This research focuses on the current legal protection for agricultural biotechnological inventions in Europe and the U.S. It has been a subject of debate whether plants and agricultural biotechnological inventions which includes plants, transgenic plants and plant varieties, can be the subject of patent protection, in addition to or as an alternative to the protection afforded by plant variety rights. Biotechnological patents have been criticized for granting an excessive scope of protection to proprietors, whereas plant variety rights have been slighted for not providing enough protection. Hence, this research is built on a few main themes, namely; the discussion of IP protection for agricultural biotechnological inventions as currently in practice in Europe and the U.S., as well as the deliberation on the current system as practised in Malaysia. The research also discusses the issue of the interface between the patent regime and plant variety rights over agricultural biotechnological inventions as there are possible overlaps between the two systems, notwithstanding the exclusivity of protection of plant varieties under the PVR system. The research looks at the prospect for Malaysia as a developing country to enhance its current IP framework and legislation in order to develop its agricultural biotechnology industry. Hence, it focuses on whether there is a single system as a model of IP regime to be adopted by Malaysia in order to provide the best IP protection for its agricultural biotechnology industry. The comparative approach is inevitable, in referring to the European model and the American model as a guide. The relevant factors such as the different setting, society and economic strength are given due consideration in coming up with the proposal to amend the current intellectual property law and legal system in Malaysia. At the end, the thesis puts forward a model for Malaysia to further develop its system.

Concentrated ownership is perceived as an inefficient form of ownership because it allegedly increases the risk of minority expropriation, which is further exacerbated by the disproportionality of control and cash-flow rights of the controller. This thesis challenges the perception of concentration as a per se inefficient ownership structure. It argues that the 'inefficiency bias' is based on the oversimplified, incorrect assumption that concentration is characterised by the presence of one controlling shareholder and therefore disregards the variety of the forms of concentration. To substantiate this argument, this thesis categorises the forms of concentration based on the identity and number of the controllers and examines their impact on corporate governance. It is shown, that the distinct characteristics of the varieties of shareholders' profiles have an ambivalent impact on corporate governance: Families are strongly committed investors but also prone to extract private benefits of control; the state is inefficient in monitoring but can also be a driver of good corporate governance practices; multiple large shareholders improve internal contestability of control but shareholders' agreements can also be used for minority expropriation. In this context, the effectiveness of the legal framework to mitigate the arising corporate governance problems becomes the key factor which differentiates efficient from inefficient corporate ownership structures. The different corporate governance problems of concentration imply that adapted legal solutions and adequately flexible rules are the prerequisites of effective investor protection. Given the varieties of concentration, legal effectiveness and strong investor protection can therefore only be defined by reference to a given ownership structure. This thesis presents concrete examples of investor protection mechanisms which are adapted to the distinct characteristics of the varieties of concentration: In the case of family and state ownership, effective minority protection takes the form of special minority rights of board-representation; within multiple large blockholdings, shareholders' agreements limit the abuse of the governance rights of majority shareholders. Ultimately, the thesis deals with the implications of this complex interaction between ownership structures and corporate governance which compromise the reliability of indices as a metric of the quality of corporate governance, to the extent that the applied methodology fails to encompass the differences in shareholders' profiles and that a functional approach to the substantive legal analysis preceding the compilation of an index is not adopted.

This thesis examines the management of diversity through federation and the role of the federal arbiter. It does this by focusing on the plurinational federation of Canada and its federal arbiter, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC). Its aim is to advance federal theory and policy (both for Canada and beyond) by looking at the important role the SCC has played in the management of conflict over the very nature of the federation. Through a comprehensive review of the SCC’s federal jurisprudence since 1980, the thesis demonstrates that the Court tends to impose particular understandings of the federation through its decisions. I argue such an approach by a federal arbiter is detrimental to the legitimacy of the federation and its ability to manage diversity. However, in a number of decisions, the Court recognizes federation as the process and outcome of negotiation between the subscribers of legitimate perspectives on the nature of the order. I argue this approach, which seeks to facilitate negotiation, can generate legitimacy for the federation and the way it manages conflict. These two lines of analysis support the point that federal arbiters are particularly important in managing conflict in diverse federations. The thesis consists of two broad sections. The first looks at the main approaches to managing diversity via federation and the associated roles for the federal arbiter, both in the Canadian context and more broadly. The second section looks at the SCC’s work as the federal arbiter to determine the extent to which it adheres to the facilitative approach. The thesis concludes by reflecting on the potential issues with this approach to managing diversity via federation and role for the federal arbiter, including its applicability beyond Canada.

