The aim of this dissertation is to analyse whether contracts made by electronic agents1 might be made enforceable under Islamic law. It discusses what constitutes an enforceable contract under Islamic law and whether this is applicable when a contract is made by an electronic agent. The enforceability of these contracts under Islamic law is especially important in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) where Islamic law constitutes the legal system. Ignoring the doctrine of Islamic law in relation to the enforceability of these contracts could, therefore, fundamentally affect the future viability of these contracts in the KSA. The dissertation argues first that the principle of mutual consent under Islamic law is not satisfied in contracts made by electronic agents because there is no communication of an offer and acceptance by the contracting parties (users). Secondly, while electronic agents function like human agents, there are a number of doctrinal requirements under Islamic agency theory that prevent electronic agents from being agents proper. Thirdly, the term ‘legal personality’ is categorised in Islamic law under ‘Dhimmah’, an ethical concept designed principally for human beings which cannot, therefore, be attributed to electronic agents. This dissertation demonstrates that Islamic law creates conceptual obstacles which prevent contracts made by electronic agents being enforceable in the KSA. One implication of this will be a risk of negative impact on the development of these contracts in the KSA because they are contradictory to Islamic law. Islamic law must avoid narrow traditional interpretations of its legal concepts, because a lack of reform in this area will create difficulties and barriers against the enforceability of these contracts under Islamic law.

This thesis investigates the relationship between investment law and the power of states to produce and implement environmental measures. Through a strictly legal approach, and by situating the issue within the framework of public international law, this project endeavours to find avenues for the incorporation of environmental legal obligations within the investment legal regime. The thesis examines the main substantive protections granted to investors by the system of bilateral and multilateral investment instruments, before considering the ways in which, through express provisions, general conflict rules, and procedural means, tribunals can take environmental law into account. This taxonomy is tested in the third part of this work, through the analysis of the jurisprudence issuing from investment tribunals in disputes containing an environmental element.

State compliance with International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) arrest and surrender orders, Article 29(d) and (e) obligations, remains under explored in international criminal tribunal (ICT) scholarship despite the fact compliance with ICTY orders often proved not forthcoming from the states of the former Yugoslavia. This thesis will attempt to identiy causal phenomena behind compliance with ICT arrest and surrender orders through an exploration of compliance on the part of the diverse spectrum of states and non-state governing entities across the former Yugoslavia. Because International Relations (IR) scholarship identifies competing causal mechanisms to explain compliance and non-compliance outcomes, which range from a rationalist focus on material incentives and disincentives to norm-centric approaches, there will be an exploration of both ideational and material explanatory variables. Moreover, as mainstream neorealist and neoliberal institutionalist theories are unable to cope with entites where an autonomous state is not an ontological given, this thesis will be divided into two constituent parts. Part I will address the question of state compliance and include three case studies, Croatia, Serbia and Macedonia, while Part II will address the question of compliance in the context of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo, both of which do not conform to traditional models of the Westphalian state. This thesis will argue that the study of compliance is limited by the state centricity of international law and the rationalist failure to integrate ideational structures itno the study of compliance.

State immunity under international law extends to protect some individuals from criminal prosecution before national courts. This thesis aims to identify which individuals are immune from prosecution before the English courts, for what conduct, and for what period. The justifications for immunity are examined, and the extent of immunity ratione personae and immunity ratione materiae are explored. This thesis argues that immunity ratione personae is only narrowly available to high state officials, and that the immunity accorded, by consent, to special missions is sufficient to cover other official visits. In Pinochet (No 3) all seven judges agreed: 1. An ex-head of state is immune from prosecution for murder and conspiracy to murder alleged to have been committed in the forum state. 2. All state officials no matter how minor are entitled to continuing immunity This thesis analyses state practice in arresting or prosecuting foreign state officials, and argues that both of these statements are incorrect. This thesis argues that immunity does not attach to conduct alone, for a person to have continuing immunity ratione materiae they must have had immunity ratione personae. The forum state must have agreed to the official being present on its territory, and agreed to the purpose of the visit. Those officials present on the territory of a foreign state with the consent of that state who have immunity ratione personae have continuing immunity ratione materiae only for official conduct, acta jure imperii. This does not extend to acts of violence. Finally the development of the regime for the prosecution and punishment of international crimes by national courts is considered. The conflict with immunity is examined, and a possible reconciliation between the two principles is suggested by using the complementarity principle in the statute of the International Criminal Court.

