This thesis critically analyses the English choice of law rules for testamentary trusts. After outlining the research context (Chapter 1), the key concepts and terms for testamentary trusts in cross-border estates are introduced (Chapter 2). The dual system of choice of law rules (one for testate succession and the other for the trust) are discussed with reference to reads 'rocket and rocket-launcher' illustration that has been favoured by legislators and commentators alike. Thus, the current choice of law rules for testate succession matters are analysed in Chapter 3 and the choice of law rules for trusts are examined in Chapter 4. This leads to Chapter 5 concluding that the choice of law rules for the creation of testamentary trusts (the rocket-launching aspects) are particularly problematic. The discussion thereafter focuses on how the choice of law rules for the rocket-launching aspects of testamentary trusts could be improved with reference to the international and European reform attempts to legislate on succession and trusts, including the Hague Succession Convention and the European Succession Regulation (Chapter 6). Moreover, the limited UK reform attempts relevant to the choice of law rules for testamentary trusts are discussed in Chapter 7. Chapter 8 proposes recommendations for reform.

Since the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998, discussions have developed concerning a judicial ‘dialogue’ taking place between the UK courts and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) over the interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and its application to UK law. This thesis contributes to these debates by offering a judicially-informed account of the dialogue between these courts based on in-depth interviews conducted with eight Justices of the UK Supreme Court and four judges of the European Court of Human Rights. It combines these insights with analysis of case law, extra-judicial commentary and contributions from political and legal theory to explore the role of judicial dialogue in legitimising the judgments of these courts. In this way, the thesis offers a unique methodological approach to a highly topical area of constitutional discourse in the UK. The thesis argues that dialogue has arisen in response to legitimacy challenges facing these courts based on concerns over the extent of the ECtHR’s influence in the UK. Both at the level of judgments and through informal meetings, dialogue responds to these challenges through the participation of the national courts in the jurisprudential development of ECHR rights, the accountability of the ECtHR to domestic judicial concerns, and the ongoing revision and refinement of the Convention rights at the supranational level to accommodate for legal and constitutional diversity. To this extent, dialogue is part of a wider effort to legitimise the Convention system and the courts charged with upholding it by strengthening the role and identity of the domestic courts in human rights adjudication, as reflected in the reemphasis on subsidiarity and the common law ‘resurgence’. However, the thesis also observes that a significant part of the dialogue resides in an increased willingness by the UK courts to refuse to apply parts of the ECtHR’s case law, and a tendency by the ECtHR to accommodate that refusal. On this basis, it argues that the process also carries the risk of delegitimising the ECHR system by promoting a disposition to disobey on the part of national authorities across the Council of Europe.

This thesis seeks to explore and map the public domain, conceived as an area free from the constraints of law and contract, in relation to information on open, publicly accessible websites. The existing rich literature concerning the ‘public domain’ focuses largely on the impact of the intellectual property regime. By adopting a novel conceptualisation of the public domain as freedom from law and contract, the thesis offers a broader perspective on freedoms and limitations on the use of information. While the existing ‘public domain’ literature does address the possibility for freedoms in relation to the use of information to be narrowed by contract, it focuses on the second order question of enforceability of terms. The first order question concerning the implications of the rules of contract formation is not thoroughly explored, a lack that this thesis seeks to address. The thesis relies on the contract law requirement of exchange to tease out both aspects of the public domain, that is, freedom from law and contract. In the process it addresses a significant gap in case law and literature, namely, the character of the benefit conferred by the website on the user. Relying on insights derived from the ruling of the European Court of Justice in Svensson the thesis offers a novel conceptualisation of the benefit and the mechanism of its conferral in order to explore the contractual significance of the exchange. The thesis suggests that the scope of the public domain is periled on the characterisation of the website’s response to the user’s request for content. It presents a contrasting account of the public domain according to two different characterisations of the website’s response, offering reasons to prefer the account of the public domain that best preserves freedom to look.

The single aim of this thesis can be stated clearly: to argue for the use and usefulness of thick and thin concepts within law. The distinction between thick and thin concepts - recently popularized in analytic philosophy - has in the last two decades migrated from its point of origin in meta-ethics to other areas of philosophy and now law. My contention is that whilst use of the distinction within law is welcome, legal deployment of the distinction has been haphazard, with the idea left vague and ambiguous. Although the lack of clarity within the legal literature could be explained by the infancy of these ideas within legal discourse, the imprecision and ambiguity that results has undermined the juristic value of the central distinction for law. In particular I note the lack of any attention at all within the legal literature to the question of whether normative and descriptive aspects of thick concepts are capable of being separated - even though this controversy has dominated the philosophical literature. However, my criticism of the legal deployment of thick and thin is not restricted to this idea alone. Failure to investigate (or mention) the several issues I identify has, I argue, seen opportunities missed for the gainful use of the distinction in law, with my thesis focusing, in illustration, on the value to be gained through such analysis in the areas of jurisprudence and legal education. I select these two areas because they ably demonstrate the opportunities that I contend exist, and also because their scope, from theoretical analysis to educational practice, serves notice that these insights might reasonably range over a wider field in law too.

