Four of the contemporary practitioners of the death penalty in Southeast Asia: Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and Singapore, performed judicial executions on a regular basis between the years 1975 and 2009. Notwithstanding this similarity, the number of death sentences passed by courts that were subsequently reduced to a term of imprisonment through grants of clemency by the executive (or where the prisoner sentenced to death is exonerated by way of a pardon) varied remarkably between these jurisdictions over this 35-year period: some of these countries commuted the sentences of death row prisoners often, others rarely. In this DPhil thesis, I employ the methodology of comparative criminal justice to explore the discrepancies and similarities in capital clemency practice between these four Southeast Asian jurisdictions, seeking to document the known examples of clemency grants over the course of their modern history, and to investigate the reasons why retentionist countries exercise clemency at vastly different ‘rates’ in finalised capital cases. As clemency and pardon deliberations by the executive are usually performed in secret, academic study of the subject has remained scarce, and the suspected reasons behind death sentence commutations, and their relative frequency, are rarely analysed. My inductive, qualitative study in comparative criminal justice will attempt to address these deficiencies in analysis as they apply to four Southeast Asian countries that continue to practice capital punishment as a form of criminal sanction. Moving beyond Amnesty International’s simplistic observation that ‘nowhere in Asia has the ready availability of such clemency been marked’, I examine the intricacies of the clemency practice in each jurisdiction, and arrive at regional trends and patterns.

Recent policies in England and Wales and the United States have recognised for the first time enforcement mechanisms for victims of crime under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA) in the United States as well the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime in England and Wales (the Code). Although very different from one another, these policies ostensibly aimed to provide a stronger commitment to victims’ rights, by recognising an accessible, timely and impartial process that recognises accountability and provides individual remedies in cases of breaches. This thesis engages in a careful in-depth analysis of these mechanisms and their implementation based on elite qualitative interviews, case law analysis and a multidisciplinary examination of the relevant literature. It argues that on the whole, these mechanisms have presented a number of limitations, and thus in many respects cannot and have not delivered accessible, and timely means to respond to victims’ rights breaches. Most importantly, it demonstrates that for certain types of breaches and in certain contextual settings, these mechanisms have recognised only limited or no redress at all for breaches. This research takes the available victims’ literature further by arguing that many of these promises have been closer to rhetoric than reality and providing a more nuanced portrait of the substantial difficulties and limitations that relate to these enforcement mechanisms. In effect, these limitations can be understood in light of the nature and structural components of these selected mechanisms, as well as the ways they have been implemented by the main actors involved in these processes and the different contexts under which the different types of breaches take place. Finally, despite their limitations, when compared to one another, each mechanism can be considered a better option for access, timeliness and redress – depending on context and the type of breach. Following from this analysis, a complementary approach is developed which can facilitate and increase opportunity for redress for a wider range of situations. It is important to bear in mind however the limits of the complementary approach; namely, that it only includes elements inspired from the two mechanisms examined in this thesis and that there are several limitations that relate to transplants and policy transfers.

Following the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, Muslim nations have been placed in the spotlight of international debate; the prevailing understanding is that democracy and Islam are fundamentally incompatible. This verdict is particularly damning in light of the trend in International Law which, since the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe, has equated democracy with human rights. Yet, a thorough analysis of the debate, taking into account the historical and theoretical bases of liberal democracy — the cultural, legal, and political development of Islam, and the extent to which the politics of Islamic countries represents the politics of Islam — reveals that democracy and Islam are, in fact, fundamentally compatible. In practice, Islamic Law can be applied alongside developments in democratic representations and human rights, whilst popular perceptions of Islam as inhibiting development in human rights are often unfounded, as can be demonstrated by examining the case of Saudi Arabia.

This thesis sets out to provide a deep analysis of the mechanisms for review of convictions in New Zealand and England after initial appeal rights are exhausted, and to identify the key areas of similarity and difference between these systems, the reasons for these differences, and their implications. The appeal systems in each jurisdiction are briefly examined, alongside the pressures and restrictions on their functioning. Particular attention is paid to the options for appeal out of time, and for revisiting appeal decisions if new material comes to light. The main discussion is of the specialist procedures for review of suspect convictions in each jurisdiction: the Royal Prerogative of Mercy process carried out by the New Zealand Ministry of Justice and the work of the English Criminal Cases Review Commission. This discussion presents the results of empirical research carried out by the author utilising the files of each of these bodies. It investigates the legal context in which each body functions, and provides an account of how each body functions in practice, by examining the circumstances in which each body will contemplate referring a matter back to an appeal court and the means by which a determination is made as to whether to do so in an individual case. In addition it examines the various factors (legal and non-legal) which impact on their work. Finally, the key features of the two systems are contrasted, with a discussion of the areas of similarity and difference, as well as the possible implications of these, in particular for reform of the New Zealand processes.

