated on it but will be annulled if either House (or the Commons only, in the case of instruments dealing with financial matters) passes a motion calling for its annulment within a certain time (usually 40 days). An instrument that is subject to the affirmative procedure must receive Parliament's approval either before it can come into force or to remain in force. Most instruments subject to the affirmative procedure are laid in the form of a draft. The form of parliamentary procedure is usually set out in the parent Act. The procedure for the laying of a statutory instrument is set out in House of Commons Standing Order 159. In short, for an SI to be laid before the House of Commons a copy of the instrument must be ‘laid on the table of the House’, which actually means placing a copy of the Instrument with the Votes and Proceedings Office (part of the Journal Office). Most S.I.s are laid in both Houses and a similar procedure applies in the House of Lords. See also the House of Commons Library Factsheet L7. 4 Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments Breakdown of Grounds for Reporting Instruments in 2007 Unusual or Delay unexpected use of 6% powers Other 10% 3% Elucidation required 3% Dubious vires 3% Defective drafting Failure to observe 62% proper practice (other drafting and similar errors) 13% 2. We concluded that there was no need to draw any of the remaining 1,403 instruments (marginally more than 95% of the total) to the special attention of each House.2 However, cases of obvious minor errors which could be amended by correction slip, were dealt with by letter from Counsel.3 Total Number of Instruments Scrutinised by the Joint Committee in 2007 (1,473) Reported instruments, 5% Unreported instruments dealt with by letter from Counsel (approx) Unreported instruments, 95% 2 Statistics on the number of instruments made during a calendar year can be found at: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si- statistics.htm. 3 Slightly over double the number of instruments reported. Scrutinising Statutory Instruments: Departmental Returns, 2007 5 3. Our membership is drawn from both Houses of Parliament. We usually meet weekly whenever Parliament is sitting to consider a batch of recent instruments and draft instruments. Our assessments on individual instruments and drafts are published in our weekly reports. We identify any instrument or draft that appears to come within any of the grounds set out above and explain why have reached this conclusion. We include a memorandum supplied by the relevant Department in response to our question(s). We also list (generally) without comment all other instruments we have examined. Occasionally, we publish for interest a memorandum from the relevant Department on an instrument we have examined. Our weekly report is posted on our website4 usually within five or six days of each Committee meeting. Our reports, which identify the defects that attract the attention of the Committee, should be considered essential reading by anyone involved in drafting statutory instruments.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Part I Background and Summary
    PART I BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY Chapter 1 BRITISH STATUTES IN IDSTORICAL PERSPECTIVE The North American plantations were not the earliest over­ seas possessions of the English Crown; neither were they the first to be treated as separate political entities, distinct from the realm of England. From the time of the Conquest onward, the King of England held -- though not necessarily simultaneously or continuously - a variety of non-English possessions includ­ ing Normandy, Anjou, the Channel Islands, Wales, Jamaica, Scotland, the Carolinas, New-York, the Barbadoes. These hold­ ings were not a part of the Kingdom of England but were govern­ ed by the King of England. During the early medieval period the King would issue such orders for each part of his realm as he saw fit. Even as he tended to confer more and more with the officers of the royal household and with the great lords of England - the group which eventually evolved into the Council out of which came Parliament - with reference to matters re­ lating to England, he did likewise with matters relating to his non-English possessions.1 Each part of the King's realm had its own peculiar laws and customs, as did the several counties of England. The middle ages thrived on diversity and while the King's writ was acknowledged eventually to run throughout England, there was little effort to eliminate such local practices as did not impinge upon the power of the Crown. The same was true for the non-Eng­ lish lands. An order for one jurisdictional entity typically was limited to that entity alone; uniformity among the several parts of the King's realm was not considered sufficiently important to overturn existing laws and customs.
    [Show full text]
  • Biodefense and Constitutional Constraints
    Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2011 Biodefense and Constitutional Constraints Laura K. Donohue Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] Georgetown Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper No. 11-96 This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/677 http://ssrn.com/abstract=1882506 4 Nat'l Security & Armed Conflict L. Rev. 82-206 (2014) This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Military, War, and Peace Commons BIODEFENSE AND CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTRAINTS Laura K. Donohue* I. INTRODUCTION"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" & II. STATE POLICE POWERS AND THE FEDERALIZATION OF U.S. QUARANTINE LAW """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 2 A. Early Colonial Quarantine Provisions""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 3 """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 4 """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""&)
    [Show full text]
  • National Implementing Measures
    n;J .f~ COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES National Implementing Measures to give effect to the White Paper of the Commission on the Completion of the Internal Market Situation at 30 April 1991 0 0 () c s:: •*• m * * z * * -1 * * 92 * * * This document has been prepared for use within the Commission. It does not necessarily represent the Commission's official position. Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1991 ISBN 92-826-2694-6 Catalogue number: CM-70-91-782-EN-C © ECSC-EEC-EAEC, Brussels • Luxembourg, 1991 Reproduction is authorized, except for commercial purposes, provided the source is acknowledged. Printed in Belgium NOTE TO READERS This guide, available In all the official languages of the Conunlty, Is beIng pub II shed as part of an I nfor~~at I on exercIse. It was designed as a documentary tool and In no way binds the Conlsslon. The lnforutlon It contains Is drawn from the INF092 data base accessible to the public and there Is no Implied crltlcln or otherwise of what the Member States have done. Measures whIch have not been offIcI a II y notIfIed are not II sted. Because the situation Is constantly changing, the guide can do no more than ref I ect the posIt I on on a gIven date, In thIs case 30 April 1991. A new edition wl I I appear every six months . • • • TABLE OF CONTENTS I. THE REMOVAL OF PHYSICAL BARRIERS Control of goods Dlr. 85/347 Duty-free fuel contained In fuel tanks of commercial 1otor vehicles Reg.
