The fundamental aim of any regulatory system for professional services should be the provision of quality professional services that serve the public interest. The public interest element is paramount to determine what services are regulated and how those services are regulated. This thesis suggests that the current regulatory structure is dominated by the public interest as defined by orthodox medicine (OM). This has skewed the regulatory structure against consumer choices that favour greater reliance upon complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). A postmodernist perspective suggests the need to revisit the current regulatory structure to embrace perspectives on health derived from individuality and personal empiricism free of the modernist outlook characteristic of OM.

This thesis analyzes the technical definition of the crime of persecution for the purpose of prosecutions at the International Criminal Court. The provisions on the crime of persecution are found in Article 7(1)(h) and Article 7(2)(g) of the Rome Statute and Article 7(1)(h) of the Elements of Crimes. Lack of clarity is a difficulty with these provisions. The writer analyzes the provisions by pooling together primary and secondary sources and drawing on the customary international law that has emerged from the ad-hoc International Criminal Tribunals established between 1945 and 2003.

In recent years, countries across the globe have come to realise the importance of an official corporate governance regime, which provides a platform for market integrity and efficiency, as well as facilitating economic growth. Formulating effective corporate governance measures is a complex task for legislators. The purpose of this paper is to provide an in depth analysis and comparison of the corporate governance legislative frameworks in Australia and Jordan. In 2004, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), in conjunction with national and international governmental organisations, finalised a universal set of corporate governance principles. Although non-binding, the OECD Principles 2004 are a serious attempt to strengthen every aspect of corporate governance and, accordingly, have been utilised in this paper as an international benchmark.The ultimate objective of this paper is to formulate a number of detailed and specific recommendations to the Jordanian Government. Jordan’s legislative framework for corporations received a significant shake-up a decade ago when the Jordanian Government began the process of implementing a privatisation program under the guidance of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Despite a number of positive developments since this program was initiated, the Jordanian Government has continually failed to recognise the importance of promoting good corporate governance. There can be no doubt that the Jordanian companies’ legislation is in desperate need of reform. The vast majority of the provisions are ambiguous and lack the necessary detail to regulate the complex sphere of company law. In this writer’s opinion, the relevant authorities in Jordan must act immediately to bring the country’s legislative regime into line with internationally recognised standards and practices. Chapter 1 of the paper sets out an introductory explanation of corporate governance and corporate structure. Chapter 2 provides a brief account of the history of company law in Jordan and a description of the different types of company structures permitted under the relevant Jordanian legislation. Chapter 3 provides a detailed discussion of the corporate governance principles formulated by the OECD. The process began in 1999 and was completed in 2004 after extensive revision and consultation. Chapter 4, the core part of the paper, presents a comparative analysis of the implementation of the OECD principles in Australia and Jordan. Chapter 5 provides an explanation and analysis of two important shareholders’ remedies in the Australian companies’ legislation that do not exist in Jordan. Finally, Chapter 6 provides a summary of analysis and sets out a list of recommendations to the Jordanian Government.

The rapid expansion of the Chinese economy has made China aware if the importance of the rule by law. Perfecting its legal system and expanding its economy are the two goals of modern China. Many laws and regulations have been enacted since the economic reform was launched at the end of 1970s. The enactment of the Chinese Law of Trusts is an important step in the refinement of the Chinese legal system.This thesis aims to identify the deficiencies in the Chinese Law of Trusts by giving a critical and comparative study of the Australian and the Chinese trusts law, so as to propose amendments to the Chinese Law of Trusts. This thesis is divided into two Parts, and seven Chapters. Part One, which comprises five chapters, is a comparative study of the Australian and the Chinese trusts law. It also discusses the laws of trusts in other important Common Law and Civil Law jurisdictions. Chapter 1 of this Part deals with the basic concept of the trust. It introduces and discusses the definition, and the characteristics of the trust, the comparison between the trust and other similar concepts, and the classification of trusts. Chapter 2 deals with the creation of express trusts. With respect to the rights and duties of the trust parties, Chapter 3 gives a detailed discussion. Chapter 4 examines the variation and termination of trusts. The last chapter of Part One, Chapter 5, specifically analyses the charitable trusts.Part Two comprises two chapters: Chapter 6 and Chapter 7. Chapter 6 discusses the practical impact of the Chinese Law of Trusts on the Chinese State-owned enterprise reform, which has been progressing for more than two decades in China. Chapter 7 is a general concluding chapter. It pinpoints the deficiencies in the Chinese Law of Trusts, analyses the reasons for the deficiencies, and suggests two solutions to improve the Law: namely, to improve the existing provisions of the Law and to adopt eclectically the elaborate concepts of the Australian law of trusts.

