Healthcare Clinical Ethics Committees (CECs) are increasing in numbers. Critics argue that they undermine the moral development of the practitioner by not encouraging them to think deeply and for themselves about medical ethics. This could result in abrogation of responsibility for decisions to CECs. This thesis will argue that CECs can offer a useful service to clinicians in the UK by providing a safe environment for reflection. Within this space the CEC can support exploration of solutions to the issues by using a non directive structure to their questioning techniques. Central to this process is the need for the clinician to be present throughout the discussion. Within this reflective space, questioning by the CEC is structured to enable practical planning to occur, after dialogue about the situation or issue, acknowledging the impact of emotion, and moral and nonmoral influences influencing the case. This thesis proposes the use of solution focused techniques and casuistry within the CEC which form the basis of a model developed by the author entitled the ASCS (Ask, Seek, Clarify and Solution) model. Use of the model can provide a framework for structured dialogue which is simple, evaluable and brief. Use of the model within the UK CEC has the potential to increase the skills of the practitioner to tackle ethical issues in practice. Such skills once learnt can be utilised by the team to deal with ethical conflict in the workplace in the future.

Issues pertaining to the "foundations" of legal reasoning in international law break down into several discrete questions: what do statements about law mean; how do they get their meaning: to what do legal terms refer; in what does knowledge of law consist; how do we reason with legal concepts; what constitutes a criterion for argumentative success; how do bodies of legal concepts combine to form systems; is the conceptual organisation of different types of legal system, such as municipal law and international law, necessarily (or even factually) the same at some fundamental level?... This thesis is concerned with some measure with all of these questions, but the focus throughout is on those of the meaning of what we say about law, of legal knowledge, and of topological issues regarding legal systems (that is, how various types of legal system stand, conceptually, to one another). The thesis falls into two parts. The first, which is critical in nature, looks at some of the ways in which modern positivism has attempted to supply answers to these questions. It shall be argued that underlying those attempts is a particular view about the foundations of legal reasoning which has remained fairly constant in modern legal theory, not only among the positivists but also commonly among their sceptic rivals. Several difficulties with this view are raised and explored, all of which have contributed to the notion that international law is, when viewed through the spectacles of a municipal lawyer, at best a primitive system of law. The heart of Part I is a discussion of the character of legal knowledge. This takes place in the context of an account of the "Institutional Theory of Law" (ITL), as propounded by Neil MacCormick and Ota Weinberger. The argument that emerges is one broadly in favour of ITL, though critical of the methodological and philosophical assumptions on the basis of which the main edifice of the theory rests. It is submitted that such assumptions are the result of misplaced views about semantics and the nature of reference. Part I ends with the suggestion of an alternative, and hopefully more stable, strategy for generating the account of legal knowledge for which ITL strove. Part II comprises a positive thesis about the foundations of legal reasoning in international law, developed on the back of the strategy in Part I.

This thesis attempts to study, in a comprehensive manner, the EEZ rule in both the LOS Convention and in state practice. Its central aim is to try to establish with exactitude the scope of the rule that has been taken into international custom. In this respect, after giving in chapter one a short exposé on the prevailing rules of the law of the sea that had governed all maritime spaces before UNCLOS III, serving as a background against which a better apprehension of the LOS Convention's EEZ provisions can be attained, an analysis of the rights of both coastal states and third states in the EEZ and their corresponding duties is provided in chapters two and three respectively. It has been asserted that, although a coastal state by claiming an EEZ would only enjoy specific functional rights, viz., the fields of activities they are connected with are explicitly defined, the vagueness often found in the wording of the Convention makes the situation not clear in all respects. While such a phenomenon may widen the functional limitations placed upon the general right of freedom of the high seas, it does not seem, however, to have any bearing on the high seas quality of the principal freedom of overflight, of laying cables and pipelines, and the freedom of navigation. Chapter four is a thorough examination and analysis of state practice as evidenced in EFZ and EEZ claims against the yardstick of LOS Convention. This is followed by a last chapter determining the scope of the rule that has been picked up in the new custom relating to the EEZ. In this connection, it is asserted that state practice gives strong evidence that a general right to claim a jurisdictional maritime zone as defined in Articles 55 and 57 of the LOS Convention, viz., extending seaward up to 200 miles from the baselines, is firmly established in international customary law.

