Your search

The experience of many university students studying public international law is, ""This is fascinating, but what can I do with it?"" While this book in no way detracts from the more intangible reasons to study international law, it is practically focused and explores the options available to law graduates beyond traditional or domestic law career paths. The range of possible careers is vast - from human rights to investment law and from the courtroom or boardroom to the refugee camp - and the book offers a step-by-step approach to considering whether and how to pursue a career in one of these

In 1988, defence lawyers in Ottawa were instructed to “whack” the complainant in sexual assault cases. These were their marching orders:

This chapter presents a theoretical perspective on the roles of law in the evolution of planning systems. Three main roles of law in planning are distinguished: law can enable, delimit and codify planning. How these roles play out and relate to each other in the evolution of a planning system, will differ by community. In four scenario’s we discern key points regarding the relation between the roles of law in evolving spatial governance. Understanding the different roles of law in planning, and their interplay in the evolution of the planning system, adds to the scientific and societal debates on planning and law, where hitherto polarizing discourses (planning vs law) dominated the discussion. More broadly, our perspective on the enabling, codifying and delimiting functions of law in planning sheds a new light on the potential and limitation of both law and planning to shape the future of communities.

This paper is based on a presentation I gave at the Access Conference in Toronto, Ontario on September 10th, 2015. Both the presentation and this paper are explorations in three parts. The first part is a short history lesson on the use of paper cards by scholars and librarians, which led to the introduction of the “Scholar’s Box.” The second part asks the question: Can we consider Zotero as the Scholar’s Box of the digital age when it cannot capture important metadata such as linked open data? It is recognized that this is not just a shortcoming of Zotero: research is surprisingly still very difficult to share between scholars, libraries, and writing tools. This is due to an inability to capture the “invisible text” when we copy and paste citations from one application to another. The third part establishes that the digital card is now the dominant design pattern of web and mobile, and notes that these systems are largely restricted to proprietary platforms, which restricts the movement of cards between systems. This paper then suggests how we might transform the historical Scholar’s Box, by using HTML5 index cards from Cardstack.io as a means to bring new forms of sharing on the web, and, in doing so, reconnect the scholar to the library. Cet article est basé sur un exposé que j’ai donné à Access Conference à Toronto le 10 septembre 2015. L’exposé et cet article sont des explorations en trois parties. La première partie est une leçon d’histoire courte sur l’usage des cartes en papier par les spécialistes et les bibliothécaires, qui a mené à l’introduction du “Scholar’s Box”. La seconde partie pose la question: Est-ce que nous pouvons considérer Zotero comme le “Scholar’s Box” de l’âge numérique, même s’il ne peut pas capturer des métadonnées importantes telles que les données liées ouvertes? On reconnaît que ce n’est pas seulement une lacune de Zotero: étonnement, la recherche est toujours très difficile à partager entre spécialistes, bibliothèques, et outils d’aide à la rédaction. Ceci est dû à l’incapacité de capturer le “texte invisible” quand on copie et colle des citations d’une application à une autre. La troisième partie établit que la carte numérique est maintenant le motif dominant sur le Web et sur le mobile, et constate que ces systèmes sont largement limités aux plateformes propriétaires, ce qui limite le mouvement des cartes entre les systèmes. Cet article suggère comment on pourrait transformer le “Scholar’s Box” historique en utilisant les cartes d’index HTML5 de Cardstack.io comme moyen d’apporter de nouveaux moyens de partager sur le Web, et ce faisant, reconnecter le spécialiste à la bibliothèque.

For self-defence actions to be lawful, they must be directed at military targets. The absolute prohibition on non-military targeting under the jus in bello is well known, but the jus ad bellum also limits the target selection of states conducting defensive operations. Restrictions on targeting form a key aspect of the customary international law criteria of necessity and proportionality. In most situations, the jus in bello will be the starting point for the definition of a military targeting rule. Yet it has been argued that there may be circumstances when the jus ad bellum and the jus in bello do not temporally or substantively overlap in situations of self-defence. In order to address any possible gaps in civilian protection, and to bring conceptual clarity to one particular dimension of the relationship between the two regimes, this article explores the independent sources of a military targeting rule. The aim is not to displace the jus in bello as the ‘lead’ regime on how targeting decisions must be made, or to undermine the traditional separation between the two ‘war law’ regimes. Rather, conceptual light is shed on a sometimes assumed, but generally neglected dimension of the jus ad bellum’s necessity and proportionality criteria that may, in limited circumstances, have significance for our understanding of human protection during war.

