Listing rules have always played a significant role in corporate regulation by controlling the manner in which companies raise capital through the issue of securities and the subsequent trading of those securities between investors. The regulatory role of listing rules can be characterised as the top-tier in a system of regulation for listed companies in which the lower tiers are represented by securities law and general corporate law. Company law represents the bottom tier of regulation as it applies to all companies, albeit with some distinctions made between public and private companies. While company law does contain a substantial body of rules which are subject to change by share-holders (‘default rules’), it also contains a core of mandatory rules (not subject to change by shareholders) which are regulatory in their nature.

This article examines the rules of jurisdiction in employment matters of Brussels I. It focuses on a paradox in that these rules aim to protect employees jurisdictionally, but in fact fail to accord employees a more favourable treatment when they need it most, namely when they appear as claimants. The article argues that the current rules fail to achieve the objective of employee protection, examines the reasons for this, proposes certain amendments that would improve the existing rules, and thereby engages in the debate surrounding the forthcoming review of Brussels I.

The Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) has become one of the better-known environmental treaties, partly as a result of the considerable attention it received in connection with the restrictions it imposed on the ivory trade. Despite its successes, however, the text of the treaty has not kept pace with developments since it was first approved in 1973. It remains, for instance, an environmental treaty with some of the characteristics of a trade treaty, drafted as if it were to operate in a hostile world of non-parties. Instead, in contrast, it has been signed by 128 parties1 and functions at a time when public and political concern about the environment has never been greater.

The Preparatory Commission (PrepCom) was established by Resolution F of the Final Act of the United Nations Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court (ICC). Under this resolution the PrepCom is intended to “take all possible measures to ensure the coming into operation of the International Criminal Court without undue delay”, and “to make the necessary arrangements for the commencement of [the Court's] functions”.1

Dusko Tadić is a Bosnian Serb. He is the first defendant of whom the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia (the “Tribunal”) obtained custody, following his transfer to the Tribunal at its request from Germany. Tadić had been arrested there and investigations had begun into his involvement in offences in Yugoslavia. These enquiries were discontinued at the request of the Tribunal.1

An area which has received little attention in the academic literature of foreign State immunity to date is that concerning immunity in employment matters.1 This omission can probably be explained by the scant case law which has hitherto existed on the subject. However, in recent years the number of decisions has increased due to the fact that employment by States of foreign nationals has become far more common. Developing countries in particular, as they seek to create new industries, have become increasingly reliant on advisers and technicians from the developed world.

The name “lender of last resort” owes its origins to Sir Francis Barings, who in 1797 referred to the Bank of England as the “dernier resort” from which all banks could obtain liquidity in times of crisis.1 The lender of last resort (“LOLR”) role of the central bank remains a major rationale for most central banks around the world, in both developed and developing countries.2 While other central bank functions have recently come under fire (e.g. banking supervision), the importance of having the LOLR under the umbrella of the central bank is seldom contested.3 It is the immediacy of the availability of central bank credit (the central bank being the ultimate supplier of high-powered money) that makes the LOLR particularly suitable to confront emergency situations.

Despite its Latin tag, forum non conveniens is far from a dry, legalistic issue. Indeed, it is fair to say that a highly emotional debate has raged on this topic in recent years, with accusations of “parochialism”, “naked and open chauvinism” and even outright racism on one side, and “chaotic transnational jurisprudence” and lack of clear guidance on the other.

In December 1995 Eritrean and Yemeni armed forces clashed in one of the islands situated off the coast of these two States in the Red Sea (Greater Hanish1). Behind the incident was a dispute concerning, inter alia, the territorial sovereignty over several uninhabited islands in the area, the definition of the maritime boundary between the two States and the use of the waters surrounding the islands by fishermen of both States.2 Undoubtedly, this dispute is deeply rooted in the history of the two States, and their peoples.

On 16 March 2001 the International Court of Justice gave judgment in what was then its most longrunning case. It was in 1987 that Qatar and Bahrain had begun a process of attempting to agree upon the submission of their differences to the Court, but although they were able to agree upon the subject matter in dispute, they could not agree upon its legal characterization and the manner in which the dispute should be placed before the Court. That notwithstanding, and basing itself upon the agreed minutes of a meeting held at Doha in December 1990, Qatar unilaterally instituted proceedings against Bahrain on 8 July 1991. Bahrain raised preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of the Court and the admissibility of the case which were first addressed by the Court in its judgment of July 19941 and, following a reformulation of elements of the Qatari application in November 1994, the application was declared admissible in February 1995.2 During the course of the subsequent written pleadings a further dispute arose concerning the authenticity of 82 documents annexed to the Qatar Memorial and, following exchanges on the matter, Qatar announced that it would not rely on the disputed documents.3 Oral hearings were held in May 2000 and judgment given some ten months later. The two principal elements of the case concern, first, the disputed title to, and status of, a number of islands, maritime features and a portion of the Qatar peninsula and, secondly, the course of the maritime boundaries between them. The case was extremely complex, with disputed characterizations of the physical and legal

In the 1996 Hamlyn Lectures, under the title Turning Points of the Common Law, I examined four great cases where the House of Lords set the law of England, and consequently the law of most of the English-speaking world, on a new course by reversing decisions of the courts below. They were Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd1 (insistence on separate identities of company and controlling shareholder); Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions2 (discovery of a golden thread about onus of proof in English criminal law); Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller3 (qualified acceptance of duty of care in tort to safeguard against economic damage); and Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission4 (affirmation that material errors of law by administrative bodies are alwaysredressible by courts).