The purpose of this study is: to explore and analyze the Communication Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (CALEA), to identify problems related to CALEA, to identify solutions devised by other countries to overcome problems similar to CALEA's, and to propose feasible solutions to CALEA problems.

Relocation cases are disputes between separated parents which arise when one proposes to move to a new locality with their child and the other objects. Relocation disputes are increasingly common and are becoming a topic of international concern. This thesis takes a comparative socio-legal approach to examining the legal responses to relocation cases in England and New Zealand. In England, Payne v Payne [2001] 1 FLR 1052 continues to apply principles first enunciated in Poel v Poel [1970] 1 WLR 1469, and generally sees children’s welfare as being promoted by allowing primary carers to relocate, so long as such moves are bona fide and well-considered. New Zealand rejected this approach in the mid-1990s, and now places more emphasis on children having strong relationships with both parents. Consequently, where England is characterised as ‘pro-relocation’, New Zealand is ‘anti-relocation’. Qualitative interviews with legal practitioners in both countries suggest that these characterisations are reflective of the law in practice. Looking at hypothetical case-studies, English practitioners are more likely to support proposed relocations than New Zealanders. Many English practitioners think their law to be outdated, and in particular that it gives too much weight to applicants’ well-being and too little to the value of children having strong relationships with both parents. However, in New Zealand, where an approach similar to that favoured by many English participants is applied, practitioners have the opposite concern, that applicants’ well-being is given insufficient weight, and promoting strong relationships with both parents has become overly dominant when assessing children’s welfare. It is suggested that the current variation in approaches to relocation may fit broader trends in post-separation parenting in different countries. However, given the current ‘search for common principles’ which can be applied to relocation cases internationally, this thesis raises questions about the likelihood of international agreement being reached.

This thesis is concerned with the ways in which the laws and policies governing labour migration shape the relationship between migrant workers, employers, and labour markets in advanced industrialised countries. Specifically, it elucidates the intersections of immigration and labour market regulatory norms, structures, and processes that have salient implications for migrants’ work relations. The notions of ‘hyper-dependence’ and ‘hyper-precarity’ are developed as the main analytical and normative lenses in this thesis for examining the particular vulnerabilities associated with migrants’ precarious statuses under contemporary labour migration regimes. Hyper-dependence refers to an acute dependence that transcends the immediate context of an employment relationship, where other aspects of a worker’s life critically depend on that employer. For migrant workers, hyper-dependence may arise where their legal statuses is tethered to a specific employer sponsorship, accompanied by other de jure and de facto restrictions on their labour mobility. Hyper-precarity seeks to capture the multifaceted insecurities and uncertainties in migrants’ work relations and their broader migration projects, which are linked to their exclusion, in law and in practice, from a wide array of social, economic, and civil rights in the host state. Engaging with the various and often competing goals and concerns of immigration law and labour law, the two concepts of hyper-dependence and hyper-precarity are developed and applied through an in-depth comparative analysis of the legal and regulatory architectures of two contemporary temporary migrant workers’ programmes (TMWPs): Australia’s Temporary Work (Skilled) Subclass 457 Visa (‘457 visa’) scheme and the United Kingdom’s Tier 2 (General) visa scheme. In recent years, TMWPs in advanced industrialised countries have been touted by global and national policymakers as a desirable labour migration instrument that delivers ‘triple wins’ for host states, home states, and migrants and their families. I situate the normative concerns of the legally constructed hyper-dependence and hyper-precarity in the ethical debates on TMWPs in liberal states. I also consider how the worst extremes of the two ‘hyper’ conditions combined in highly exploitative work relations could be ameliorated, and in doing so propose some ideas for reforming key features of current TMWPs to enable migrants to exit any employment relationship and to resort to a range of voice mechanisms in the workplace.

