The European Union's 1999 Financial Services Action Plan (the FSAP), an ambitious reform agenda of forty-two measures, was designed to provide the regulatory underpinning for a single deep and liquid capital market, in which pan-EU market actors are regulated by their home Member State under harmonized rules. This single capital market would lower the cost of capital, unlock funding sources for companies, and increase returns on savings, while widening choice and stimulating competition in the pan-EU financial services industry. After a surge of legislative activity over the last months of 2003 and through early 2004, the FSAP is on track for timely completion in mid-2004, as called for by the March 2003 Brussels European Council. The closing of the current session of the European Parliament in spring 2004, combined with a sharp political focus on the financial markets post-Enron and in the wake of Parmalat, has concentrated EU attention both inter-institutionally and in the market place on delivery of the outstanding measures.1 With the adoption of the cornerstone Financial Instruments Markets Directive in April 2004, the FSAP is now, in large part, complete. Implementation should be achieved across the EU by 2006.

The last decade has seen the rise of a potentially significant development in the Asia-Pacific region in regard to human rights—the establishment of National Human Rights Institutions (particularly Human Rights Commissions) in numerous States.2 National Human Rights Commissions (hereafter NHRC) established in compliance with United Nations standards have been established in Australia, Fiji, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mongolia, Nepal, New Zealand, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Sri Lanka, and Thailand.3 In many of these States, however, human rights abuses are still widespread and serious. The establishment of NHRC, which generally do not have the power to make enforceable decisions, could easily be derided as an attempt by governments to create a fac.ade of respect for human rights while failing to take the enforcement of those rights seriously.4 While this criticism has a degree of validity, NHRC have played a constructive, if limited role, in the promotion and protection of human rights in the Asia-Pacific region.

The technical and legal challenges of attribution in cyberspace prevent the meaningful operation of the international law framework of State responsibility. Despite the anticipation surrounding its publication, the Tallinn Manual 2.0 went no further than its predecessor in offering a cogent legal solution to this problem. Instead, the Manual confined its analysis of attribution to the well-known provisions of the International Law Commission's Articles on State Responsibility. This article departs from the Tallinn Manual 2.0 in arguing that the due diligence principle offers a preferable and appropriate standard of attribution in cyberspace.

In recent times the European Court of Human Rights has been very active in developing a number of duties of investigation, under various substantive Articles of the Convention,1 which member States are obliged to comply with. Therefore, this paper seeks to analyse the nature and scope of these important duties, together with the interrelationships between them.2

The atrocious abuses committed under South America's dictators resulted in a wave of amnesties. Following transitions to democracy, challenges from victims and civil society unpicked several of these amnesties, leading to hundreds of perpetrators facing prosecution. These developments prompted far-reaching claims in academic literature and policy reports regarding the significance of the erosion of South America's amnesties for shaping international legal norms and policy preferences on amnesties within the region and beyond. This article draws on a comparative analysis of case law from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and national courts as well as legislative changes to argue that there is a regional trend to move away from broad, unconditional amnesties enacted during or after dictatorial rule. However, it notes that this is not universal across the region, nor does it represent a rejection of all forms of amnesty. The article then tests the claims being made in the literature regarding the significance of the regional trend on the legality, durability and desirability of amnesties. It finds that there is little evidence to support claims that the regional developments are indicative of a broader normative shift. It concludes by identifying the risks posed by regional overreach.

This article considers points of connection and coherence between and among the Rome I Regulation, the Rome II Regulation, and Regulation 1215, and relevant predecessor instruments. The degree of consistency in aim, design and detail of conflict of laws rules is examined, vertically (between/among consecutive instruments) and horizontally (across cognate instruments). Symbiosis between instruments is explored, as is the interrelationship between choice of court and choice of law. Disadvantaged parties, and the cohesiveness of their treatment under the Regulations, receive particular attention.

This article considers the functions of transparency in regulating consumer contract terms in the UK and Australia. The discussion is set in the context of EU level regulation with various references to civil law approaches. The main issue explored here is the extent to which transparency is capable of legitimizing substantively unfair terms. However, I also explore other roles that may be played by transparency and the extent to which these are facilitated in the UK and Australia.

Four years following the entry into force of the EU data protection framework (the GDPR) serious questions remain regarding its enforcement, particularly in transnational contexts. While this transnational under-enforcement is often attributed to the role of key national authorities in the GDPR's procedures, this article identifies more systemic flaws. It examines whether the GDPR procedures are deficient-by-design and, if not, how these flaws might be addressed. The conclusions reached inform our understanding of how to secure effective protection of the EU Charter right to data protection. They are also of significance to EU law enforcement more generally given the increasing prevalence of composite decision-making as the mechanism of choice to administer EU law.

The English courts have often incurred the reproach of undue insularity in their attitude to foreign law.1 A common gripe is that they have failed to recognise that there is a world elsewhere, and that England is not “a legal island”.2 Savigny, we are told,3 was moved to lament over the fact that although in other branches of knowledge there was an internationalist outlook in England, in the field of jurisprudence alone it “remained divided from the rest of the world, as if by a Chinese wall”. Recently it has been suggested that “The foundation of this Chinese wall… lay … in an unquestioning belief in the superiority of the common law and its institutions, at least in England.”4 It would be unsafe to affirm that the charge of insularity has always been without foundation. The “Little England”5 attitude of mind, Roskill LJ reminds us,6 was “once proclaimed in the phrase ‘Athanasius contra mundum’”. And it should occasion no surprise that the examples commonly advanced to substantiate the charge are usually drawn from private international law.7

As scholars in the Global Administrative Law project have recognized, doctrines familiar from domestic administrative systems are beginning to appear, in nascent forms, in some areas of international law. This article makes a first attempt to examine the appearance of one such doctrine, the duty to give reasons for administrative decisions, in international case-law. The existence of and rationales for this duty have been contentious in many domestic jurisdictions. The article thus considers the extent to which these debates have been replicated amongst adjudicators at the international level. The focus is on cases in the areas of WTO law, investment law and human rights law. It is found that the case law is not yet extensive, and (perhaps as a result) that no coherent picture emerges. In contrast to domestic systems, the areas examined in international law demonstrate some agreement on the desirability of the duty. However, different international adjudicators have recognized different rationales for the duty, with only limited consensus even within each area of international law studied.

The British Government's nationalization of the shares of Northern Rock plc and Bradford & Bingley plc in 2008 raises important issues about the standard of protection owed to the banks' non-UK investors and the manner in which compensation should be calculated. The United Kingdom is party to numerous bilateral investment treaties as well as the European Convention on Human Rights, which adopt an international standard of protection for foreign investors and require the payment of ‘market value’ compensation for the property taken. As the analysis in this article shows, the compensation scheme established by the British Government appears to fall short of these obligations.