The Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995 introduced major reform to the common law choice of rule in delict/tort under Scots/English law respectively. To all intents and purposes, and in the face of sustained and strong criticism, the Act abandoned the common law rules based on double actionability with exceptions. The primary rule under the statute would appear to state that the applicable law is to be based on the general concept of the lex loci delicti. It is of some significance for the analysis here that the statute does not in fact utilise that Latin expression as it is indeed unclear that the expression has any technical meaning. Indeed, the provisions of the Act seek, but in the end fail, to achieve a greater degree of certainty than that rather nebulous though “right-minded” concept. Significantly, a principal objective of the reforms was to ensure that the lex fori no longer played a primary role in choice of law for delictual/tortious claims in private international law. Of course, doubts remain as to the likelihood of direct resort to the lex fori via potential escape devices provided for in the Act The two most likely stages for this arise during characterisation and later when the lex fori may be applied qua public policy.

An analysis of recent development in international criminal law shows the emergence of two countervailing trends: on the one hand a broadening trend, in that the various prosecutorial meansused to hold individuals accountable for violations of certain international crimes has expanded; and on the other hand a narrowing trend, in that the protection from prosecution afforded by international law to certain individuals, that once seemed to falter, has been reinstated.

This article ponders the possibilities existing for legal re-understandings of vulnerability and adopts the International Law Commission's Draft Articles on the Protection of Persons in the Event of Disasters (2016) as its principal discursive context. Despite some promise and potential, the draft Articles retreated to conservative understandings of disaster-vulnerability and missed an opportunity for a sophisticated formulation. This article argues for disaster law's engagement with contemporary social science research. The work of critical geographers, historians and anthropologists in political ecology is particularly apposite. By rejecting geophysical outlooks in favour of structuralist understandings of disaster-vulnerability, such research facilitates consideration of interrelated histories and the role of economics in producing disaster-vulnerability. This article argues that such perspectives allow for reconsideration of current legal understandings regarding disaster-vulnerability (particularly in relation to international cooperation and risk and reduction) and thereby offer some promise for enriching disaster law's comprehensiveness and relevance.

In Figueiredo Ferraz v Peru the US Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, deployed the doctrine of forum non conveniens to decline to enforce an arbitral award against Peru. The award had been rendered in Peru and the successful party in the arbitration sought to enforce it against Peru's assets in New York. This article argues that, contrary to the Second Circuit's approach, when the merits of a dispute are decided in an arbitration seated in one jurisdiction and the arbitral award is then presented to a court in another jurisdiction for enforcement against the award debtor and its assets within the jurisdiction of that court, neither forum non conveniens nor any rule performing the same function should arise.