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.

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 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.

This study examines the problems we face in making a coherent theoretical link between the international law of piracy and the law of the sea in the context of the rise in maritime piracy in Africa over the past three decades. It focuses on four nations affected by piracy in the Gulf of Guinea and Horn of Africa. Furthermore, the international law of piracy is concerned with two types of jurisdiction: prescriptive jurisdiction and enforcement jurisdiction. However, the law of the sea (UN Law of the Sea Convention) defines five types of jurisdiction: territorial seas, exclusive economic zone (EEZ), the continental shelf, high seas, and seabed or seafloor outside the area of claims of territorial seas under the EEZ. The above implies that where a State that has enforcement jurisdiction is unable or unwilling to enforce prescribed international laws against piracy, recourse ought to be had to a State with jurisdiction under the law of the sea. The current thesis seeks to demonstrate that maritime piracy has substantially increased in north-eastern and western parts of Africa because, albeit the development of the law of the sea has transposed towards acknowledging the rights (and obligations) of coastal States in order to defend their territorial seas with reference to the piratical incursions, not enough attention has been given to the consequences flowing from the fact that the coastal states in question do not possess the requisite resources and systems to enforce international law and/ or prosecute pirates. It is submitted here that piracy in its modern form in the Gulf of Aden and Gulf of Guinea is a transnational crime that may best be contained through a regional legal infrastructure. It is also argued that the multilateral approach of linking enforcement jurisdiction to Universal Jurisdiction is problematic since it translates into ‘relational statism’ that is, where States habitually pursue only their self-interests. As such, consistency and clarity in the international legal situation may best be achieved by recourse to a traditional ‘auto-limitation’ approach whereby jurisdiction is essentially territorial and can only be exercised by a State outside its territory where it obtains the consent of the territorial State (perhaps through Convention or Treaty) or in accordance with a permissive rule derived from international custom. Therefore the thesis of this study suggests the need for legal reform. Chapter 1 provides the background to the study as well as the framework for the research. The main research aims, objectives and research questions are addressed in Chapters 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Chapter 7 concludes the research by presenting the findings and recommendations together with an outline of the research contribution.

This study investigates accountability of the judiciary for its role in authoritarianism as an integral part of accountability in transitions. It argues this is an important but relatively neglected aspect of transitional justice theory and state practice. The thesis of the research is that the judicial institution, as the third branch of government ought to be held accountable for its role in past governance in transitional societies. This is particularly important to obtain comprehensive accountability. It is also relevant to the crucial task of institutional transformation which is a key objective of transitional justice. The paucity of critical perspectives on the role of the judiciary during a society’s troubled period would appear to be because of the view that it lacks a distinct role in governance. This suggests that the judicial function was inconsequential or judicial outcomes were invariably imposed. In view of the acknowledged important role of the judiciary in both liberal and democratising polities all over the world, it is argued that the purview of transitional justice mechanisms should, as a matter of policy, be extended to scrutiny of the judicial role in the past. There is the need to publicly scrutinise the course of judicial governance in post-authoritarian societies as a cardinal measure of institutional transformation. Following on the recognition that the judiciary in post-authoritarian contexts will be faced with enormous challenges of dispute resolution, restoration of the rule of law, as well as a key role in policy determination and governance, its institutional transformation following a period of siege is critical to the survival of democracy and the rule of law. The mechanism of choice identified in this research for scrutiny of the judicial function in transitional societies is the truth commission. The research proposes extending the purview of truth-telling processes as a measure of public accountability to the judiciary in post-authoritarian contexts. The research adopts a comparative perspective but to contextualise the argument, it focuses specifically on judicial governance and accountability for the past in Nigeria’s transition to democracy after three decades of authoritarian rule.

The ultimate aim of this thesis is to examine the legitimacy and procedural fairness of the asset-freezing legal systems1 as a counter-terrorism measure, in order to offer recommendations on how to reform the law in Jordan. To that end, it is argued that counter-terrorism measures generally undermine procedural fairness and relevant human rights. This thesis explores how sophisticated legal orders deal with the adverse effects of lack of legitimacy and procedural fairness in the asset-freezing counter-terrorism, in order to form a model that can resolve the defects in the application of the asset-freezing systems. To achieve this end, the thesis is divided into seven chapters. It starts with a brief introduction. Chapter 1, seeks to explore the development of the asset-freezing in the United Nations (hereinafter ‘UN’), the changes in its nature, and determines if the United Nations Security Council (hereinafter ‘UNSC’) is empowered to impose such asset-freezing obligations. Chapter 2, inspects the decision-making procedures involved in the asset-freezing against designated persons such as UNSCR.1267, and its descendants, and the observation of procedural fairness in the UN legal order. Chapter 3, examines the application of the UNSC asset-freezing systems by the European Union (hereinafter ‘EU’) and its procedures, and the observation of procedural fairness in order to explore its inconsistencies and flaws. Chapter 4, looks at the legal challenge to the UN and EU legal orders, the lack of judicial protection in the UN, and the possibility of compensating for this lack by the EU Judiciary based on the autonomy of the EU legal order to see if the EU courts have the capability to provide effective judicial protection and the extent of such judicial protection . Chapter 5 deals with the approaches followed in applying the UN, EU and national asset-freezing systems and their procedure in the UK legal order, also the observance of procedural fairness in these contexts. Chapter 6 examines the right to effective judicial protection and the approach followed to accommodate the security considerations in proceedings before the UK court. Chapter 7 explores the application of the asset-freezing systems in Jordan, the lack of procedural fairness and the limited judicial protection offered. Finally, the thesis presents concluding remarks and recommendations for law reform in Jordan.

The doctoral research investigates the nature and elements of domestic mechanisms, including public private partnership (PPP) procedures, devised for the management of WTO disputes in selected developed and developing countries. With China, Brazil and India as its case-studies, the research explores various strategies to devise an effective PPP mechanism for handling international trade disputes in developing countries. The research objective is to explore the benefits of engaging the private sector in the intergovernmental process of WTO dispute settlement, and to identify the reforms that will be needed for devising a workable domestic framework for handling foreign trade disputes through PPP arrangements. The research highlights important issues and concerns that need consideration before any legal, institutional, regulatory and procedural reforms are carried out. Moreover, the research seeks to enable developing countries to critically evaluate a diverse range of PPP strategies employed so far, and to determine their individual approaches towards PPP and dispute management. The thesis constitutes a practical guidebook for policymakers in those developing countries which have the motivation to strengthen their WTO dispute settlement capacities. The topical area of research and pragmatic approach towards research questions, together with an empirical research methodology makes this study an original contribution to existing literature and knowledge.