The evolution of the concepts of jus cogens norms and obligations owed to the international community as a whole has had a strong impact on the work of the International Law Commission for the codification of the law on State responsibility. The acceptance that not all primary international norms were of the same gravity or significance because of the nature of the rights they seek to protect could not but influence the legal consequences to derive from the violation of such norms. However, the categorization of internationally wrongful acts to serious and less serious raises significant questions concerning the enforcement of these 'superior' norms, but also the subjects entitled to invoke the responsibility of the wrongdoing State in case of their infringement. Yet, the adoption of the 2001 Final Articles on State Responsibility has far from concluded the debate over the entitlement of States other than the individually injured to resort to countermeasures. Whilst the ILC has found that State practice supporting a right to third-State countermeasures in response to the violation of these collective interests is still inconclusive, Article 54, which makes a general reference to "lawful measures" rather than "countermeasures", leaves the settlement of the issue to the further development of international law. The question of third-State countermeasures becomes even more compelling in the absence of effective and compulsory mechanisms for the protection and enforcement of the most fundamental interests of the international community. The current research attempts to unfold the notion of third-State countermeasures as explored in the work of the ILC and as developed in international theory and practice. Most important, and in view of the possibility of the recognition of a right to third-State countermeasures in the future, this work places particular emphasis on the need of restraint, and in particular on the principle of proportionality.

This research studies and compares the interpretive influence of international human rights norms in Thailand, the UK and the USA. It has found that successive Thai Constitutions have greatly been influenced by international human rights norms, but Thai courts have not made use of such norms in interpretation. This is in contrast to the practices in the UK and the USA where courts have developed advanced theories of interpretation in order to permit influence of international human rights norms in domestic spheres. In order to better understand the underlying reasons for the use of international human rights norms or the absence of such, the research compares not only the interpretive influence of international human rights norms, but also political and constitutional backgrounds, roles of the judiciary – including judicial review and interpretive approaches – and the perceived relationships between international and domestic laws in the three countries. Based on the results of the comparison, it argues that the interpretive influence of international human rights norms is desirable in Thailand and that the Thai legal system is actually more open to such norms than those of the UK and the USA. The research culminates in using experiences of courts in the UK and the USA to formulate a framework for Thai courts to consistently and legitimately use international human rights norms in their judicial reasoning.

In recent years a number of criminal tribunals have been established to investigate, prosecute and try individuals accused of serious violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights. These tribunals have been described as 'hybrid' or 'internationalised' tribunals as their structure and applicable law consist of both international and national elements. Six such tribunals are currently in operation: the Special Court for Sierra Leone, the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, Regulation 64 panels in Kosovo, the War Crimes Chamber for Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Iraqi High Tribunal and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon. The key aims of this thesis are: to examine the increasing role of hybrid and internationalised judicial institutions in prosecuting international crimes; to outline the basic features of the existing and proposed hybrid or internationalized tribunals; to define and categorise the tribunals; to determine the jurisdictional basis of each tribunal; to analyze how the jurisdictional basis affects other issues, such as the applicable law, the application of amnesties and immunities and the relationship of these tribunals with the host state, third states, national courts and other international criminal tribunals.

The issue relating to contempt of court has caught the attention of people from all walks of life in Malaysia, particularly, after the controversial incidents of the removal of Tun Salleh Abbas, the then Lord President, in 1988 and the dismissal of the former Deputy Prime Minister, Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim, in 1998. The judiciary is attacked and its independence is questioned. The lawyers are placed under the threat of contempt proceedings when they tried to exercise their right to freedom of speech and expression and to exercise their duty to act for their clients without fear or favour. The Bar feels that the right to freedom of speech and expression is infringed. The Bar perceives that the contempt power was being misused by the judges. The Malaysian law of contempt of court is derived from the English common law tradition and is characterised by substantial flexibility. This flexibility results in variable approaches and perceptions by judges that leave uncertainties in this area of law. Consequently, a draft of Contempt of Court Act 1999 has been proposed to the Malaysian government with the main intention of overcoming uncertainties in the law. Placing the comprehensive rules in a statute will allow easier access to and greater clarity of the law because all the rules and procedures would be found in one piece of legislation. This thesis aims to state and explain the law and the practice of contempt of court in Malaysia. This study will examine the anomalies that derived from the substantial flexibility approaches by the judges in this area of law. Thorough examination and analysis would help identifying the problems and dilemma and the way that the draft Contempt of Court Act 1999 could provide remedies for the predicaments. To illuminate the understanding of the actual practical problem, this study incorporates in-depth interviews together with questionnaire surveys. A total of 15 in-depth interviews have been conducted among the Malaysian judicial officers, advocates and prosecutors. This is further complemented by postal questionnaires sent to these selected legal actors chosen at random in accordance with their seniority, aiming at eliciting their knowledge and opinion on the subject matter at hand. The combinations of theoretical discussion on contempt of court, together with the empirical study, have proved to yield a valuable insight into the re-evaluation of the Malaysian law and practice of contempt of court. This research reveals that the uncertainties in the law of contempt of court in Malaysia were ‘caused’ by the inconsistencies in the application and approaches by the judges. The judges have unfettered discretion in determining contempt cases. The majority of the Malaysian legal actors support the idea of placing the law of contempt in a piece of legislation in order to overcome these arbitrariness and uncertainties. They hold that to have credence, the law of contempt would have to be well-defined, as in the absence of any clear guidelines it would be unmerited to imprison anyone for contempt.