    [Show full text]
  • Sp Catalog B 06
    Scottish Parliamentary and Statutory Publications January 2004 - July 2004 Published 2008 ISBN: 978 033880065 7 TSO subscription classification: 7001039 Contents TSO Contacts iv Business Bulletin 27 Contacts iv What’s happening in the Scottish Parliament 30 Introduction 1 SPICe Research Publications 31 Parliamentary Publications 3 SPICe Briefings 31 Bills 3 IPRN Briefings 31 Scottish Parliament Bills - Session 2 (2004) 3 Documents Subject to Scrutiny 33 Passage of Bills 7 Laid Papers 33 Parliamentary Papers 7 Scottish Executive Papers 2003 33 Scottish Parliament papers - Session 2 (2004) 8 Scottish Executive Papers 2004 34 Official Report - Plenary Session 14 Auditor General for Scotland 38 Scottish Public Services Ombudsman 38 Official Report - Plenary Session 14 Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner 38 Minutes of Proceedings 15 Draft Statutory Instruments 38 Written Answers Report 17 Petitions 40 Official Report (Committees) 18 Audit Committee 18 Statutory Publications 45 Communities Committee 18 Acts 45 Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill Committee 19 Education Committee 19 Acts of the Scottish Parliament 2004 45 Enterprise and Culture Committee 20 Acts of the Scottish Parliament - Environment and Rural Development Committee 20 Explanatory notes 2004 46 Equal Opportunities Committee 21 Statutory Instruments 47 European and External Relations Committee 21 Finance Committee 22 Commencement orders 2003 47 Health Committee 22 Commencement orders 2004 47 Justice 1 and Justice 2 Committees 23 Scottish statutory instruments 2003 48 Justice
    [Show full text]
  • The Speech Or Debate Clause: Bastion of Congressional Independence Or Haven for Corruption, 57 N.C
    NORTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW Volume 57 | Number 2 Article 3 2-1-1979 The pS eech or Debate Clause: Bastion of Congressional Independence Or Haven for Corruption Craig M. Bradley Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Craig M. Bradley, The Speech or Debate Clause: Bastion of Congressional Independence Or Haven for Corruption, 57 N.C. L. Rev. 197 (1979). Available at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr/vol57/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Carolina Law Review by an authorized administrator of Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE SPEECH OR DEBATE CLAUSE: BASTION OF CONGRESSIONAL INDEPENDENCE OR HIAVEN FOR CORRUPTION? CRAIG M. BRADLEYt As the popular concern gradually shifts away from the problem of a corrupt presidency to the more familiar problem of the corrupt con- gressman, it seems appropriate to reconsider the principles of congres- sional privilege. While the constitutionally guaranteed congressional privileges, such as the freedom of speech or debate, may tend to protect Congress from overreaching by the executive, they may also have the effect of shielding corrupt congressmen from legitimate efforts to inves- tigate and prosecute their transgressions. Indeed, in the investigation of the Korean corruption of the United States Congress the investiga- tive efforts of the Justice Department
    [Show full text]
  • April 2021 International Trade Compliance Update
    International Trade Compliance Update (Covering Customs and Other Import Requirements, Export Controls and Sanc- tions, Trade Remedies, WTO and Anti-Corruption) Newsletter | April 2021 In This Issue: World Trade Organization (WTO) World Customs Organization (WCO) Other International Matters The Americas - North America The Americas - South America Please see our Webinars, Meetings, Seminars section for information for Asia-Pacific links to the webinars in our 18th annual Global Trade and Supply Chain Europe, Middle East and North Africa Webinar Series: “International Trade & Developments in a World Fo- cused on Recovery & Renewal,” which just began, as well as links to addi- Africa (except North Africa) tional webinars and other events. Newsletters, reports, articles, etc. There are also links to the video recordings, PowerPoints and handout materi- Webinars, Meetings, Seminars, etc. als of the WTO Cov id-19 Notifications 2020-2021 Asia Pacific International Commercial and Trade Webi- WTO TBT Notifications nar Series CBP Rulings: Downloads and Searches 2020 Virtual Trade Conference (July 14-16 2020) CBP Rulings: Rev ocations or Modifi- 2020 Virtual Year-End Review of Import/Export Developments cations European Classification Regulations 2020 Global Trade and Supply Chain Webinar Series: Interna- Amendments to the CN Explanatory tional Trade Basics and Trends Notes To keep abreast of international trade-related news, visit our blogs: Section 337 Actions For International Trade Compliance Updates, please regularly visit Antidumping, Counterv ailing Duty https://www.internationaltradecomplianceupdate.com/. and Safeguard Inv estigations, Or- ders & Reviews For additional articles and updates on trade sanctions and export controls, please visit: http://sanctionsnews.bakermckenzie.com/ regularly. For resources and news regarding international trade, particularly in Asia, please visit our Trade Crossroads blog at http://tradeblog.bakermckenzie.com/.