The Prosecutor is the gatekeeper at the ICC. Her discretionary decisions determine in which situations the Court will commence an investigation and who will be brought before the Court. The Prosecutor’s focus on Africa has led to severe criticism of alleged anti-African bias and an erosion of the Court's legitimacy. Against this background, this thesis examines the exercise of prosecutorial discretion at the ICC. It identifies the scope for procedural discretionary decisions at the key junctures of the proceedings, covering areas such as how to conduct a preliminary examination, when to commence an investigation, who to prosecute and which charges to bring. The analysis is based on the theoretical understanding that the legality of decisions is crucial, which is why the thesis analyses the legal limitations of the exercise of discretion to clearly determine its boundaries. However, legality alone is not sufficient to serve the aim of safeguarding and enhancing the legitimacy of the Court. It is argued that the Prosecutor is not entirely free, but bound by the main principles and aims represented in the Rome Statute. She must ensure that her decisions demonstrate impartiality, maximize the deterrence effect of the ICC, and respond to victims' interests. To achieve a positive effect on the legitimacy of the Court, it is also required that the Prosecutor deliberates on individual decisions and makes these decisions more transparent. This will provide routes to pragmatic mechanisms of accountability, beyond the limited possibilities in the Rome Statute to hold the Prosecutor formally to account. In this regard, the thesis also analyses the role of the gravity notion, a concept that gained increased prominence in the evolving practice of the Prosecutor, and of the interests of justice, a notion that has not once been used yet. Both are indeterminate concepts that equip the Prosecutor with the necessary flexibility to respond to a variety of very different scenarios that might occur within the jurisdiction of the Court. The thesis demonstrates that the acts of applying these concepts contain a type of interpretative discretion. For the gravity notion, however, the scope is very limited, does not allow any managerial considerations, and must strictly be geared towards consistency. While the interests of justice currently appear redundant, this thesis demonstrates how this concept can gain new importance for the completion of situations, one of the challenges ahead for the Court. Overall, this thesis aims to identify avenues by which the Prosecutor can contribute to turning the Court into a more responsive institution, striking a balance between the preservation of its independence and open interaction with its stakeholders.

This thesis critically examines structures of police accountability, in particular the introduction and operation of Police and Crime Commissioners [PCCs]. The first chapter begins by identifying accountability as the very bedrock of policing. Accountability is then defined before examining its key facets, why a suitable structure is imperative and how accountability carries the burden of securing police legitimacy. The second and third chapters highlight how the system of police developed while identifying critical ‘turning points’ in police accountability. The fourth chapter explores the present structure and model of police accountability. This chapter also examines reports which highlight potential teething problems and imperfections. The fifth chapter outlines the methodology for the qualitative study involving elite research interviews with senior stakeholders in policing at a regional and national level, including relevant persons in Government. The sixth chapter analyses this data and argues that whilst PCCs may lead to efficiency gains, there are important questions about the quality of accountability. Additionally, the accountability of Chief Constables is contended to vary considerably and in practice likely frustrated by the ‘one to one’ accountability relationship between Chief Constable and PCC. Police accountability is also identified as possibly over dependent on this relationship. Moreover, PCCs are argued to lack accountability between elections. The seventh chapter contends that using elections to achieve democratic police accountability is fraught with difficulties and potentially carries significant risks for policing. Additionally, the PCCs power to remove Chief Constables is argued to cause two possibly corrosive impacts on policing and police accountability. This power is also identified as a mechanism of disempowerment which may in practice lead to Chief Constables being displaced by PCCs. Concluding, the present structure and model of police accountability is argued to be risky, maybe defective and possibly unsuitable for police accountability and policing in the longer term.