This thesis argues that European Union law can serve as an instrument for the extension of the values of justice beyond the nation state. Approaching the question of justice from this perspective, however, presupposes three things: it challenges us to think beyond the contractarian reflex that equates justice with political self-determination by a demos; it demands that we allocate legal authority between the national and European level in accordance with their respective capacity to 'do' justice; and it requires that we construct transnational ideas of solidarity that integrate the different elements into a single, coherent, ethics of justice. This thesis offers all three. It argues that the ethics of justice that is emerging in the European Union focuses on allowing its citizens to live a 'good life', which both requires access to the positive entitlements that emerge from the national welfare states and depends on the capacity of the free movement rights to enlarge the range of available choices for citizens in deciding how to live that life. The stability of this tiered conception of justice, however, presupposes the careful incorporation of the normative assumptions that bind and connect individual citizens in Europe within the reciprocal structures that sustain the national welfare state. This thesis suggests that transnational solidarity can serve as a device for such incorporation. The first part describes a theory of transnational solidarity that distinguishes between the rights that Union citizens accrue under market solidarity, communitarian solidarity, and aspirational solidarity. The bulk of the thesis offers a critical in-depth comparative analysis of the incorporation of the demands of transnational solidarity by the Union legislator and the Court of Justice within the particular context of healthcare, education, social security and social assistance, and labour law.

Private international law has traditionally been perceived as a field of law concerned with resolving individual private disputes and achieving private justice and fairness in individual cases. This dissertation challenges this view by examining the systemic function of European private international law of employment, one of allocating and protecting regulatory (i.e. legislative and adjudicatory) authority of states in the field of labour law, thus maintaining and managing the diversity of European national labour law systems and safeguarding the objectives of uniform and harmonised EU employment legislation. This dissertation also explores the changes that the ‘Europeanization’ of private international law of employment has brought about in the traditional rules and perception in this field of law in England. In addition to introducing special rules of jurisdiction in employment matters that had not existed before, the European private international law instruments have largely merged the traditionally perceived contractual, statutory and tortious claims into one type of claim for choice-of-law purposes, thereby also abolishing concurrent causes of action. The conceptualisation of this field of law in terms of its regulatory function reveals something about the nature of private international law as a whole. The fact that European private international law of employment performs a regulatory function is a piece of evidence for the proposition that the division between the ‘private’ and the ‘public’, traditionally perceived as embedded in the foundations of the discipline and even expressed in its very name, has faded away.

This thesis addresses the nature of European Union criminal law (ECL). It claims that ECL has evolved along two main expanding dynamics, both with a significant punitive emphasis. The first dynamic of ECL focuses on the fight against a particular type of criminality that the European Union perceives as threatening to its goals - ‘Euro-crime’ - a criminality with particular features (complex in structure and which attempts primarily against public goods) that reflects the nature of contemporary societies. This focus was brought about by rationales such as the fight against organised crime, the protection of EU interests and policies, and recently, the protection of the victim. In turn, the second dynamic of ECL reinforces the State’s capacity to investigate, prosecute and punish beyond its own national borders. It does so, not only in relation to Euro-crime, but also in relation to a broader range of criminality. This thesis will further argue that these two dynamics have contributed to a more severe penality across the European Union by increasing levels of formal criminalisation; by facilitating criminal investigation, prosecution and punishment; and by placing more pressure on more lenient States. Furthermore, it will claim that this punitive emphasis of ECL has, more recently, begun to be nuanced. This has taken place at the national level as some Member States have shown reluctance to fully accepting the enhanced punitive tone of ECL instruments. It has also taken place at EU level as the punitive emphasis of EU legal instruments was modulated and the protection of fundamental rights has taken a more central place in the ‘post Lisbon’ framework. Thus, at this later stage of ECL a dialectic between punitiveness and moderation began to surface.