//static.cambridge.org/content/id/urn%3Acambridge.org%3Aid%3Aarticle%3AS0829320113000501/resource/name/firstPage-S0829320113000501a.jpg

"Adjudicating International Human Rights" published on 01 Jan 2015 by Brill | Nijhoff.

By: Joshua Sealy-Harrington PDF Version: Jiangho Unchained: A Discussion of the Narrative and Commentary Surrounding the Jian Ghomeshi Scandal The recent scandal surrounding Jian Ghomeshi’s dismiss…

The primary goal of this article is to look at the property attributes of copyright to inform a more nuanced understanding of the nature of copyright that emphasizes its distinct character. I resort primarily to James W. Harris' theory in Property and Justice, and in particular, on the insights that his characterization of property as the twin manifestation of trespassory rules and of an ownership spectrum, bring to the understanding of copyright. While copyright holders' right to exclude has been a focal point in copyright theory, looking at copyright through trespassory rules and the ownership spectrum allows me to discern two distinct yet interrelated property interests that bring a more refined understanding of the property attributes of copyright.

Over the last 15 years, English courts have developed the injunction contra mundum, one made against all the world and used primarily to prevent infringement of privacy and breaches of confidence. The order has attracted recent criticism because it is frequently sought by celebrities to suppress publicity about their private and family life. Such an order intersects a number of substantive areas of law, including: the developing tort of privacy; freedom of speech, the Internet and prior restraint; the open court principle; defamation; and the ability to enforce court orders across jurisdictional boundaries. This article addresses the difficulties of introducing such an injunction into Canadian common law and whether it is necessary.

This paper argues that the principles articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Gladue and re-iterated in R. v. Ipeelee are being interpreted and implemented at the bail phase in a manner that exacerbates, rather than ameliorates the systemic failures of the criminal justice system in its dealings with Aboriginal people. Aboriginal people are grossly over-represented in Canadian prisons including those being detained in remand custody. It is now settled that the principles expressed in Gladue are applicable outside of the context of sentencing and in many jurisdictions have been found to be applicable to judicial interim release proceedings. Reviewing the existing bail jurisprudence involving Aboriginal accused persons, I uncover the ways that Gladue is being applied and misapplied. I also consider how the current crisis in the bail system in Canada disproportionately impacts Aboriginal people and how judicial consideration of Gladue and bail has not alleviated this crisis. The paper concludes with a proposal for a more robust framework for the interpretation of Gladue in judicial interim release proceedings.

This article draws on an emerging body of empirical research that indicates that parties place a greater emphasis in some situations on actual rather than substitutionary performance. It examines the case law on the enforcement of keep open clauses in Canada, Australia and other common law jurisdictions to highlight the disconnect between doctrinal orthodoxy on the enforceability of such clauses and party remedial preferences. The article explores the constraints of supervision and enforcement and concludes there is scope for enhancing party preference for performance through coercive remedies.

Commentators have predicted that machine intelligence and off-shoring will steadily undermine demand for lawyers in North America and Europe. This essay argues that this prediction is not equally valid for all types of legal practice. Personal plight practice — in which lawyers help individuals and small businesses involved in legal disputes — is largely sheltered from computerization and off-shoring. The article calls for the profession and legal educators to open doors between tomorrow’s lawyers and personal plight legal practice. Doing so will not only address the economic insecurity confronting tomorrow’s lawyers, but also enhance access to justice.

