Introduction: Mapping the Contours of East Asian Commercial Law for the Asian Century

The centre of economic gravity in the new century is shifting to the East. Since 200 1, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Asia's contribution to world economic growth has matched that of the United States and Europe combined, and, since 2006, has even exceeded it (IMF, 20 I I; Neumann and Arora, 20 II ). This surge is easy to explain: China has emerged as a global super-power; Japan remains the third-largest world economy, despite only recently emerging from over twenty years of economic stagnation (The Age, 2013); South Korea and the ' tiger ' economies of Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore have achieved high-level economic development through capital investment and technological innovation; and Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines and Malaysia have supplied riches in labour and resources to the regional economy (Macintyre and Naughton, 2005, p. 78). A growing middle class is lifting consumption. ‘Billions of Asians,' writes Mahbubani (2008, p. 3), 'are marching to modernity.’ This book examines scholarly interpretations for the role commercial law has played in East Asia's economic rise. At first blush, this might seem a daunting task. After all, as some theorists have argued, the East Asian experience is largely neglected in writings on Jaw generally and commercial law more broadly (Wolff, 20 12). This is because law, as a discipline, was largely forged in the prior European and American centuries; these 'Anglo-American moorings' ill-serve legal analysis in the new Asian Century (Cossman, 1997, p. 539).

Law as lore

Law is saturated with stories. People tell their stories to lawyers; lawyers tell their clients’ stories to courts; legislators develop regulation to respond to their constituents’ stories of injustice or inequality. In legal education, professors devise hypothetical scenarios to test student understanding of legal doctrine; in law examinations and assignments, students construct advice to fictional clients. The common law legal system derives many of its foundational principles from case law — in effect, stories with legal solutions — that have accumulated over time. The civil law system, despite a different design centred on legal codes, also relies on judicial story-telling to interpret the code provisions and flesh out the gaps.

The Role of the Law in Communicating Patient Safety

This chapter considers the role of the law in communicating patient safety. Downie, Lahey, Ford, et al’s (2006) preventing, knowing and responding theoretical framework is adopted to classify the different elements of patient safety law. Rather than setting out all relevant patient safety laws in detail, this chapter highlights key legal strategies which are employed to: prevent the occurrence of patient safety incidents (preventing); support the discovery and open discussion of patient safety incidents when they do occur (knowing),; and guide responses after they occur (responding) (Downie, Lahey, Ford, et al 2006). The law is increasingly being invoked to facilitate open discussion of and communication surrounding patient safety. After highlighting some legal strategies used to communicate patient safety, two practice examples are presented. The practice examples highlight different aspects of patient safety law and are indicative of communication issues commonly faced in practice. The first practice example focuses on the role of the Ccoroner in communicating patient safety. This example highlights the investigative role of the law in relation to patient safety (knowing). It also showcases the preventing responding and preventing elements in respect of the significant number of communication errors that can occur in a multi-disciplinary, networked health system. The main focus of the second practice example is responding example illustrates how the law responds to health service providers’ and professionals’ miscommunication (and subsequent incidents) during treatment, however it also touches upon knowing and preventing.

Now the real international fight begins for the Trans-Pacific Partnership

In Atlanta, the trade ministers of a dozen countries across the Pacific Rim announced that they had successfully reached a concluded agreement upon the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The debate over the TPP will now play out in legislatures across the Pacific Rim, where sentiment towards the deal is much more mixed. The ministers insisted: “After more than five years of intensive negotiations, we have come to an agreement that will support jobs, drive sustainable growth, foster inclusive development, and promote innovation across the Asia-Pacific region … The agreement achieves the goal we set forth of an ambitious, comprehensive, high standard and balanced agreement that will benefit our nation’s citizens … We expect this historic agreement to promote economic growth, support higher-paying jobs; enhance innovation, productivity and competitiveness; raise living standards; reduce poverty in our countries; and to promote transparency, good governance, and strong labor and environmental protections.” But there has been fierce criticism of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, because of both its secrecy and its substance. Nobel Laureate Professor Joseph Stiglitz has warned that the agreement is not about free trade, but about the protection of corporate monopolies. The intellectual property chapter provides for longer and stronger protection of intellectual property rights. The investment chapter provides foreign investors with the power to challenge governments under an investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) regime. The environment chapter is weak and toothless, and seems to be little more than an exercise in greenwashing. The health annex — and many other parts of the agreement — strengthen the power of pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology developers. The text on state-owned enterprises raises concerns about public ownership of postal services, broadcasters and national broadband services.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership Poses a Grave Threat to Sustainable Development

This month’s long-awaited release of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) text was the result of years of negotiations on trade ties between nations around the Pacific Rim. Some six weeks earlier, another set of deliberations came to an end as the United Nations unveiled its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which aim to eradicate poverty and reduce inequality by addressing critical issues such as food security, health care, access to education, clean and affordable water, clean energy, and climate action. Unfortunately, the two documents are incompatible. Several chapters of the TPP impinge upon the SDGs, potentially undermining the UN’s efforts to promote sustainable development and equality throughout the Pacific region. Moreover, many developing countries, least-developed countries, and small island states in the Pacific region are excluded from the preferential trade deal.

