The Right to Self-Defence in National and International Law: The Role of the Imminence Requirement

This article explores the doctrine of self-defence within the context of the challenges directed at the imminence requirement, from the perspective of both national and international law. The article will attempt to illustrate that the requirement of imminence underlines the political character of the self-defence doctrine wherein private force may only be resorted to in the absence of institutional protection. This study will argue that the imminence rule can not merely be regarded as a "proxy" for establishing necessity; rather, the elements of imminence, necessity, and proportionality are inextricably connected to ensure that defensive force is only resorted to when national or international authorities are not in a position to prevent an illegal aggression, and that the defensive lethal force is not abused.

The Application of the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in Freedom of Expression and Public Morality Cases

This paper discusses whether or not Strasbourg organs have created principled criteria governing the use of the doctrine within the context of free speech and public morals. The first part of the paper gives an overview of the doctrine and further examines how the doctrine has evolved within the European context. Part II focuses on the rationale behind the doctrine and discusses the legitimacy of the doctrine in light of its application to various forms of free speech. Part III covers one of the most problematic applications of the doctrine in matters concerning public morality, where Contracting States have a wide margin of appreciation. This part will discuss whether or not the “lack of European consensus” criterion is an elusive concept that might create a risk of abuse in the application of the doctrine. The paper concludes that while margin of appreciation today serves as a flexible instrument between the local necessities and the universal application of human rights, the imprecise and contradictory points might lead to its potential abuse that might endanger its future existence.

Common Mistake in Contract Law

English law has long struggled to understand the effect of a fundamental common mistake in contract formation. Bell v Lever Brothers Ltd [1932] AC 161 recognises that a common mistake which totally undermines a contract renders it void. Solle v Butcher [1950] 1 KB 671 recognises a doctrine of 'mistake in equity' under which a serious common mistake in contract formation falling short of totally undermining the contract could give an adversely affected party the right to rescind the contract. This article accepts that the enormous difficulty in differentiating these two kinds of mistake justifies the insistence by the Court of Appeal in The Great Peace [2003] QB 679 that there can be only one doctrine of common mistake. However, the article proceeds to argue that where the risk of the commonly mistaken matter is not allocated by the contract itself a better doctrine would be that the contract is voidable.

Germany v Italy:The Triumph of Sovereign Immunity over Human Rights Law

This article analyses the doctrine of State immunity within the context of the recent judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) concerning the Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v Italy: Greece intervening). The object of this article is to explore the implications of the State immunity from foreign judicial proceedings in cases of jus cogens crimes. Challenging the assumption that the law of immunity is merely procedural in nature, this article argues that there can be no immunity in cases of undisputed international crimes.

Right to War in the Islamic Tradition:Jihad and its Compatibility with Modern International Law (will be submitted to the publisher in April 2014)

In the last century, Islam drew the world’s attention though such phenomena as the Islamic revolution in Iran, the fierce Muslim resistance against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the assassination of Egypt’s President Sadat by a radical Islamic group. But it was when Osama Bin Laden and his organization Al Qaeda were established to have been behind the 11 September attacks in the US, the age-old images of Islam, the fanatical and belligerent religion threatening what the Western world stands for, were revitalized. The impact of 9/11 attacks was so great that even balanced portrayals of Islam were eclipsed by stereotypical images of a fundamental, anti-Western and warmongering religion that bore the hallmarks of medieval prejudices and rhetoric. The popular image tailored for the Western audience reflected Islam as monolithic, intrinsically aggressive, and determined to engage in religious wars against the interests and values of the Western civilisation.
This book intends to help reduce, at least to a reasonable degree, the impact of sweeping, and at times tendentious, generalisations about Islamic laws of warfare. The main purpose of this book is to place the legal, cultural and historical practices of Islamic wars in their broader socio-political contexts, thereby establishing that there has been no undisputed understanding of what defensive or aggressive warfare entails in Islam, whether in doctrine or in practice.

Run off Conditions on Rimming Power Law Fluids

The rimming ?ow of a power-law ?uid in the inner surface of a horizontal rotating cylinder is investigated. Exploiting the fact that the liquid layer is thin, the simplest lubrication theory is applied. The generalized run-off condition for the steady-state ?ow of the power-law liquid is derived. In the bounds implied by this condition, ?lm thickness admits a continuous solution. In the supercritical case when the mass of non-Newtonian liquid exceeds a certain value or the speed of rotation is less than an indicated limit, a discontinuous solution is possible and a hydraulic jump may occur in the steady-state regime. The location and height of the hydraulic jump for the power-law liquid is determined.

English Trade Mark Law in the Eighteenth Century: Blanchard v Hill Revisited - Another 'Case of Monopolies'?

The decision of Lord Hardwicke LC in Blanchard v Hill in 1742 is the earliest reported case on the equitable jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief against trade mark piracy. The ambiguous manner in which the case was reported led to the decision being interpreted as either the basis of equitable jurisdiction or a denial of jurisdiction. This article seeks to establish the background to the case, what actually happened, and the immediate impact of the decision. The scene is set, however, in a parallel symbolic universe – heraldry – because in 1740, the officers of arms were confronted with a trade mark case.