UN police are involved in establishing the rule of law, in UN Peace Operations. However, they themselves commit serious crimes, but are not generally prosecuted. This is likely to have an impact on the UN’s effectiveness and legitimacy. Are the UN’s mechanisms for addressing criminal accountability effective? If there is a problem, how can it be mitigated? To answer these questions, the qualifications, qualities and functions of UN police were identified. Next, an attempt was made to quantify the problem of their criminal behaviour. Current accountability mechanisms were assessed. Jurisdictional and immunity issues were examined as potential barriers to prosecution. Finally, the obligations of States and the UN to investigate and prosecute criminal acts committed by UN police were examined. Research confirmed that UN police officers commit serious crimes, but probably mostly while not on duty. Whether officers commit crimes appears to be linked more to their personal integrity than their functions. In the main, they are not being called to account. In addition, the UN is not effective in generating information fit for use in criminal proceedings. However, the laws on jurisdiction and immunity do not constitute legal barriers to accountability, although immunity poses some problems in practice. The principal problem appears to be the lack of political will to bring prosecutions. The finding that States, and arguably the UN, have an obligation to investigate and prosecute crimes may encourage prosecution. The lack of criminal accountability of the UN police appears to be linked to the mismatch between the ambitious Peace Operation mandates and the number of qualified personnel these attract. The UN also lacks transparency, which makes it difficult accurately to determine the scale of the problem. It is recommended that these issues be discussed frankly in the UN’s political organs.

Conventionally, the conduct of foreign relations (including international economic relations) by nation-states has been the exclusive preserve of the central tier of government (i.e. ‘central exclusivity’ in foreign relations). However, the peculiarities of federal systems have posed a serious challenge to this conventional position. This is because federalism is based on principles which require shared powers between multiple levels of government. As such, Sub-Federal Governments (SFGs) have been known to affect the operation of international norms in federal systems. Furthermore, the international system is constantly evolving due to geopolitical changes, most notably globalisation. These changes in the international system have facilitated an increased participation of SFGs in international relations and as a consequence brought into question the continued relevance of conventional norms pertaining to foreign relations in international law. With regards to Nigeria, and in the specific context of international economic relations, empirical evidence shows that since the start of the 4th democratic Republic in 1999, SFGs in Nigeria are increasingly accessing international markets and engaging in activities which have direct and/or indirect impact on Nigeria’s international economic relations. This trend contradicts the constitutional position in Nigeria, where the extant theoretical framework underpinning Nigeria’s international economic participation gives plenary powers for foreign relations to the Federal Government (FG). In light of this contradiction, this thesis examines the divergence between theory and reality in Nigeria’s international economic relations. This thesis puts forward a proposition that the functional reality of international economic interactions in the current dispensation necessitates a re-assessment of the existing framework underpinning the relationship between domestic (federal) and international regimes in international economic relations. In the context of Nigeria, this thesis concludes that the changing dynamics of international economic relations necessitates a shift from central exclusivity to a cooperative federalism model.

The interest in embarking on this study is prompted by the predicament of refugee children under Malaysian jurisdiction and the dire need to improve their situation. This thesis is aimed at investigating the applicability of two rules relating to refugee protection: the principle of non-refoulement and the best interests of the child, which are believed to have become customary international law (CIL) which binds all states without their consent. The focus of this thesis is the prolonged problem of refugee children’s protection and the possibility of improving their conditions using international law while acknowledging that Malaysia is not a party to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. The thesis begins by discussing the international refugee protection regime and the position of the CIL mechanism; this will be followed by a discussion of the Malaysian legal framework to show the gap between international law and domestic law relating to refugees. The next focus of attention is the general condition of refugee children in Malaysia and the treatment accorded to them by the authorities. Their unpleasant condition explains the link between the absence of law and their protracted situation. The next task is to examine whether or not the two principles have attained CIL status; the thesis also considers the duties of the state under the two rules, the persistent objector rule, and the application of the principles and the obligation that accompanies them as CIL in the domestic courts. Lastly, the conclusion and recommendation are presented at the end of this thesis. Noting that local resources and literature on this subject are limited, this thesis will contribute to the existing body of knowledge on this matter and provide an interesting argument to advocate legal reform to improve refugee protection in the country.

This thesis examines the formulation and implementation of us policy towards China during the Clinton Administration's first term of office. Its central contention is that the Clinton Administration's China policy-making process was founded on largely on domestic political calculations, to the detriment of America's long term broad strategic interests in the People's Republic. This is exemplified by his advocacy, implementation, and eventual abandonment, of a strategy of linkage toward China. This thesis contends that President Clinton's preoccupation with domestic political calculations led to three major flaws in his Administration's China policy-making process. Firstly, it led to a failure to define a hierarchy of US priorities in China. Secondly, it led to a failure to articulate a coherent framework for US China relations to either the Chinese or domestic American audiences. Thirdly, Clinton failed to commit himself to, or provide leadership on, China policy except in the event of a political crisis. Accordingly, these flaws encouraged splits within the Administration whereby different agencies pursued their own agendas with Beijing. As a result, the Clinton Administration's China policy appeared confused, incoherent and discordant. This served to undermine both the US strategic relationship with Beijing, and domestic legitimacy for US China policy.