Canadian law sometimes allows gain-based remedies for certain wrongful acts. There is a strong suggestion that gain-based remedies are available in the common law provinces for torts and perhaps breaches of contract, but the courts have been hesitant. Common law provinces have also been willing to award gain-based remedies for breaches of confidence, in the court’s discretion. In the context of infringements of intellectual property rights, which is federal law, the legislation makes clear that gain-based remedies are available, although again this is in the discretion of the court. In both common law and Quebec civil law, in situations where one person is managing the property or affairs of another in a fiduciary capacity, improper gains must be surrendered, although it is arguable that the law ascribes rights acquired by the manager to the principal as the correct legal implementation of the parties’ relationship, rather than as a remedy for wrongdoing.

As has long been recognized, the contract of employment depends on the commodification of labour power. Notwithstanding debates amongst political theorists and trade union activists about whether individuals should be viewed as self-owners, and whether it is possible to sell one’s capabilities without selling one’s self, the law does treat labour power as a commodity. There has been little research on the ways in which the law does so, however, for the simple reason that self-ownership of one’s laboring capacities is often taken as fact, as the starting premise for analysis, and treated as a necessary pre-condition for individual self-realization through contract. Moreover, proprietary and contractual forms of regulating work are often presented as diametrically opposed: a proprietary method of labour regulation is said to create a relationship of slavery, while contract is presented as an institution of choice.

It is now an uncontroversial proposition that the choice of remedy following a determination of infringement of a substantive right engages distinct principles associated with the law of remedies and it is for the court to match remedial function to underlying substantive right. The law of remedies can be divided into a number of functional goals:Compensation – a measure of a monetary amount that will make good the plaintiff’s actual pecuniary losses or is seen as an adequate substitute to make good the plaintiff’s non-pecuniary losses.Deterrence – a remedy that is forward looking in that it is designed to deter the defendant, or similarly like-minded parties, from continuing or perpetrating the wrong in the future.Punishment – a remedy that is backward looking in that it is to exact retribution or societal condemnation on the defendant for the wrong perpetrated on the plaintiff.Restitution - Restoration – to give back to the claimant that which has been taken by the defendant.Disgorgement – To give up to the plaintiff that which has been acquired by the defendant through the perpetration of wrongdoing to the plaintiff. Coercion – a court order by way of injunction or specific relief that enforces the defendant to comply under pain of contempt of court.Self-help – Canadian common law is mostly antagonistic toward this form of relief.Vindication – a remedy designed to demonstrate to the world and to validate the plaintiff’s belief that the defendant has unjustly infringed its rights. Remedial functions are not categorical or mutually exclusive. For example, where everyone injured by a wrongdoer recovers compensation resulting in the full internalisation of the cost of wrongdoing by the tortfeasor, then, compensation can also achieve a deterrence function. In fact, this is a paramount reason used to support class actions in the area of tort law, in that it creates a procedural mechanism to maximise the internalisation by the tortfeasor of the true cost of their wrongdoing. A functional classification highlights that plaintiffs may well have concerns beyond compensation and deterrence. It also illustrates the strengths and weaknesses within any particular functional goal. For example, coercive remedies may effect deterrence better than damages; compensation compensates poorly for non-pecuniary losses; and vindication may be better achieved through resort to innovative remedies such as an ordered apology and publication than through damages, to name but a few. Similarly, a plaintiff does not necessarily pursue a single goal; rather, trade-offs are made. For example, the effect of a public retraction or correction of a defamatory statement lessens the damages payable on the basis that the plaintiff has been vindicated and his or her reputation restored, thereby lessening the need for compensation. Likewise, to order restitution – restoration, can also amount to compensation; may often be achieved by requiring disgorgement, and may effect punishment, deterrence and vindication all in the same process. The dominant remedial function in tort law remains compensation through an award of damages for pecuniary loss. However, tort actions that warrant an award of damages for non-pecuniary loss incur profound difficulties with respect to both quantification, as well as to function being pursued. Similarly, a number of emerging torts (i.e. the tort of misfeasance in public office, and intrusion upon seclusion ) do not fit comfortably into the compensatory function but appear to be more concerned with vindication and deterrence.