On July 28, 2010, US District Judge Susan Bolton said the US administration “is likely to succeed” in its argument and issued a preliminary injunction suspending the implementation of several key provisions of Arizona’s immigration law that were to come into force July 29, 2010. . . . [more]
Archive for ‘Substantive Law: Foreign Law’
Norwegian lawyer Fredrik Heffermehl, who holds an LLM from NYU, argued in his book, Nobels vilje published in 2008, that half the awards of the Peace Prize have not conformed to Alfred Nobel’s 1895 testamentary intentions. Now his book is about to be published in translation as The Nobel Peace Prize: What Nobel Really Wanted and the issue is being mooted in the English-speaking press.
Heffermehl’s interpretation is that “Nobel did not establish a prize for ‘peace’ in whatever guise, but a prize for work for peace in certain ways and certain fields” [emphasis in the original]; . . . [more]
The legal press around the world this weekend featured a variety of stories that caught my attention. Let’s visit India, Sierra Leone, Namibia and England. . . . [more]
The US Senate has passed a bill against ‘libel tourism’, essentially barring the enforcement of defamation judgments from places that the US deems to protect free speech insufficiently. In what has become a widespread but still unfortunate practice, the bill’s name is an acronym: the Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage Act (viz the SPEECH Act).*
Is such a bill necessary? Would not a rule like the Canadian . . . [more]
What Slaw talks about, the world talks about tomorrow. Well not quite. No illusions about our reach.
So we’ll just put it down to coincidence or the zeitgeist that John Gregory’s mention of Henry VIII Clauses (he initially undervalued the monarch at a mere VII) here triggered global interest. But a few days later, the English legal press revealed that the Lord Chief Justice spoke on just this subject.
Lord Judge, who as Lord Chief Justice is head of the English judiciary, was speaking at the annual Lord Mayor’s dinner for the judiciary, the day before John Gregory’s comment; . . . [more]
At a session at the Fourth International Legal Ethics Conference at Stanford Law School yesterday afternoon Freddy Mnyongani Senior Lecturer of the Jurisprudence Department at the University of South Africa told us that today has been marked by the United Nations as Mandela Day, in honour of the great man’s 92nd birthday.
On Mandela Day people are called to devote just 67 minutes of their time to changing the world for the better, in a small gesture of solidarity with humanity, and in a small step towards a continuous, global movement for good. . . . [more]
At a session at the Fourth International Legal Ethics Conference at Stanford Law School this morning Laurel Terry pointed us to a very elegant model for organizing legal information. It was developed a decade ago by the Project on International Courts and Tribunals. Simon noticed the link in the post here, but didn’t drill down.
The PICT Research Matrix is the first comprehensive, systematic and holistic mapping of the international judicial system. It encompasses 18 international judicial bodies, grouped in six clusters according to their geographical scope and/or subject-matter jurisdiction. For each institution, 29 issues, grouped in five . . . [more]
The European Community has placed a new online front end on its law-related offerings, aiming to make it easier to find what you want amid the welter of languages, systems, and regulations. The recently launched European e-Justice Portal contains sections directed at the public, businesses, the legal profession, and the judiciary. Within the Legal Profession section are the following resources:
- Law – providing general information and links with respect to the laws of the union, member states, and international treaties
- Case law – offering links to databases containing judgments for these various jurisdictions (and notably lacking any references to WorldLII
. . . [more]
The Court of Appeal for England and Wales has recently decided, in Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd  EWCA Civ 804 that the ‘responsible journalism in the public interest’ defence to defamation requires that an online archive of a story must be updated to take account of exculpatory developments.
Since the Canadian version of that defence (‘public interest responsible communication’) expressly applies to blogs and other non-mainstream-media publications, will bloggers have to update their stories too? Will they have to go back and amend or annotate the original posting? Does the usual blogging software allow for that?
(In Flood, . . . [more]
Earlier today I stumbled across an excellent, free Investment Treaty Arbitration website at UVic Law that has so far appears to have gone unnoticed by SLAW.ca commentators.
According to the site, it provides access to all publicly available investment treaty awards along with information and resources relating to investment treaties and investment treaty arbitration and links to further resources.
Readers of the site are encouraged to send investment treaty materials and awards to Professor Andrew Newcombe for posting.
You can access awards chronologically or alphabetically by claimaint or by respondent state. Information is also provided for expert opinions and ICSID . . . [more]
The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) in the United States filed a petition against the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in federal court for an independent review of the airport body scanner program, and a motion for an emergency stay of said program. . . . [more]
In a prosecution that has garnered steadily growing criticism since it’s inception in 2008, two Russian art exhibit organizers were convicted today under the Russian Criminal Code section that sanctions “incitement of national, racial, or religious enmity.” See the Associated Press story. A 2008 post on GiF.ru – Art of Russia sets out a careful translation into English of the (long) Russian indictment. The text of Article 282 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation reads as follows in English:
Article 282. Incitement of National, Racial, or Religious Enmity
1. Actions aimed at the incitement of national, racial,
. . . [more]