This thesis explores the legal rationale and political considerations for nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are the most dangerous weapons on earth. Only one can destroy a city, with the potentiality of killing millions and affecting the lives of a whole generation through its lasting calamitous consequences and jeopardising the natural environment. Nuclear weapons are normally classified alongside with chemical and biological weapons as Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and their danger surrounds their very existence. Disarmament has been axiomatically accepted as the best safeguard against their threat, but achieving the aim of disarmament has a tremendously difficult international, socio-legal and political challenge. There are about 22,000 nuclear weapons allegedly remaining in our world today and over 2,000 nuclear tests have been conducted to date. This is to check their functionality by the Nuclear Weapon States (NWS) and to demonstrate to real and potential enemies the potency of their nuclear forces. Consequently, International Law provides the framework within which States conduct their international affairs, usually accepting certain reciprocal constraints and regulating exceptions raised on nuclear weapons disarmament and for ensuring global peace. However, in as much as the NWS and their allies rely on nuclear weapons as legitimate security protective hedge for self-defence, efforts to ensure nuclear disarmament will invariably suffer from a fundamental contradiction and credibility deficit. This research, which unravels contemporary discourse on nuclear weapons disarmament, is burdened by the globally entrenched nuclear hegemony by the NWS and the looming danger of nuclear crisis across the world such as North Korea and other “rogue States” unbridled nuclear ambitions. The doctrinal legal research methodology is being used in analysing, synthesising and critiquing the legal and political issues associated with the research. The possession of nuclear weapons and reliance on nuclear deterrence are tangible evidence of nuclear proliferation. The more the world realises the global humanitarian consequences associated with nuclear weapons, the stronger the case and urgent steps needed against them. The nuclear technological threshold is rapidly growing, for political rather than technological purposes. This thesis therefore argues for more effective monitoring and compliance, together with greater enforcement of nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament commitments and obligations,especially in accordance with the provisions of the newly emerged Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons(TPNW)for the realisation of the desired objective of a nuclear free world. As part of the research findings, it is clear that any use of nuclear weapons would violate all the principles of International Humanitarian Law including jus ad bellum (when States are compelled to engage in warfare) and jus in bello (rules of engagement in war). This is as a result of the unthinkable humanitarian emergencies, catastrophic global consequences on the environment, climate, health, social order, human development and economic impacts nuclear weapons would potentially cause. According to the 2002 Rome Statute of International Criminal Court provisions, any use of nuclear weapons would amount to genocide (Article 6), crime against humanity (Article 7) and war crime (Article 8). Still from the research findings, both nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence are arguably described as illegitimate instruments of State policies and they constitute instrumentalities of international lawlessness in the midst of earliest and contemporaneous legal instruments on nuclear disarmament. The fundamental recommendation arising from this research is that all States at all times need to comply with applicable international law on nuclear disarmament in conformity with the International Court of Justice Advisory Opinions on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons and on the legality of use of nuclear weapons by a State in armed conflict. Significantly, all the Nuclear Weapon States should fulfil their commitments on the 13 practical steps towards disarmament outlined at the 2000 Non-proliferation Treaty Review and Extesion Confenece (NPTREC), for the actualisation of general and complete nuclear disarmament.

The ways in which legal and political principles obtaining within states can profitably be transferred to the relations of states are among the contentious issues in the study of international relations, and the term 'domestic analogy' is used to refer to the argument which supports such transfer. The 'domestic analogy' is analogical reasoning according to which the conditions of order between states are similar to those of order within them, and therefore those institutions which sustain order within states should be transferred to the international system. However, despite the apparent division among writers on international relations between those who favour this analogy and those who are critical of it, no clear analysis has so far been made as to precisely what types of proposal should be treated as exemplifying reliance on this analogy. The first aim of this thesis is to clarify the range and types of proposal this analogy entails. The thesis then examines the role the domestic analogy played in ideas about world order in the period between 1814 and 1945. Particular attention is paid to the influence of changing circumstances in the domestic and international spheres upon the manner and the extent of the use of this analogy. In addition to the ideas of major writers on international law and relations, the creation of the League of Nations and of the United Nations is also examined. The thesis then discusses the merits of the five main types of approach to world order which emerge from the preceding analysis. Each embodies a distinct attitude towards the domestic analogy. The thesis shows that there are weaknesses in the approaches based on the domestic analogy, but that ideas critical of this analogy are not entirely flawless, and explores further the conditions under which the more promising proposals may bear fruit.