This thesis is the culmination of doctoral research that sought to examine the relationship between the professions, the public, and democracy. To that end, the research traces how different normative organizations of the person dominant during successive historical periods have influenced the emergence of permitted and forbidden democratic narratives. For instance, when moral ideas of the person enjoyed dominance, associational practices were thought to constitute the public good with the state and law facilitating their development by prohibiting certain designated acts (MacIntyre: [1981] 2007, Ferguson: [1767] 1995, Gierke: [1868] 1990). Following challenges to the moral organization of the person during the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution (Polanyi: [1944] 2001), the dominance of the moral person came to be gradually supplanted by the legal person; a middle position emergent from but discursively independent of moralist and materialist extremes (Maitland: [1911] 2003, Laski: [1921] 1989, Supiot: 2007). The median position of the legal person would profoundly re-organize social values and relations between the individual, civil society, and the state, and to some extent it is the legal organization of the person that continues to guide the development of permissible and forbidden democratic narratives today. However, all is not well with the organization of the legal person. Emerging from the legal person’s centralizing dynamic, a new regulatory ideal of the person as corporation is starting to contest the legal order’s dominance (Ireland: 2005, Gershon: 2011). This idea of the corporate person advances certain permitted democratic narratives, such as those identified with contemporary ‘public value’ perspectives (Moore: 2005, Benington: 2009) while forbidding others based on the preservation of collective identities and the pursuit of social justice (Offe: 1985). Insofar as the professions share a collective identity based on ethical codes of conduct and autonomy from the state, they will not be easily accommodated in their current form within this new normative constellation. Through an understanding of the challenge posed by the emergence of the corporate person we can be better positioned as a public and as public(s) to evaluate the conditions of the corporate person’s emergence and the possible positions from which resistance may be generated by an understanding of the democratic narratives a corporate organization of the permits and forbids.

It is undisputed that the world’s securities markets are becoming increasingly international and increasingly integrated. The internationalization of the world’s securities markets is one of the most significant developments affecting the securities markets of many nations. “How should regulators respond?” is an issue that is hotly contested. The purpose of this thesis is not to introduce a new theory but rather to offer a comprehensive analysis of past and present practice, in order to identify what is effective and what is not. There are three competing approaches to international securities regulation – harmonization, regulatory competition and cooperation. Thus the thesis analyzes these three leading current theoretical arguments in turn as paradigms for international securities regulation. On this basis, the paper will focus on these three approaches and address the fundamental questions posed by the internationalization of securities markets: which regulatory approach is the proper and best way to govern securities regulation in the new international market? Are there any areas which need to be improved? And therefore, how can international regulation be improved? The thesis will answer these questions in two ways: in theory and in practical application. With regard to theory, the thesis examines the definitions and arguments given to each approach. Harmonization is the idea that rules and regulations should be standardized across countries as much as possible. In contrast to the harmonization is the regulatory competition approach. Under this model, countries do not coordinate with one another – each country is free to enact whatever rules and regulations it chooses. Whereas, the third approach cooperation traditionally is an instrument to reduce conflicts and tensions. International cooperation is defined as conscious policy coordination among states. On a practical level, the thesis delineates the current stage of harmonization, regulatory competition and cooperation developments in the EU, US, as well as internationally. It should be recognized that each of the three securities regulatory approaches analyzed in this thesis have contributed much towards international securities regulation. However, as discussed each approach has its problems, none is perfect. As long as there are regulations, there will be abuses and room for improvements. One of major problem in the international arena is that there are no international law-making institutions vested with legal authority to address these issues. Instead of a formal international securities regulator there is a set of international institutions which include a limited number of countries which produce standards and norms that are then adopted by national authorities on a voluntary basis. Because of the diversity, complexity, and universality of issues likely to continue to arise over the next decade, a single international body should be considered to facilitate world cooperation in addressing these issues.

The present thesis examines how and to what extent EU (public procurement) law has an influence on the way a public authority organises and discharges its public service tasks. The object of the thesis is limited to cooperative agreements (public contracts and service concessions) concluded between public authorities as a means to organise or discharge public service tasks. The objectives of EU internal market law and public procurement law bring the decision of public authorities to cooperate within the scope of EU law. Each time such decision could distort competition or hinder market access, EU internal market law applies. The CJEU has elaborated criteria on the basis of the public procurement Directives, which determine when such distortion or hindrance is present. These criteria determine when EU (public procurement) law influences national administrative law. This influence is apparent in the case law of the Supreme Courts in France and England.

There is an increasing recognition within the international system, of the need to understand Islamic law and legal system. This is due to the realisation that it either underpins or at least influences to some degree not only the legal but also the socio-cultural outlook of about a quarter of the world’s population. In line with this reality, this study investigates delictual liability of the state under Saudi law. It evaluates what is the position of the Saudi courts in determining the liability of public authorities for delict and the extent to which the applications of the current principles of delictual liability are useful and sufficient for effectively tackling the growing number of cases that are confronting the public bodies in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. A focal point of this study is the focus on a system of law which claims universal applicability, even more, a law for all times. For Muslims, the Shar’iah is a code that covers all aspects of life and is applicable to all situations. It governs individual and social relations and as such is claimed to be applied, to various degrees, all across the Muslim world and beyond even where Muslims live as minorities. However, a persistent concern, with advocates and sceptics of the system, remains the viability of a legal system steeped in a specific historical and even contextual setting, in societies and climes across the world. This study has sought to engage an aspect of that issue; namely the applicability of Shar’iah principles to state liability for delictual conduct through an interrogation of the experience in Saudi Arabia, commonly perceived to be a conservative Islamic society. The exploration in this study hopefully provides a useful insight on the veracity or otherwise of the adaptability of Islamic law to all aspects of life and in the contemporary period. The position argued in this study is that Shari’ah does contain mechanisms that make its application viable even in complex areas of law like the delictual liability of the state.

