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.

This work attempt to trace the development of criminal law in Jamaica from 1655 when the English captured the Island, up to 1900. In tracing this development emphasis is placed more on legislative enactments and their policies than on judicial decisions, for it was in the field of penal legislation the Jamaican law tended to differ from English law. In chapter 1, the introduction of English law into the Island is outline, and a theory as to Jamaica's status is proposed. In Chapters 2 and 3 the background in which the penal legislation was enacted and administered in the 18th and 19th centuries is related. This necessitates an examination of the inhabitants, the legislators, the judiciary and the legal institutions. In Chapters 4 and 5 the penal legislation relating to slaves is discussed. The various legislative devices aimed at preventing rebellions and at protecting the slave owners' property are related. In Chapters 6, 7 and 8 the laws to protect the State, Persons and Property respectively are outlined. In Chapter 9, four problems of particular importance to Jamaica are examined. These problems are Piracy, Obeah, Praedial larceny and Vagrancy. In Chapter 10 the attempt to codify the criminal law is related. Reasons for the failure at codification are suggested. In Chapter 11 a brief look is taken at certain trends in penal legislation in the 20th century. In Chapter 12, conclusions are drawn on the data provided in the preceding Chapters and certain proposals relative to the criminal law of Jamaica are put forward.

This research project stems from a single puzzle: how can constitutional amendments be unconstitutional? Adopting a combination of theoretical and comparative enquiries, this thesis establishes the nature and scope of constitutional amendment powers by focusing on the question of substantive limitations on the amendment power, looking at both their prevalence in practice and the conceptual coherence of the very idea of limitations to amendment powers. The thesis is composed of three parts. The first part is comparative. It examines substantive explicit and implicit limitations on constitutional amendment powers through manifold descriptions of a similar constitutional phenomenon across countries, demonstrating a comprehensive pattern of a constitutional behaviour. This process is theory-driven, and the second part of the thesis constructs a general theory of unamendability, which explains the nature and scope of amendment powers. The third part explains how judicial review of amendments is to be conceived in light of the theory of unamendability, and further assesses the possible objections to the theory of unamendability. The theory of unamendability identifies and develops a middle ground between constituent power and pure constituted power, a middle ground that is suggested by the French literature on ‘derived constituent power’. Undergirding the discussion, therefore, is a simple yet fundamental distinction between primary constituent (constitution-making) power and secondary constituent (constitution-amending) power. This distinction, understood in terms of an act of delegation of powers, enables the construction of a theory of the limited (explicitly or implicitly) scope of secondary constituent powers. This distinction is supplemented by a further one, between various shades of secondary constituent powers along a ‘spectrum’, a theoretical construct that links amendment procedures to limitations on amendment powers. The theory of unamendability explicates the limited nature of amendment powers and the practice of judicial review of amendments, thus clarifying the puzzle of unconstitutional constitutional amendments.

During the 2000s the terms ‘imperialism’ and ‘empire’ made a reappearance. This reappearance followed ‘unilateral’ military interventions by the United States and its allies. Because these military interventions were all justified using international legal argument that the international legal discipline also became increasingly concerned with these terms. Given this, it is unsurprising that there also arose two critical schools of thinking about international law, who foregrounded its relationship to imperialism. These were those working in the Marxist tradition and the Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) movement. Both of these intellectual movements are contemporary examples of older traditions. Despite this popularity, there has been little sustained attention to the specific concepts of imperialism that underlie these debates. This thesis attempts to move beyond this, through mapping the way in which Marxist and TWAIL scholars have understood imperialism and its relationship to international law. The thesis begins by reconstructing the conceptual history of the terms ‘colonialism’, ‘empire’ and ‘imperialism’, drawing out how they are enmeshed in broader theoretical and historical moments. In particular it pays close attention to the historical and political consequences of adopting particular understandings of these concepts. It then examines how these understandings have played out concretely. It reconstructs earlier Third Worldist thinking about imperialism and international law, before showing how contemporary TWAIL scholars have understood this relationship. It then looks at how the Marxist tradition has understood imperialism, before turning specifically to Marxist international legal theory. Finally, it turns to the interrelationship between Marxist and Third Worldist theory, arguing that each tradition can contribute to remedying the limitations in the other. In so doing it also attempts to flag up the complex historical inter-relation between these two traditions of thinking about imperialism and international law.

This research investigates the theoretical foundations of EU competition tying law. While tying prohibitions have existed in the EEC Treaty since 1957 the theoretical foundations of tying are not well understood. This thesis provides crucial insight into the theory and theoretical validity of tying law. This thesis focuses on answering three questions in relation to tying: One, what was the original economic theory underlying the prohibition on tying? Two, how has this changed and on what economic principles is tying law currently based? Three, are these principles appropriately aligned with the current state of economic thinking? In order to answer these three questions this thesis considers three leading schools of thought in competition law (Ordoliberalism, the Chicago School of antitrust analysis and post-Chicago antitrust analysis) before analysing the jurisprudence of the EU Commission and courts and establishing which theory forms the foundation of EU tying law. This research makes an interdisciplinary contribution through the use of both legal-historical analysis and legal-economic analysis. This yields important results on the historical development of tying law in Europe and also provides an economic analysis of the validity of EU law, assessing whether the aims of the law are economically valid and effectively applied. Where there are failures in the application of the law, normative proposals are given in order to demonstrate how the law and its application can be improved. The result of this analysis is to establish two distinct periods of theoretical influence (the author calls these the mono- and di-theoretical periods). A novel analysis of the tying decisions made in the software market is also presented and a new theory of foreclosure proposed that explains the decisions made in that market.