This study analyses the way that legal positivists from HLA Hart onwards have responded to Lon L Fuller’s challenge to positivism from the idea of the rule of law. The main thesis is that Hart and contemporary legal positivists working in the Hartian tradition have yet to adequately respond to Fuller’s Challenge. I argue that the reason for this is the approach they take to dealing with Fuller’s principles of the rule of law, which either (i) proceeds on the basis of the positivist perspective without engaging with Fuller’s wider anti-positivist arguments, or else (ii) accepts Fuller’s claim that the rule of law is part of our concept of law but does not acknowledge any effect of this on what determines legal validity (the content of legal norms). In both cases, I argue that tensions and problems result from a lack of engagement with Fuller’s anti-positivism. On the one hand, positivists have failed to show why their account of the nature of law better reflects our understanding of law than Fuller’s. On the other, the concessions that positivists have made to Fuller’s arguments are often detached from other elements in their theories, raising the question of whether the positivist response to Fuller is coherent. In addition, by closely analysing the major positivist accounts of the rule of law, this study challenges a number of orthodox interpretations that confuse our understanding of the positivist response to Fuller. I show that most positivists accept that there is something morally valuable about a legal system’s conformity to the principles of the rule of law, and that there is always some kind of at least minimal conformity to those principles in any legal system. By noticing what concessions positivists have made to Fuller’s understanding of the rule of law, I aim to both (i) shift the debate to the remaining disputes with the Hartian positivists, particularly on issues such as the ‘derivative approach’ and the ‘validity Social thesis’, and (ii) identify areas of fruitful engagement with Fuller, such as the question of judges’ moral obligations to law.

This study analyses the way that legal positivists from HLA Hart onwards have responded to Lon L Fuller’s challenge to positivism from the idea of the rule of law. The main thesis is that Hart and contemporary legal positivists working in the Hartian tradition have yet to adequately respond to Fuller’s Challenge. I argue that the reason for this is the approach they take to dealing with Fuller’s principles of the rule of law, which either (i) proceeds on the basis of the positivist perspective without engaging with Fuller’s wider anti-positivist arguments, or else (ii) accepts Fuller’s claim that the rule of law is part of our concept of law but does not acknowledge any effect of this on what determines legal validity (the content of legal norms). In both cases, I argue that tensions and problems result from a lack of engagement with Fuller’s anti-positivism. On the one hand, positivists have failed to show why their account of the nature of law better reflects our understanding of law than Fuller’s. On the other, the concessions that positivists have made to Fuller’s arguments are often detached from other elements in their theories, raising the question of whether the positivist response to Fuller is coherent. In addition, by closely analysing the major positivist accounts of the rule of law, this study challenges a number of orthodox interpretations that confuse our understanding of the positivist response to Fuller. I show that most positivists accept that there is something morally valuable about a legal system’s conformity to the principles of the rule of law, and that there is always some kind of at least minimal conformity to those principles in any legal system. By noticing what concessions positivists have made to Fuller’s understanding of the rule of law, I aim to both (i) shift the debate to the remaining disputes with the Hartian positivists, particularly on issues such as the ‘derivative approach’ and the ‘validity Social thesis’, and (ii) identify areas of fruitful engagement with Fuller, such as the question of judges’ moral obligations to law.