Civil Procedure

This text provides a summary of Australian procedural law to its bare essence to assist students to rapidly come to grips with the main principles, theories and reality of civil litigation. The LexisNexis Study Guide series is designed to assist students in learning the foundations for effective, systematic exam preparation and revision. In each chapter of LexisNexis Study Guide - Civil Procedure, Stephen Colbran, Roger Douglas, Sheryl Jackson and Molly Townes O'Brien clearly identify and explain the pertinent and often difficult topics within civil procedure. The most important and recent cases are summarised to consolidate practical understanding of the theoretical concepts involved in civil procedure.

Free software and the law. Out of the frying pan and into the fire: How shaking up intellectual property suits competition law just fine

Free software is viewed as a revolutionary and subversive practice, and in particular has dealt a strong blow to the traditional conception of intellectual property law (although in its current form could be considered a 'hack' of IP rights). However, other (capitalist) areas of law have been swift to embrace free software, or at least incorporate it into its own tenets. One area in particular is that of competition (antitrust) law, which itself has long been in theoretical conflict with intellectual property, due to the restriction on competition inherent in the grant of ‘monopoly’ rights by copyrights, patents and trademarks. This contribution will examine how competition law has approached free software by examining instances in which courts have had to deal with such initiatives, for instance in the Oracle Sun Systems merger, and the implications that these decisions have on free software initiatives. The presence or absence of corporate involvement in initiatives will be an important factor in this investigation, with it being posited that true instances of ‘commons-based peer production’ can still subvert the capitalist system, including perplexing its laws beyond intellectual property.

Realisation of University-Industry Collaboration through Industry-Based Learning at Indonesian Higher Education

The collaboration between universities and industries has become increasingly important for the development of Science and Technology. This is particularly more prominent in the Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) disciplines. Literature suggest that the key element of University-Industry Partnership (UIP) is the exchange of knowledge that is mutually beneficial for both parties. One real example of the collaborations is Industry-Based Learning (IBL) in which university students are coming into industries to experience and learn how the skills and knowledge acquired in the classroom are implemented in work places. This paper investigate how the University-Industry Collaboration program is implemented though Industry-Based Learning (IBL) at Indonesian Universities. The research findings offer useful insights and create a new knowledge in the field of STEM education and collaborative learning. The research will contribute to existing knowledge by providing empirical understanding of this topic. The outcomes can be used to improve the quality of University-Industry Partnership programs at Indonesian Universities and inform Indonesian higher education authorities and their industrial partners of an alternative approach to enhance their IBL programs.

Contemporary issues in Australian family law: Do we need a more unified and interventionist judicial model

Recent decisions of the Family Court of Australian reflect concerns over the adversarial nature of the legal process. The processes and procedures of the judicial system militate against a detailed examination of the issues and rights of the parties in dispute. The limitations of the family law framework are particularly demonstrated in disputes over the custody of children where the Court has tended to neglect the rights and interests of the primary carer. An alternative "unified family court" framework will be examined in which the Court pursues a more active and interventionist approach in the determination of family law disputes.

Foucault Goes to Law School : Using Foucault to Examine Australian Legal Education

This paper will consider the way that Foucault’s work has been utilised to examine Australian legal education, particularly in the context of understanding the construction of the legal identity. While remaining sensitive to the many potential ‘uses’ of Foucault’s tools, as well as his problematisation of the author as an organising feature of discourse, this paper will argue that legal education scholarship overwhelmingly utilises concepts such as ‘discourse’ and ‘power-knowledge’, which, while useful, cannot provide a nuanced understanding of the construction of the legal identity. Consequently, this paper suggests that future legal education research utilise Foucault’s concepts of ‘ethics’ and ‘governmentality’ to address these issues.

Report to the Government 2.0 Taskforce : Project 4 - Copyright Law and Intellectual Property

This report is the primary output of Project 4: Copyright and Intellectual Property, the aim of which was to produce a report considering how greater access to and use of government information could be achieved within the scope of the current copyright law. In our submission for Project 4, we undertook to address: •the policy rationales underlying copyright and how they apply in the context of materials owned, held and used by government; • the recommendations of the Copyright Law Review Committee (CLRC) in its 2005 report on Crown copyright; • the legislative and regulatory barriers to information sharing in key domains, including where legal impediments such as copyright have been relied upon (whether rightly or wrongly) to justify a refusal to provide access to government data; • copyright licensing models appropriate to government materials and examples of licensing initiatives in Australia and other relevant jurisdictions; and • issues specific to the galleries, libraries, archives and museums (“GLAM”) sector, including management of copyright in legacy materials and “orphan” works. In addressing these areas, we analysed the submissions received in response to the Government 2.0 Taskforce Issues Paper, consulted with members of the Task Force as well as several key stakeholders and considered the comments posted on the Task Force’s blog. This Project Report sets out our findings on the above issues. It puts forward recommendations for consideration by the Government 2.0 Task Force on steps that can be taken to ensure that copyright and intellectual property promote access to and use of government information.