This paper examines two different theories in relation to the optimal modes of public deliberation about constitutional values and the public good in the context of democratic pluralism: Rawlsian Public Reason and Nedelsky’s Enlarged Mentality. I challenge Rawlsian public reason’s claim to epistemic abstinence, autonomy and its claim to reflect a political conception of justice by examining certain contradictory aspects of its theoretical rendition. I argue that significant aspects of the picture of democracy that Rawlsian public reason reflects are unempirical. I argue that Rawlsian public reason’s concept of bracketing moral and religious argumentation from public deliberation is unjustifiable, unattainable and derogates from Canadian constitutional values. I proffer that Nedelsky’s enlarged mentality is preferable as it is more realistic and consonant with Canadian constitutional values. I argue that Nedelsky’s enlarged mentality is facilitative of genuine and meaningful dialogic exchange in spite of difference whilst managing the risk of democratic instability.

This Note asserts that natural disaster-affected populations have a right to call on the international community to protect basic subsistence interests where their sovereign government is unable or unwilling to do so in the wake of a catastrophic natural disaster. First, this Note situates the right to international humanitarian assistance following a natural disaster as a legitimate right under modern international human rights law, using the normative framework set out by renowned political theorist Charles Beitz. This Note then illustrates how the international humanitarian law doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect provides a clear and coherent way to operationalize the right to post-natural disaster humanitarian assistance, by providing a previously-determined structure for a definitive, yet circumstantially-flexible, determination of first- and second-level responsibilities for eligible international actors to take action in defence of this right.

The concepts of sovereignty and legal personality in Islamic Law and Western Law are fundamentally different. Under Islamic law sovereignty belongs to Allah and the ruler is the agent of the Ummah. His function is to implement, rather than make the law. Western law assigns sovereignty to the state. The state has complete monopoly over the law making process, giving validity to which under Islamic law was the domain of the doctrinal schools. Furthermore, the birth of the nation-state has changed the structure in which traditional Islamic law operated which has now been forcefully restricted in its scope. The concept of ‘asabiyya is different from the concept of nation. The former is a natural phenomenon while the latter has been imposed upon the Ummah. If certain changes are made to the way that the modern state operates, it can function as an administrative tool that serves the Ummah.

The Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive ("AIFMD"), adopted by the European Union on 11 November 2010, has introduced a harmonized set of rules for alternative investment funds (“AIFs”) in Europe. This thesis discusses potential financial risks for the AIFs industry arising from the European regulatory reform, which started before the current financial crisis, and compares relevant European, Canadian and US rules governing AIFs. This comparative analysis is based on four main criteria: i) registration and authorization requirements, ii) general financial transparency requirements, iii) capital requirements, and iv) remuneration restrictions. The analysis of AIFs regulatory reform in Europe leads to three main conclusions. First, the AIFMD requirements are much stricter than analogue regimes in Canada and the United States. Second, as a consequence of this regulation, European AIFs may be in disadvantage. Third, the complexity of the present European institutional framework is not able to fully implement the European regulatory reform.

The International Commission on Intervention on State Sovereignty was established with the intent of articulating more robust guidelines on how the international community should respond to humanitarian crises. In 2001, the Commission released its official report in which it proposed the creation of new concept called the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). R2P sought to make nations more willing to address humanitarian crises. This thesis examines how the concept of R2P has the potential of impacting state behaviour. Through examining its normative evolution and current impact on state behaviour, this thesis argues that while the concept clearly has led to an increase political will to react, it is occasionally limited by the surrounding political realities.

Most mobile phones in Canada contain software that prevents the consumer from using the phone on multiple networks. This is known as a ‘software lock’, and is installed prior to the point of sale by the mobile service providers. As of 2011, all three large Canadian service providers have adopted a similar practice to charge a fee to remove the software lock from phones. This fee applies even after the consumer’s service contract with the provider ends. This thesis examines whether the practice of charging consumer a fee for removing the software lock after the contract expires is anti-competitive in Canada. Through examining economic theory and undergoing legal analysis, this thesis will argue that while the practice is clearly anti-competitive, it does not substantially lessen competition enough to be prevented under competition law. This thesis suggests that this industry practice should be prohibited through the passing of consumer protection legislation.

This thesis is an attempt to consider some of the challenges facing the regime of international commercial arbitration (ICA) in the contemporary global economy. It examines the governance mechanism of the regime of ICA in a globalizing economy. The thesis seeks to analyze the process of harmonization of the law of ICA with particular reference to availability of interim measures from court. In particular, the analytical focus is on how the globalizing economy affects the requirement of “court-ordered interim measures” in the arbitration process and how international arbitral regime attempts to cope with such changing demand of the globalizing economy. The thesis emphasizes the importance of harmonizing the national laws on the above-mentioned issue through ratifying international conventions as opposed to formulation of non-mandatory UNCITRAL Model Law.

This thesis examines the world of solitary confinement within the prison system. My research was inspired by Ashley Smith, a 19-year old segregated inmate who died in isolation while seven guards watched. This outrageous occurrence prompted me to question the practice of solitary confinement and a prison system in which such an event could occur. Studying the history of solitary confinement left me surprised to learn that it was originally intended as a therapeutic and merciful alternative to the punishments of the day. This revelation was one of a series of inversions that led me to conclude that solitary confinement is a world apart, not just physically, but also socially, temporally and legally. I have concluded that improving the lives of those segregated within our prisons requires the world of solitary confinement to become anchored within the broader legal and social context.

This paper concerns the dominant conceptual or formal accounts of legal rights: the Interest and Will Theories. Section II clarifies the minimal necessary conditions for a rights model to count as a Will Theory. It also explores Kant’s Will Theory of rights and the difficulties posed to it by Hohfeld’s schema of jural relations. Kant has three alternatives: reject the schema’s utility or demonstrate his theory’s compatibility with it via molecularist or basic models of Hohfeldian rights. Although his best option is to disavow Hohfeld, Kant’s theory is ultimately undesirable on other grounds. Section III shall analyze the modern Will and Interest Theories’ biggest weaknesses according to a test proposed in Section I, which should generate bases for preferring one theory to another. It will offer a counterargument to the Inalienability charge levied against the Will Theory, and demonstrate why Interest Theory responses to the Third Party Beneficiary argument are inadequate.

This paper will consider how regulatory arbitrage contributed to the 2007-2009 financial crisis (the “financial crisis”). In particular, the paper will establish how the avoidance of regulatory capital requirements by large and complex financial institutions (“LC financial institutions”) severely worsened the financial crisis, necessitating a massive rent extraction from U.S. taxpayers. In doing to, the paper will examine the regulatory arbitrage perpetrated by American International Group and the subsequent U.S. taxpayer bailout of that firm. Because of the enormous amount of sovereign credit that had to be substituted for private capital during the financial crisis the paper assumes that the net negative nature of regulatory avoidance by LC financial institutions is axiomatic. Therefore, the paper advances several possible reform measures that could eventually be implemented into a new legal framework to confront the problems that are posed by the avoidance of financial services regulations.