In recent years, countries across the globe have come to realise the importance of an official corporate governance regime, which provides a platform for market integrity and efficiency, as well as facilitating economic growth. Formulating effective corporate governance measures is a complex task for legislators. The purpose of this paper is to provide an in depth analysis and comparison of the corporate governance legislative frameworks in Australia and Jordan. In 2004, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), in conjunction with national and international governmental organisations, finalised a universal set of corporate governance principles. Although non-binding, the OECD Principles 2004 are a serious attempt to strengthen every aspect of corporate governance and, accordingly, have been utilised in this paper as an international benchmark.The ultimate objective of this paper is to formulate a number of detailed and specific recommendations to the Jordanian Government. Jordan’s legislative framework for corporations received a significant shake-up a decade ago when the Jordanian Government began the process of implementing a privatisation program under the guidance of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Despite a number of positive developments since this program was initiated, the Jordanian Government has continually failed to recognise the importance of promoting good corporate governance. There can be no doubt that the Jordanian companies’ legislation is in desperate need of reform. The vast majority of the provisions are ambiguous and lack the necessary detail to regulate the complex sphere of company law. In this writer’s opinion, the relevant authorities in Jordan must act immediately to bring the country’s legislative regime into line with internationally recognised standards and practices. Chapter 1 of the paper sets out an introductory explanation of corporate governance and corporate structure. Chapter 2 provides a brief account of the history of company law in Jordan and a description of the different types of company structures permitted under the relevant Jordanian legislation. Chapter 3 provides a detailed discussion of the corporate governance principles formulated by the OECD. The process began in 1999 and was completed in 2004 after extensive revision and consultation. Chapter 4, the core part of the paper, presents a comparative analysis of the implementation of the OECD principles in Australia and Jordan. Chapter 5 provides an explanation and analysis of two important shareholders’ remedies in the Australian companies’ legislation that do not exist in Jordan. Finally, Chapter 6 provides a summary of analysis and sets out a list of recommendations to the Jordanian Government.

This thesis analyses the consistency of WTO law with international environmental law and general international law in the field of trade and environment. GATT obligations require trade measures to comply with national treatment (Article III) and most –favoured nation treatment (Article I) and to prohibit import and export restrictions (Article XI). GATT exceptions permit measures to protect human, animal or plant life or health (Article XX(b)) and to conserve exhaustible natural resources (Article XX(g). This thesis analyses the consistency of unilateral and multilateral environmental measures with these GATT obligations and exceptions. It argues that the Article XX exceptions should be interpreted according to the proximity of interest between the country using trade restrictions and the environmental problem. It argues further that Article XX should be interpreted in accordance with customary international law regarding sovereign equality, non-intervention and the doctrine of necessity. Applying the principle of sovereign equality to WTO rights, this thesis proposes that WTO provisions be designed and interpreted to compensate for the economic inequality of WTO members in order to ensure equal access to WTO rights. Moreover, the principle of non-intervention should be applied in the WTO context to prohibit economic coercion. Unilateral environmental trade restrictions fail both tests. They use economic coercion to intervene in the internal affairs of sovereign States and are available in practice only to countries with significant market power. However, the doctrine of necessity may be invoked to excuse the non-observance of WTO and other international obligations to permit the use of trade restrictions to address urgent environmental problems with which the enacting country has a jurisdictional nexus.