The thesis identifies the relevant canons in the 1983 Code of Canon Law and other norms and reviews the areas which require consultation with experts. Part I focuses on the administrative forum, in particular: art, architecture and finance; admission to and suitability for Holy Orders and Religious Institutes; and education. Part II examines the use of experts in relation to marriage nullity cases. THe dissertation suggests not only that through the use of experts the law of the Church enables a direct dialogue with expertise outside the faithful in wider society, but some practices concerning experts particularly in the judicial forum, in the work of the marraige tribunals studied, raise serious issues about compliance with the legal norms of the Church resulting in adverse implications for the exercise of rights of those affected by judical decisions in the field of marriage nullity, including non-Catholics.

Over the last thirty years there has been a remarkable functional convergence in the way companies are run. Behind directors, asset managers and banks usually participate the most in setting the ultimate direction of corporations, as they have assumed the role of stewardship over shareholder voting rights. At the same time, an increasing number of people’s livelihoods and old age now depend on the stock market, but these ultimate contributors to equity have barely any voice. Why has there been such a separation of contribution and participation? Two positive theses explain this convergence in corporate governance, one political, one economic. The first positive thesis is that laws which guarantee participation rights in investment chains (either for shareholders against directors, or for the ultimate contributors against institutional shareholders) were driven by a progressive democratic movement, but very incompletely compared to its social ideals. The second positive thesis is that when there have been no specific rights in law, the relative bargaining power of different groups determined the patterns of participation, whether the outcomes were reasonable or entirely arbitrary. In practice, the separation has grown between those who contribute to equity capital and those who participate in governance. These theses are preferable to existing narratives in political literature, and law and economics, which entail predictions of different forms of rational interest-driven institutional evolution. On the contrary, participation in corporate governance is largely unprincipled. The evidence is found in the historical development of participation rights in the UK, Germany and the US. Does the separation of contribution and participation matter? One normative thesis is derived from the historical evidence. It proposes that the separation of contribution and participation is a pressing concern, precisely because participation in corporate governance, as it stands, manifests no coherent principles. Asset managers and banks have gathered shareholder voting rights through no better reason than their peculiar market position as investment intermediaries. They have significant conflicts of interest when they exercise voting rights with other people’s money. They are able to use votes like any other selfperpetuating interest group would, because they are not effectively accountable to their natural beneficiaries: the ultimate investors. To ensure that the successes of modern corporate law are not unravelled, corporate governance should protect the principle of a symmetry between contribution and participation. This will mean that in the future, corporate governance becomes more economically efficient, sustainable, and just.

Parties who contract at arm’s length are bound by the terms of their contracts, provided the contracts do not contravene a rule of law or public policy. The commencement of formal insolvency proceedings may however limit the ability of a debtor to perform its pre-petition contractual obligations, resulting to liabilities to creditors. Accordingly, a formal insolvency procedure ensures an orderly and efficient resolution of the debtor’s affairs -- maximising realisations to creditors or rescuing the corporate debtor as a going concern. To achieve this purpose, unilateral contract enforcement efforts and rights are replaced by a mandatory regime characterised by collectivity and equality in treatment of similarly situated creditors. This thesis comparatively evaluates the impact of the commencement of formal insolvency proceedings on corporate contracts in the UK and US. It examines the extent to which pre-petition contractual bargains are suspended, adjusted or avoided by the supervening insolvency law regime in the jurisdictions. The thesis adopts a thematic approach to examine how the legal frameworks in the jurisdictions manage the inevitable conflict between the policy considerations of contract law and those of insolvency law. The extent to which insolvency law should interfere with pre-insolvency contractual arrangements and entitlements has always been a contentious and keenly debated issue. No doubt, insolvency law has a greater number of interests to protect outside the interests of pre-petition contracting parties. These include the general body of creditors, employees, post-petition creditors etc. Nevertheless, in the absence of compelling and well-articulated policy justification, formal insolvency ought not to be a forum for the stripping of property rights or the pursuit of redistributional goals.

This thesis examines the regulation of sustainable public procurement in the Republic of Turkey in the context of Turkey’s membership negotiations with the European Union. Sustainable public procurement is the procurement whereby contracting authorities take account of all three pillars of sustainable development (economic, social and environmental) when procuring goods, services or works. The thesis aims to clarify whether and to what extent sustainable development concerns can be taken into account under the Public Procurement Act numbered 4734, which is the main legal framework of public procurement in Turkey. Furthermore, it aims to identify possible options for improving sustainable development-oriented public procurement regulation in Turkey. The thesis essentially uses black letter and comparative legal research methods in order to achieve its objectives. This thesis argues that the correlation between public procurement and sustainable development is strong in the EU, whereas such a correlation shows a weak profile in Turkey. In that regard, this thesis proposes the rules that need to be improved for establishing a sustainable public procurement system in Turkey, taking into account the local dynamics of the Turkish public procurement system, and in the context of the membership negotiations with the EU. This thesis argues that the existence of a clear mandate for sustainability concerns, putting forward a strong political backing, establishing a coherent institutional framework and laying down a consistent and clear legal framework and an effective enforcement/remedy system are the essential peripheral conditions for promoting sustainable public procurement in Turkey.