This thesis builds a normative theory of tort law by exploring the philosophical foundations of harm, actionability and corrective duties. In chapters 1 and 2 I survey previous literature in tort theory, arguing that normative questions have generally been neglected in favour of interpretive ones. I also defend the case-based methodology, familiar to moral philosophers, which I employ throughout. In chapter 3 I investigate the metaphysics of harm, making two claims: first, we should define harm as setback to wellbeing, and second, we should accept a complex version of the counterfactual view. In chapter 4 I distinguish between two fundamental forms of corrective action – negating and counterbalancing – and argue that they have important implications for tort theory. In chapter 5 I inquire whether a victim’s false beliefs about her wellbeing should have any impact on her claim to compensation against a wrongdoer. Chapter 6 offers a critique of George Fletcher’s theory of reciprocity as a moral basis for corrective duties. Having rejected it, I propose a set of alternative principles that more plausibly explains our judgement about whether an injurer ought to compensate her victim. Finally, chapter 7 discusses the relationship between corrective and distributive justice. I argue that, contrary to the claims of some theorists, corrective justice cannot be insulated from distributive justice.

It is generally accepted in legal and bioethical discourse that the patient has a right to self-determination. The competent patient should be in a position to make informed decisions about his/her care. In practice, this is often not the case. Paternalism, the approach to medical practice that left decision-making in the hands of the doctor, is waning and it is increasingly recognised in both the legal and medical arenas that there are values other than medical factors which determine the choices that patients make. Unfortunately, these developments have not resulted in huge advances for patient self-determination. This is largely because the mechanism by which the law purports to protect self-determination – the consent model – has fundamental flaws that constrain its effectiveness. In the last three decades, various attempts have been made to reconceptualise consent on order to make it fit for purpose, but these have achieved only limited success. This thesis starts with the premise that it is often more productive to consider what an alternative model has to offer, than to persist with amelioration of a model that is fundamentally flawed. The limitations of the consent model are discussed and a novel model, the property model, is advocated. The theoretical underpinnings of this model and its structure are presented. Essentially, the patient’s bodily integrity is protected from unauthorised invasion, and his/her legitimate expectation to be provided with the relevant information and opportunity to enable him/her make an informed decision regarding treatment is taken to be a proprietary right. It is argued that the property model potentially overcomes the limitations of the consent model, including the obstacle caused by the requirement to prove causation in consent cases. The property model provides a means by which the patient’s right to self-determination can be recognised as a distinct legal right. The model does not create new rights, only seeking to afford stronger protection of an existing right. No constitutional, professional, or other conflict is generated by applying property analysis to patient self-determination. The model fits with the rights-based approach that the courts have evolved in UK consent cases, and is consistent with modern medical professionalism.