    [Show full text]
  • Department of Health Regulations: Impact on Business
    An Audit of the impact of the Department of Health’s Regulations upon business Final Report September 2013 1 Contents Executive summary .................................................................................................................. 4 Background .............................................................................................................................. 6 DH Regulatory landscape ......................................................................................................... 7 Audit Results .......................................................................................................................... 10 Annex A - Detailed commentary on the Department of Health’s stock of regulations ............. 12 1. Care Quality .................................................................................................................... 13 1.1 Care Quality Commission (CQC) .................................................................................. 13 1.2 Mental Health and Mental Capacity .............................................................................. 18 1.3 Social Care (Isles of Scilly) ........................................................................................... 23 1.4 Social Care other .......................................................................................................... 24 2. Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) ................................... 25 2.1 Blood ............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • L INTRODUCTION Most of the Countries of the Commonwealth and States of the United States of America Are Known As Common-Law Jurisdictions
    1977] THE RECEPTION OF ENGLISH LAW 29 THE RECEPTION OF ENGLISH LAW J.E. COTE* A new country is faced with a choice in deciding upon a system of law for itself. It can either copy someone else's codified law or it can adopt a system of law which is largely judge-made. If it opts for the latter it cannot afford to spend centuries building up a system of judge-made law. Therefore it must copy the rules of a society which has already developed a sophisticated body of such law. Most of the Commonwealth nations have chosen the latter route and as a result have received English law as their own. The rules and consequences inherent in such a reception are discussed in this article. After a short discussion of the distinction between the Imperial law in force proprio vigore and the English law received in the colony as such, the modes of reception of English law are described. In this respect the differences in reception between settled and conquered colonies are outlined. The parts of English law which have been received and the general rules of applicability as well as the applicability of particular areas of the law are also analyzed. The article concludes with a discussion of repeal, amendment and reform of imported English law by the country receiving such law. An appendix contains an account of the reception of English law in each of the Canadian provinces. The subject of this article is often considered as part of legal history. It should be stressed however that this is not the case, as all the rules described are rules of present-day law and many of them are being applied and expounded continually, particularly in Australia and Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • The Charter of the Forest: Evolving Human Rights in Nature
    Pace University DigitalCommons@Pace Pace Law Faculty Publications School of Law 2014 The Charter of the Forest: Evolving Human Rights in Nature Nicholas A. Robinson Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/lawfaculty Part of the Environmental Law Commons, Legal History Commons, Natural Law Commons, and the Natural Resources Law Commons Recommended Citation Nicholas A. Robinson, The Charter of the Forest: Evolving Human Rights in Nature, in Magna Carta and the Rule of Law 311 (Daniel Barstow Magraw et al., eds. 2014), http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/ lawfaculty/990/. This Book Chapter is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at DigitalCommons@Pace. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pace Law Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Pace. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Chapter 12 The Charter of the Forest: Evolving Human Rights in Nature Nicholas A. Robinson Ln 1759 William Bla kstone published TJ)e Great Charter and the harter of tbe Forest, with other Authentic Instruments, to whjch is Prefixed An lntrodu tory Discourse containing The History of the hal·ters.! Since then, much ha been written about Magna Carta but little has been written about the companioD Forest Charter. This chapter reexamines "the e twO sacred charters,,,2 focusing u,p n the "liberties of the for sr '3 that the po,re t barter established, an I how they evolved amjd the contentious struggles over stewardship of England' fore t re urce.4 The Forest harter both contributed to establishing the ruJe of law and aJ 0 laun hed ight enturies f legislation conserving forest resources and lands ape.