Undoubtedly, one of the most contentious areas of law in England, Canada and the United States is, and has been for almost two hundred years, the rule of law relating to the admissibility of extra-Judicial confessions and statements. It IS generally accepted that confessions and incriminating statements must be voluntary in order to be admissible in evidence. However, debate arises as to the meaning, scope and effectiveness of voluntariness as the test of admissibility. The purpose of this thesis is to compare, by analysing separately and in depth the rules relating to the admissibility of incriminating statements and confessions in England, Canada and the United States as expressed by the United States Supreme Court. It IS intended to isolate the internal factors of the respective rules, and by so doing, to indicate their problem areas, similarities and differences, as well as to demonstrate the judicial attitude in each country as regards the rights of an accused person in police custody, in relation to police investigative practices. It is also intended to explore historical source regarding criminal confessions, and to follow the historical sequence of events leading to the modern voluntary rule, thus exposing the role played by the confession of an accused in the administration of criminal justice throughout history, as well as revealing the historical basis of the rule itself.

The arrival of the Human Rights Act 1998 (the “HRA”) stimulated much speculation as to the effect that the Act would have on judicial approaches to the relationship between the individual and State. In particular, the Act generated expectations that it would raise rights consciousness within judicial thinking. Consequently, the potential effect this change would have on freedom of speech in the UK was intriguing. It had been said that the common law already recognised a ‘constitutional right to free speech’, although the strongest statements for its protection seemed reserved for freedom to publish, in particular and, furthermore, the common law could not interfere with contrary statutory measures. There had been speculation that the obstacle to the fullest protection for free speech would be removed if a constitutional measure was introduced that allowed the judiciary to protect free speech where the common law would otherwise be impotent. Yet it was also argued, pre-HRA, that, in addition, judicial attitudes toward freedom of speech required addressing. It was argued that the judicial approach to freedom of speech was inconsistent: the judiciary did not seem to treat free speech claims equally and so certain speakers seemed better placed than others. Certainly, uncompromisingly pro-free speech judgments were rare where the freedom to publish was not implicated. Thus, it was argued that the common law approach to free speech had developed incoherently and that there seemed to be a judicial readiness to allow restrictions on flimsy grounds. These criticisms implicated the UK judiciary’s conceptual understanding of free speech, suggesting failings in the court’s engagement with the moral and philosophical arguments underpinning the nature of the right. However, there was an expectation amongst some commentators that greater consistency of free speech protection would occur as a result of the provisions in section 2 of the HRA. It has now been almost nine years since the substantive provisions of the HRA came into force (not counting the further two years of judicial preparation). By surveying the post-HRA landscape, the object of this enquiry is to ascertain whether the judiciary has realised protection for freedom of speech in its fullest terms. Prior to the HRA, Barendt, for example, had argued that in order to maximise protection, the judiciary ought to engage with the theoretical arguments for the free speech protection. This thesis seeks to understand what the judiciary’s approach to Article 10 is and how this compares to both established theory and the rationale underpinning the Strasbourg Article 10 jurisprudence. Thus, it will examine whether the judiciary has become acclimatised to the language of ‘rights’ in a free speech context and, furthermore, whether it has recognised the significance of underlying theories of free speech in this regard. As is well-established in the academic literature, there are several dominant theories which seek to explain and justify the concept of free speech as a right. Each of these offers different perspectives on the scope of free speech and approaches to protecting it. In raising free speech from a liberty to a right in all circumstances, has the judiciary demonstrably engaged with those theories and, if so, to what extent? In other words, what value or values has the judiciary identified as being served by freedom of expression? Does the jurisprudence suggest the judiciary is simply absorbing Strasbourg jurisprudence and, if so, how does this affect the UK judiciary’s engagement with theory? In other words, even if minded to do so, what obstacles stand in the judiciary’s way toward a more principled approach to Article 10 to fit theoretical understandings of the right? By virtue of this critique, it will be argued that the UK judiciary has not developed the Article 10 jurisprudence in a principled manner, i.e., one that fully engages with the established theoretical approaches to freedom of expression. Instead, due to, amongst other things, its limited approach to the obligations contained within s. 2 of the HRA, the UK Article 10 jurisprudence demonstrates a particularly narrow approach to the consequentialist rationale for protecting expression that, consequently, neglects other rationales based on broader instrumentalist grounds or, indeed, protection based on the intrinsic value of free speech. Thus, it will be argued that in the UK, the Article 10 lens has been focussed too sharply on narrow forms of political expression. This is disappointing from a free speech advocate’s perspective not just because the concept of free speech is stunted in this environment but also because it suggests the promised ‘rights culture’ has not fully taken nor the constitutional significance of free speech fully secured.