A state contract is a common mode of entry for foreign direct investment, especially in developing states. It can form the legal basis of the investment relationship between a foreign investor and a host government. But, like any other contract, it cannot stand itself covering all aspects of the legal relationship. The contract thus must belong to a specific legal system or a body of rules or principles which is usually called “applicable law “or “governing law”.Historically, a “concession contract” in the natural resources sector was the predominant form of a state contract and it used to be governed by the domestic law of each host state. However, since the 1950s, international investment arbitrations have abandoned the tradition and advanced a theory subjecting state contracts in the foreign investment sector to an external legal system, ie public international law. One of the bases of the theory of internationalisation was the principle of party autonomy that allows parties to a state contract to select any law of whatever country they like. Then, the 1965 Washington Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (ICSID Convention)1 formally adopted the principle of party autonomy in Article 42 (1) as the primary choice of law rule in disputes arising out a foreign investment contract concluded between a state and a national of another state.The object of this thesis is to prove that the fundamental problems of party autonomy in foreign investment contracts involving considerations of public and private law issues remain unsettled. It explores the main controversies and confusions in the theory of internationalising state contracts, looking at its historical context. It examines the extent of the application of party autonomy in state contracts such as natural resource exploitation contracts and construction of a plant and infrastructure contracts which reflect important economic development policies of developing countries.In considering past and current problems in the field of international investment law, the thesis argues that arbitral tribunals resolving disputes between a state and a foreign private individual should abandon the party autonomy approach because contractual freedom to choose the law of the contract would disregard the objectives which host states normally pursue through economic regulations such as development, environment and human rights concerns of foreign investment. It suggests a consensus-based approach similar to the rule adopted in the Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to Certain Rights in Respect of Securities (Hague Securities Convention)2 and which would produce the desired effect. It recommends that the choice of law provisions found in Article 42 of ICSID Convention would need to be either modified or repealed. In doing so, this thesis attempts to contribute to the positive development of international investment law balancing state authority and private property rights.

Judicial enforcement of arbitral awards is necessary where there is no voluntary compliance by the relevant parties. Courts world-wide may refuse to enforce arbitral awards if such enforcement would be contrary to the public policy of their countries. This is known as ‘the public policy exception to the enforcement of arbitral awards’. It is enshrined in the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 (New York Convention) and the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985 (Model Law), which are two of the most prominent international instruments in promoting and regulating international commercial arbitration.The public policy exception is one of the most controversial exceptions to the enforcement of arbitral awards, causing judicial inconsistency and therefore unpredictability in its application. It is often likened to an ‘unruly horse’, which may lead us from sound law. The International Law Association’s Resolution on Public Policy as a Bar to Enforcement of International Arbitral Awards 2002 (ILA Resolution) endorses a narrow approach to the public policy exception – namely, refusal of enforcement under the public policy exception in exceptional circumstances only. The ILA Resolution seeks to facilitate the finality of arbitral awards in accordance with the New York Convention’s primary goal of facilitating the enforcement of arbitral awards. The courts of many countries refer to this as the New York Convention’s ‘pro-enforcement policy’, which demands a narrow approach to the public policy exception.This thesis explores the main controversies and complexities in the judicial application of the public policy exception from an Australian perspective. It is a critical analysis of the prevalent narrow approach to the public policy exception. It examines the extent of the ILA Resolution’s suitability and applicability in Australia, considering past problems experienced by the courts of other countries, the distinctive features of the Australian legal system, and future challenges confronting the Australian judiciary. It examines when and how the Australian judiciary may need to swim against the tide by departing from the narrow approach to the public policy exception. For instance, such departure may be appropriate for ensuring that their application of the public policy exception neither causes nor condones injustice, and thereby preserves the integrity and faith in the system of arbitration. The author’s perspective throughout this thesis is that of an academic lawyer, as she has not had the benefit of practical experience in this area of the law.The recommendations throughout this thesis are tailor-made for the Australian judiciary. They are Australian in perspective yet international in character. They canvass certain issues not addressed in the ILA Resolution, encouraging the Australian judiciary to participate in the ongoing debate and the ultimate resolution of those issues. In doing so, this thesis contributes to refining the judicial application of public policy in determining the enforceability of arbitral awards. The public policy exception to the enforcement of arbitral awards, or its application, need not be an unruly horse in Australia.“This version contains corrections of typographical errors identified in the original version of the thesis submitted for completion of the SJD program”.