    [Show full text]
  • The Appropriations Power and Sovereign Immunity
    Michigan Law Review Volume 107 Issue 7 2009 The Appropriations Power and Sovereign Immunity Paul F. Figley Washington College of Law, American University Jay Tidmarsh Notre Dame Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr Part of the Common Law Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, Legal History Commons, and the Legal Remedies Commons Recommended Citation Paul F. Figley & Jay Tidmarsh, The Appropriations Power and Sovereign Immunity, 107 MICH. L. REV. 1207 (2009). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol107/iss7/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Law Review at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE APPROPRIATIONS POWER AND SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY Paul F. Figley* Jay Tidmarsh** Discussions of sovereign immunity assume that the Constitution contains no explicit text regarding sovereign immunity. As a result, arguments about the existence-or nonexistence-of sovereign im- munity begin with the English and American common-law doctrines. Exploring political, fiscal, and legal developments in England and the American colonies in the seventeenth and eight- eenth centuries, this Article shows that focusing on common-law developments is misguided. The common-law approach to sovereign immunity ended in the early 1700s. The Bankers' Case (1690- 1700), which is often regarded as the first modern common-law treatment of sovereign immunity, is in fact the last in the line of English common-law decisions on sovereign immunity.
    [Show full text]
  • International Trade Compliance Update
    International Trade Compliance Update (Covering Customs and Other Import Requirements, Export Controls and Sanc- tions, Trade Remedies, WTO and Anti-Corruption) Newsletter | December 2020 In This Issue: World Trade Organization (WTO) World Customs Organization (WCO) Other International Matters Multilateral Trade Agreements The Americas - North America The Americas - South America Please see our Webinars, Meetings, Seminars section for contact and regis- Asia-Pacific tration information for the new webinars in our 17th annual Global Trade and Europe, Middle East and North Africa Supply Chain Webinar Series: International Trade Basics and Trends as well as links to past webinar recordings, PowerPoints and handout materials Africa (except North Africa) and information on other events. Newsletters, reports, articles, etc. Webinars, Meetings, Seminars, etc. In addition, there are links to the video recordings of the WTO TBT Notifications 2020 Virtual Trade Conference (July 14-16 2020) and the CBSA Adv ance Rulings 2020 Virtual Year-End Review of Import/Export Developments CBP Rulings: Downloads and Searches CBP Rulings: Rev ocations or Modifi- cations European Classification Regulations Amendments to the CN Explanatory Notes Section 337 Actions Antidumping, Counterv ailing Duty and Safeguard Inv estigations, Orders & Rev iews Asia Pacific International Commercial and Trade Webinar Series December 2020 – January 2021 | 11:00 am – 12:00 pm (GMT+8) Editor, International Trade Com- To get details, see our Webinars, Meetings, Seminars section pliance Update Stuart P. Seidel Note: Unless otherw ise indicated, all information in this Update is taken from official Washington, D.C. +1 202 452 7088 gazettes, official w ebsites, new sletters or press releases of international organiza- [email protected] tions (UN, WTO, WCO, APEC, INTERPOL, etc.), the EU, EFTA, EAEU, Customs Unions or government agencies.
    [Show full text]
  • A “Second Magna Carta”: the English Habeas Corpus Act and the Statutory Origins of the Habeas Privilege
    \\jciprod01\productn\N\NDL\91-5\NDL507.txt unknown Seq: 1 29-AUG-16 16:02 A “SECOND MAGNA CARTA”: THE ENGLISH HABEAS CORPUS ACT AND THE STATUTORY ORIGINS OF THE HABEAS PRIVILEGE Amanda L. Tyler* “[I]f any person be restrained of his liberty . [,] he shall, upon demand of his coun[sel], have a writ of habeas corpus . And by . the habeas corpus act, the methods of obtaining this writ are so plainly pointed out and enforced, that, so long as this statute remains unimpeached, no subject of England can be long detained in prison, except in those cases in which the law requires and justifies such detainer.” –Blackstone’s Commentaries1 © 2016 Amanda L. Tyler. Individuals and nonprofit institutions may reproduce and distribute copies of this Article in any format at or below cost, for educational purposes, so long as each copy identifies the author, provides a citation to the Notre Dame Law Review, and includes this provision in the copyright notice. * Professor of Law, University of California Berkeley School of Law. I dedicate this Article to the memory of my brilliant federal courts professor, Daniel Meltzer, who inspired me at every turn and was an extraordinary scholar and teacher, generous mentor, and wonderful friend. In working on this project, I have benefited enormously from the comments and suggestions of participants to whom I presented earlier versions of this work at the Cornell University Law School Constitutional Law and Theory Colloquium, the Stanford Law School Faculty Workshop, the University of California Berkeley School of Law Public Law and Policy Workshop, the Oxford University Law Faculty Legal History Forum, the London School of Economics Legal and Political Theory Seminar, and the Columbia University School of Law Courts and Legal Process Workshop.
    [Show full text]