In Thailand, s. 231 Criminal Procedure Code provides the court the broad discretion to direct the physician to disclose medical confidentiality in judicial proceedings. No criteria or guidelines have been formulated by the law to limit the judge’s discretion. This can lead to a problem in the standardisation of judgements, as different judges hold different views concerning the protection of medical confidentiality. Therefore, this thesis argues that some criteria should be set up to support the judge in exercising the discretion about the disclosure of medical confidentiality in judicial proceedings. The argument has been supported by the results of empirical study which aims to explore the stakeholders’ about the mentioned issue. The thesis findings are; (1) more education about the law concerning medical confidentiality should be provided to the public, (2) the court should interpret the law to give effect the Constitutional right to privacy, (3) S.231 Criminal Code should be revised to include the clause: “The court should direct the person to disclose confidential information only in the circumstance that the information is relevant and material to the case, and also balance the interest between maintaining confidentiality and the interest of justice”. More relevant factors lie in English laws such as necessity, proportionate and safeguards against abuse should also be considered. (4) more study is needed about the possibility of appointing an expert to a panel of judges.

This paper presents a critical analysis of the current human rights protection for suspects in the criminal justice system of China, evaluating them from the view of international human rights law and practice, in particular, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights(ICCPR) and European Convention of Human Rights(ECHR). The theme that runs through the paper is whether the right to fair trial is practically and adequately available to the suspect in China according to the established international standards. The hypothesis is that by addressing the distance between the Chinese system and international standards on the issue of human rights protection for suspects in the pre-trail criminal procedure, and the causes for this distance, the direction of further reform for criminal justice system will become clearer and more practical. The ultimate purpose of this paper is to consider how to handle the relationship between crime control and human rights protection, when the crime rates in China have generally been rising along with the high-speed economic development in recent years. Before outlining the performance of China, this paper considers the current understanding and interpretation of the relevant standards in ICCPR and ECHR. Extensive consideration is then given to weigh criminal procedure law and its practice in China against those international standards in a new detailed part. Taking into account the highly influential effects of China’s traditional legal culture and special social situation, the paper is devoted to investigate four most pressing issues regarding the continuing Chinese criminal justice reform on the pre-trial procedure in different chapters: guiding ideologies and basic principles, the pre-trial compulsory measures system, prevention of the use of illegal evidence obtained through torture and the right to legal counsel before trial. This comprehensive examination shows the significant progress regarding fair trial rights for suspects China has made in meeting international standards set in ICCPR, in particular the Criminal Procedure Law of 1996. The barriers and challenges that impair the criminal procedural rights for suspects and impede the proper enforcement of the existing criminal justice system to come in line with international standards are also highlighted with possible suggestions of improvements. These problems root in current social, cultural and institutional conditions under which the criminal justice system operates, including difficulties in changing the traditional ideology, the deficiencies and failure with the law itself for certain issues, the incorrect and ineffective enforcement of the law, and a severe shortage of professionally qualified judges, prosecutors, police and lawyers. As a result, the practices in human rights violation against suspects that subsequent reforms have been trying to eradicate still remain in the Chinese criminal justice system. The thesis concludes with the allegation that the introduction of some key rights into Chinese criminal justice system to provide greater protection to its suspects for preventing possible stage power abuse is a step in the right direction, but further procedural safeguards are necessary to ensure an effective rebalance of China’s criminal justice system. Apart from improving its legal system to fully comply with international human rights standard, the reform must fit within the Chinese culture and way of life. Therefore, the government must consider further actions to address and develop the cultural and social conditions of the Chinese criminal justice system.

The objective of this thesis is to find solutions to the access to medicine problem in Nigeria whilst still complying with the TRIPS Agreement. The study reveals that apart from the high prices of medicines, there are other major domestic factors such as the lack of social amenities, the failure of the pharmaceutical industry to become self reliant, counterfeit drugs and lack of recognition for traditional medicines which have contributed to the lack of medicines for HIV/AIDS and other opportunistic diseases that are a major public health problem in Nigeria. In fulfilling the objective of this study, the thesis notes that many Nigerian laws are based on the British legal system; a historical analysis of the patent system in Britain and indeed Europe is therefore carried out. The historical analysis is relevant in recognizing how the patent concept developed and evolved into becoming one of the most powerful components of the multi- lateral trading system and why developing countries like Nigeria have struggled with the concept. The HIV/AIDS epidemic in Nigeria, neglected diseases and counterfeit drugs are also examined with key emphasis on the Nigerian governments’ position on tackling the access to medicines problem. In that section an examination of the human rights approach to confronting the access to medicines crisis is conducted with a view of encouraging the respect and protection of fundamental human rights whilst still complying with the TRIPS Agreement. Ultimately a comparative analysis of the Nigerian and Indian pharmaceutical industry is carried out in order to extract lessons which may be useful to the Nigerian government when initiating public health policies and amending its intellectual property laws which are presently out-of-date. In the end the thesis stipulates ways in which Nigeria can take advantage of the flexibilities of compulsory licenses and parallel importation within the TRIPS Agreement to gain access to medicines.

No description available.