This thesis argues that the current legal framework regulating electronic commercial transactions, both business-to-business (B2B) and business-to-consumer (B2C), within the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and across member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), requires development in the areas of determining the judicial jurisdiction and the law applicable to those transactions. Following analyses focusing on the provisions of the UAE and GCC member states for determining jurisdiction and applicable law, the thesis provides justification for the conclusion that the private international law rules of those states are in need of updating, especially regarding electronic commerial transactions. The thesis provides a particularly original dimension in terms of proposals for legislative reform and suggested draft provisions. The main underlying factors for the central argument of the thesis for development and updating of the laws of the UAE and GCC member states include the following considerations: First, the current provisions do not adequately reflect the nature of B2B transactions in e-commerce. Second, the current rules do not reflect the particular vulnerability of consumers and do not adequately ensure protection of consumers’ rights. Third, there is the need for effective dispute resolution mechanisms to resolve B2C disputes, and consideration of such mechanisms would suit the circumstances of the UAE, and the GCC. The matters under discussion have not yet been addressed by harmonised legislations between member states of the GCC, whereas the GCC aims to be an organisation for political and economic cooperation in the region. In light of this last consideration, the thesis examines how the concerned matters are addressed within the European Union (EU) framework and considers whether and how the GCC could draw lessons from the EU model. In concluding, legislative provisions are suggested for the UAE and the GCC; and an appropriate dispute resolution mechanism is proposed for e-commerce transactions.

Article 27.3(b) of the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) obliges all World Trade Organisation (WTO) embers to protect plant varieties. This thesis unpacks plant variety protection in the Global South, using Nigeria as a case study. To do this, the thesis adopts Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) as a macro-methodological lens and regime complex theory as a supplement. TWAIL is a historically aware methodology that engages with international law from the perspectives and aspirations of the Third World. While regime complex theory illuminates how the overlapping non-hierarchical institutions, agreements, systems, and principles governing plant variety protection shape the implementation of Article 27.3(b) of TRIPS. Combining TWAIL with regime complex theory uncovers the complexities in plant variety protection law-making in the Global South with a view to provide lessons for Nigeria. As Nigeria currently does not have a plant variety protection system, the thesis employs an original empirical study, involving semi-structured iinterviews in Nigeria, to understand realities and stakeholders’ perspectives on the subject. Based on the empirical insights, the thesis proposes a sui generis system which protects the interests of both small-scale farmers and commercial breeders as best suited to Nigeria. To understand the intricacies and contingencies of designing such a system, the thesis examines plant variety protection laws and law-making of Global South WTO members such as the African Group, India, and Thailand. Drawing lessons from this examination, the thesis develops original frames for analysing plant variety protection in the Global South, namely: trade agreements, regional associations, pressures from seed companies, international institutions lobbies, and civil society activism. In combining the original multi-layered methodological lens, empirical study, and analytical framework, the thesis presents the first comprehensive analysis on plant variety protection in Nigeria. It is hoped that this timely thesis will inspire the introduction of the sui generis system proposed.

This thesis examines the way in which the concept of criminal law defences for individuals has been imported to international law and the consequences of doing so. The idea of defending one’s criminal act with a legally defined reason which removes criminal responsibility originates in national law. Self-defence is a good example of the ‘best’ kind of defence to plead: acquittal will result where serious assault, for example, was only committed against an attacker in order to save one’s life. Domestic law places restrictions on the availability of such defences, particularly where serious offences such as murder are concerned and more flexible defences, such as duress, tend to be limited in their application to more serious crimes against the person. For example, self-defence is accepted as a full defence for murder in most jurisdictions, but there is a far greater reluctance to allow duress as a full defence for murder. In some jurisdictions, duress is not even recognised as a defence in the first place. At the international level, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court has codified defences, directly importing a number of recognisable defences from domestic legal systems. However, the way in which this has been done is problematic: the Rome Statute was drafted to prosecute genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, yet it does not restrict or limit the application of any of the defences for the most serious crimes, as domestic systems tend to do. The first part to this thesis demonstrates the way in which national law has been used as a source of principles for the concept of defences, leading to the conclusion that the defences have been imported in part from domestic law. This part to the argument looks at the influence of domestic law at the international level, acknowledging it as a source of and influence on international law and demonstrates the close connection between both. It then turns to the use of domestic defences before internationalised military tribunals and the International Military Tribunals at Tokyo and Nuremberg, concluding that defences have been available but were inapplicable, given the nature and seriousness of the crimes. The codification of defences in the Rome Statute is then explored, identifying the use of domestic law at the international level. However, this use is considered problematic where the crimes are so serious and the defence of duress is identified as a particularly flexible, and thus undesirable, defence for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The second part builds on this argument by undertaking a comparative study of the defence of duress at the national level to demonstrate the lack of consensus in relation to the concept for even one charge of murder, before exploring the definition and inclusion of duress in the Rome Statute. The thesis concludes by identifying ways in which the structure of defences in the Rome Statute could be improved in order to further the aim of the creation of the International Criminal Court: the avoidance of impunity.

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.