It has become a trend today that states adopt universal jurisdiction in their domestic law. At the same time, the actual exercise of universal jurisdiction has often led to a dispute among states. While there are many ‘international’ aspects relating to this phenomenon, there is still no consensus among international scholars even over the scope of crimes that are subject to universal jurisdiction, let alone the modalities of its exercise. This confusion is caused by the way in which jurisdiction is conceptualized: while prevailing view sees jurisdiction as a right or entitlement attributed by international law, this view is premised on a particular understanding of the legal system of jurisdiction that sees it as a set of permissive rules of international law. However, it may not capture the reality of jurisdiction, where international law does not always regulate the assertion of prescriptive jurisdiction, while the actual exercise of jurisdiction is still subject to several restraint either in relation to other states or with regard to the rights of accused individuals. Against this background, Part I of the dissertation re-examines the legal system of jurisdiction and applies it to the specific framework of universal jurisdiction. First, this study seeks to find the elements that actually restraint the exercise of jurisdiction in general. It concludes that the exercise of jurisdiction should be examined from the perspective of whether and to what extent it may secure effectiveness of enforcement, legitimacy (necessity) of claim, and foreseeability of law and forum. Building on this analysis, this study further seeks for a justifying ground of universal jurisdiction by applying the general framework of jurisdiction. It is suggested that at least the legitimacy (necessity) of claim is provided by the fact that states have been less interested in tolerating impunity for certain types of international crimes and also been more aware of the necessity for the exercise of jurisdiction in order to compensate for the failure of territorial or national states of the offender in the suppression of these crimes With those insights, Part II further explores a framework in which the conflict resulting from the concurrent claims of jurisdiction. The focus is on the idea of subsidiarity, which designates universal jurisdiction as a default mechanism. While this idea has been gaining support, it is pointed out that the feasibility of subsidiarity depends on how situations of inability and unwillingness are identified in a decentralized discourse. Regarding this, this study argues that the notion of obligation to prosecute can play a key role: a state of non-performance of obligation to prosecute can be conceived as an abusive use of power on the part of territorial or national states, thereby vesting the assessment of inability and unwillingness with certain objectivity. This provides a ground for legal discourse between territorial or national states and states exercising universal jurisdiction.

This thesis is an inquiry into the inherent divergence and emerging convergence of ICSID and non-ICSID arbitration. Based on the argument that investor-State arbitration is an intricate interplay of diverse actors with compatible or disparate interests, this study investigates the substantial divergences between ICSID and non-ICSID arbitration by evaluating the jurisdiction of tribunals, the role of institutions, post-awards remedies and the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. It also examines the consequential, but discrepant, impact of the divergences on the safeguarding of State sovereignty, the protection of foreign investors’ rights, the enhancement of legitimacy of investment arbitration and the endorsement of public interests. It further puts forward fair, efficient, accountable and legitimate ways that would tentatively or constructively improve the entire dispute resolution system in the realm of international investment. In scrutinizing the interplay and interaction between ICSID and non-ICSID arbitration, the thesis argues that the symbiosis of ICSID and non-ICSID arbitration creates and maintains a relatively stable environment where a number of factors serve as engines for promoting directly or indirectly the convergence of ICSID and non-ICSID arbitration.

This thesis conducts a robust and granular examination of the concept of ‘object’ under Article 101(1) TFEU and its resulting legal and practical implications. To that end, a methodology focusing on the case law of the European Courts and other primary sources is adopted. This enables a legal analysis of the meaning, application and role of restrictions of competition by object to be undertaken. The case law reveals three key approaches adopted by the European Courts to restrictions by object: the ‘orthodox approach’, the ‘more analytical approach’ and an amalgamation of these two approaches, the ‘hybrid approach’. This finding immediately questions the dominance of the orthodox approach within legal discourse over the years. The orthodox approach contends that a limited category of agreements are considered by law to automatically restrict competition by virtue of their object. This is reflected in the European Commission’s Article 81(3) Guidelines and is encapsulated by the widely recognised ‘object box’. This thesis poses a direct challenge to such narrow interpretation of the law. It argues that this depiction of the law does not fully reflect the jurisprudence of the European Courts. Rather the case law reveals an alternative interpretation of the concept of object based on the seminal case of Société Technique Minière concerned more with determining the aim of the agreement within its legal and economic context as opposed to its categorisation. Moreover, the ‘more analytical approach’ benefits from greater judicial support. Having established the three key approaches and their application under Article 101(1) TFEU, the question of what is the best interpretation of the law on restrictions of competition by ‘object’ is reflected on. Based on the case law of the European Courts, it is argued the more analytical approach provides the best interpretation of the law. This is assessed in relation to the framework of Article 101 TFEU as a whole. Finally, this thesis briefly explores whether such conclusion is then consistent with the optimum function of the object criterion from an enforcement perspective.