Myths and Truths: The "Law and Finance Theory" Revisited

The law and finance theory identifies two dominating legal traditions, a common law tradition inherited from England, and a civil law tradition that is going back to 19th century codifications in France, Germany and Scandinavia. Another key notion of the theory is the distinction between insiders (stakeholders, "the State") and outsiders (shareholders as well as creditors). The micro foundation of this approach is the willingness to invest. The innovative addition of the law and finance theory to these ideas lies in the way it combines them with its peculiar view on legal history. The innovative addition of the law and finance theory to these ideas lies in the way it combines them with its peculiar view on legal history. The major conclusion of this theory is that the common law system provides the best basis for financial development and economic growth, followed by Scandinavian and German origin civil law and finally French origin civil law.

Lawyers and the third dimension : A Solicitor v Council of the Law Society of New South Wales

Casenote and comment on the High Court case of A Solicitor v Council of the Law Society of New South Wales which dealt with the issue of whether a solicitor, convicted of aggravated indecent assault, should be allowed to continue practicing law.

Ethics and intervention: The 'humanitarian exception' and the problem of abuse in the case of Iraq

This article investigates the ethics of intervention and explores the decision to invade Iraq. It begins by arguing that while positive international law provides an important framework for understanding and debating the legitimacy of war, it does not cover the full spectrum of moral reasoning on issues of war and peace. To that end, after briefly discussing the two primary legal justifications for war (implied UN authorization and pre-emptive self-defence), and finding them wanting, it asks whether there is a moral 'humanitarian exceptions to this rule grounded in the 'just war' tradition. The article argues that two aspects of the broad tradition could be used to make a humanitarian case for war: the 'holy war' tradition and classical just war thinking based on natural law. The former it finds problematic, while the latter it argues provides a moral space to justify the use of force to halt gross breaches of natural law. Although such an approach may provide a moral justification for war, it also opens the door to abuse. It was this very problem that legal positivism from Vattel onwards was designed to address. As a result, the article argues that natural law and legal positivist arguments should be understood as complementary sets of ideas whose sometimes competing claims must be balanced in relation to particular cases. Therefore, although natural law may open a space for justifying the invasion of Iraq on humanitarian terms, legal positivism strictly limits that right. Ignoring this latter fact, as happened in the Iraq case, opens the door to abuse.