States are on the brink of entering an age of total cyber-warfare without due regard to its legal ramifications. In particular, there has been no express agreement on which principles of international law are applicable, which legal methods should be used in approaching cyber-attacks, which previous state practice (if any) is relevant, what institutions are responsible for handling this threat and how they are going to coordinate action amongst each other. While members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (led by the Russian Federation) have repeatedly suggested developing and agreeing upon special written norms that would govern the conduct of cyber-hostilities, the United States and some of its allies continue to reject these proposals, arguing that the existing international law already provides a comprehensive framework necessary to tackle cyber-warfare. The present thesis does not contest (and, in fact, supports) the idea that contemporary jus ad bellum and jus in bello, in general, can accommodate cyberattacks. Instead, it argues that existing international law features a large amount of significant imperfections that can be exploited in cyber-warfare. It provides a comprehensive analysis of the jus ad bellum and jus in bello regimes as they apply to cyber-attacks with a view of mapping out exploitable gaps, deficiencies and uncertainties and offering further remedies that could eliminate them. Therefore, the research focus lies on revealing elements of existing international law that do not perfectly fit the threat of cyber-attacks. For this purpose, the general politico-legal framework of and norms pertaining to the use of force and humanitarian law are analyzed. The study is supplemented by looking into inter-related rules, which bear secondary importance for the purposes of this thesis, that is those surrounding conventional terrorism, United Nations law, international criminal law, principles of territoriality, sovereignty, jurisdiction and so on. At the same time, in addressing technical matters, an attempt is made to present the danger of cyber-attacks realistically. As a theoretical foundation, the current thesis recognizes the central role of states in cyber-warfare, run by governments, who interpret and want others to interpret international law in a way that best suits their interests. Furthermore, it acknowledges that their behavior is somewhat tampered with by the strongest elements of natural law and that, while, legal norms may be treated as irrelevant, their violation has negative political consequences.

The starting point for this thesis is the established position that in free economies, by protecting the operation of demand and supply, competition law and policy (i) maximizes consumer welfare and consumer satisfaction, better than by (a) government controls and regulation or (b) unregulated competition, and (ii) contributes to economic growth and development. Competition is assumed to apply as a necessity, equally to developed as well as developing economies, with Nigeria taken as a proxy for resource-dependent developing economies. The contents of the thesis are underpinned by the question: what is the extent to which competition law and policy could be employed to promote the efficient allocation of resources in resource-dependent developing economies? The submitted views are partly based on an analysis of the objectives of competition law and policy, for determining whether resource-dependent countries have peculiar problems, and if the answer is in the affirmative, whether the general standards in competition policy are sufficient to address them. This analytic approach is the same as the one underlying the draft Federal Competition Bill (FCB) in Nigeria, as an example of an appropriate competition instrument in a resource-dependent country. The thesis examines some of the standards in the United States of America (USA) and European Union (EU) competition policies, such as those concerning agreements, abuse of dominant position and mergers, to determine whether the same rules could apply in all economic regimes, and which competition model could be best adopted by resource-dependent developing countries, with Nigeria as an example. Competition standards and both primary and secondary competition problems that could distort the process of competition, as well as constraints which may emerge in the competition process in developing countries are explored. Some of these, as problems, include the issue of ‘resource curse’, rent seeking, corruption, abusive business practices and a few others. Their examination is in the thesis aligned with the scrutiny of the characteristics of developing countries in contrast to developed countries; again, the economic circumstances of Nigeria, as a proxy for resource-dependent developing countries, are considered for determining whether competition law and policy could be used as a tool for addressing competition problems that may exist in resource-dependent developing countries. The conclusions of the thesis underline the types of economic problems for which competition law and policy, with the economic development of resource-dependent developing countries in mind, could be used to address, especially restrictive trade practices, abuse of dominant position and mergers that could substantially lessen competition. Furthermore, the (even if limited) role of regulation is argued, that is, in the face of any expected limitations of competition in certain sectors of an economy undergoing liberalization in the wake of current international merger waves. Not least the importance of establishing a competition agency to administer and enforce it is underlined, that is, independently from the influence of the government. It is argued that for the draft FCB in Nigeria to become an appropriate competition instrument, the power and mandate of the Federal Competition Commission must be reviewed, with sufficient powers for the task, also for promoting the wide objectives anchored in the draft Bill. It is also pointed out that competition cannot on its own directly resolve, in Nigeria, the peculiar socio-economic problems such as rent seeking and corruption, but it is argued that with an active engagement of competition advocacy, along with the adequate implementation of competition law and policy, the problems could be greatly reduced. The thesis highlights, among other recommendations, the need for further research on competition problems relating to resource-dependent countries.