The under-representation of women in the senior appellate judiciary in common law jurisdictions remains an enduring problem. Much has been written about the lack of women’s participation in the judiciary and what strategies, if any, should be undertaken in order to resolve this persistent problem. However, this thesis takes a step back to ask a broader question: what impact does gender diversity have upon judicial decision making in appellate courts? It seeks to answer this question by engaging feminist standpoint theory to assess the experiences of men and women judges from three common law jurisdictions: England, South Africa and Australia. Through a series of interviews conducted with members of the senior judiciary in these jurisdictions in 2012 and 2013, this thesis explores the extent that interviewees consider that gendered experiences impact upon their own judging, and judging within the dynamics of collegiate appellate courts. This thesis concludes that while it is not possible to pinpoint one particular ‘contribution’ or ‘impact’ that gendered experiences have upon judging, it is nonetheless generally considered by those interviewed to be an important part of the judicial decision making process in several subtle, yet important, ways. Because of the considerable role that diverse gendered experiences play in judicial decision making, appointments processes should be sensitised to the need for diversity of experience and alive to the danger of ostensibly neutral appointment criteria devaluing diverse experiences, particularly the experiences of women in the law.

This thesis challenges some of the current limits to the grounds for judicial review of legislation accepted by most Canadian jurists. More specifically, it makes a common law-based argument in favour of the priority over legislation of principles which are implied from the Imperial Constitution Acts 1867-1982 and which originally derive from the English constitution – namely implied constitutional principles. The argument faces two main interrelated legal objections: Parliamentary sovereignty and the Framers’ intentions. The first objection is rebutted by arguing that Parliamentary sovereignty possesses an ability to change in a way that can incorporate substantive legal limitations. The most prevalent common law-based theories of change to Parliamentary sovereignty suggest that the courts can authoritatively determine if implied constitutional principles can check legislation. The second objection is rebutted by reference to the notion of progressive interpretation as conceived under Hartian and Dworkinian theories of law and adjudication. Under these theories, progressive interpretation is an aspect of the courts’ best overall interpretation of the constitution, which includes implied constitutional principles. Such progressive interpretation can result in these principles constraining legislative authority. Justification of the progressive interpretation of implied constitutional principles can be based on the rule of law from which derive a number of these principles. One plausible conception of the Canadian rule of law is that it rejects the view that implied constitutional principles can prevail when in conflict with legislation. However, the better conception is that, as an attempt to adapt implied constitutional principles to relevant changes in society and to protect their underlying values, the judiciary should interpret these principles as capable of checking legislation to the extent that they form part of the core content of the rule of law. Such a conception and an operation of implied constitutional principles can properly be explained by Hartian or Dworkinian common law-based progressive interpretation of these principles and by their relationship with legislative authority.

"Mémoire présenté à la faculté des études supérieures en vue de l'obtention du grade LL.M. en droit des technologies de l'information" / Le présent mémoire de maîtrise a pour objet l'analyse du droit international des marques de commerce et du droit de certains pays industrialisés en comparaison avec la législation canadienne sur les marques de commerce. Il traite également des modifications qu'il serait nécessaire d'apporter à la loi canadienne en vue de l'adoption du Protocole de Madrid, du Traité sur le droit des marques et de l'Arrangement de Nice, et de la mise en application de la Recommandation commune sur les marques notoires. Le Canada devrait aussi modifier certaines dispositions de la loi sur les marques de commerce pour la rendre plus conforme à l'Accord sur les ADPICs et à la Convention de Paris. Compte tenu des lacunes du droit international en ce qui a trait à l'utilisation de la marque, le mémoire analyse et critique cette notion en droit canadien et la compare aux tendances actuelles qui ont cours aux États-Unis et au Royaume-Uni. / The purpose of this thesis is to compare the Canadian legislation in trade-marks law with international trade-marks law and the law of sorne industrialized countries. It is also suggested that the implementation of the Madrid Protocol, of the Trademark Law Treaty, of the Nice Arrangement and of the Joint Recommendation Concerning Provisions on the Protection of Well-Known Marks would necessitate some amendments to the Canadian Trade-Marks Act. Moreover, some sections of the Canadian Trade-Marks Act should be amended so as to comply with the TRIPs Agreement and with the Paris Convention. U.S. and UK. approaches regarding the use of a trade-mark are also analysed, since international law does not appear to have fully addressed this issue.