It has become commonplace to argue that foreign direct investment (FDI) flows are to some extent determined by the effectiveness of host state legal systems – the institutions and officials involved in the creation and implementation of law, including courts and judges, bureaucrats, and politicians, in their capacity as makers and implementers of law. The primary concern of the paper is how this dominant theory can be tested – that is, what methods can we use to test the extent to which the effectiveness of legal systems affects success in attracting FDI? The analysis focuses in particular on South Asia, the US and the UK, The paper considers what data on FDI and legal systems are necessary and available for conducting a statistical regression test of the theory. It establishes that the data available until recently were inadequate. The paper then considers the extent to which recent empirical studies, conducted under the auspices of the World Bank, produce useful facts for the purpose of testing the relationship between FDI and legal systems. These new data sets are recommended by the World Bank Group's Foreign Investment Advisory Service (FIAS), and thus provide a useful insight into the type of information assumed by theorists to be available, and useful, to investors. The paper therefore also considers how the theory that legal systems are determinants of FDI can be implemented by investors – that is, what information exists upon which they can base their location decisions? It is concluded that many points, fundamental and finer, about the relationship between legal systems and FDI remain to be explored. We have a neat, intellectually appealing theory. Sadly, we still do not have the facts to test it, nor for investors to implement it.

The pursuit of security as a matter of domestic policy stands high on the political agenda of many Western nations and is a booming area of private investment. This repays close attention to what is meant when the concept of security is invoked as a justification of public policy or private practice. This paper examines the various meanings and differing constructions of security as a negative or positive presence, as a material or symbolic good, as a public good or private service, and as a response to external or internal threats. It observes how the language of security is differentiated also according to local legal cultures and calls for comparative analysis of the meaning and usage of the term in different jurisdictions. It suggests some possible differences in the structural arrangements for the pursuit of security that arise from differing relationships among the state, private sector and civil society. And it concludes by mapping out some apparent variants on the public-private divide that might profitably inform comparative analysis of the practices, as opposed to the rhetoric, of security.

Patient autonomy is one of the central values in medical ethics. It is generally understood as recognition of patients' rights as free individuals answerable only to themselves. This emphasis on the individual leaves open the question of the position of the patients' ‘loved ones’, that is of families and significant others. The authors examine this question in three areas of law and medical ethics. Organ donation offers an example of preference given by medical ethics to family views, notwithstanding an expressed wish of the deceased to donate, and the legal position protecting such a request. Decisions concerning the treatment of incompetent patients illustrate consideration for the family in medical ethics, but hesitations in both law and ethics in accepting family views once expressed. And the tension between the interests of patients and family members over the access to genetic information usually results in respecting the patient's right to confidentiality. This individualistic perception of autonomy, as adopted by medical law, overlooks the patient's relationships with others and is too narrow to face the complexities of human lives.

The Statement of Standards for University Law Library Provision is a comprehensive and flexible set of Standards providing authoritative guidance, representing a broad consensus of views, for Law Schools and law librarians. The Standards were drawn up by a consultative group established by the Libraries Committee of the Society, and approved by the Society after extensive consultation with academic, professional and governmental bodies. The Standards cover the whole range of issues relating to the operation of a Law Library including its relationship with the Law School, its management, collections, space, and equipment. It is supported by an annual survey of university Law Library provision conducted in collaboration with the British and Irish Association of Law Librarians. The accumulated research data from these surveys provides the basis not only for realistic benchmarks and targets in the Statement but also for a series of analytical research reports which monitor trends in university Law Library provision. (The published Statements and research reports are listed below.)