Views from Hamburg : the Juno Trader case or how to make sense of the coastal State's rights in the light of its duty of prompt release

Special edition: The United Nations and international legal order - the case of the Juno Trader - on 18 December 2004, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea ordered the prompt release of a refrigerated cargo vessel and its cargo for fisheries violations in an exclusive economic zone - Tribunal unanimously decided that the vessel and cargo be released, upon posting of a bond in the form of a bank guarantee - crew should be free to leave without conditions - in this case, on prompt release, the Tribunal made valuable contributions to existing case law on the issue - shows that specialised tribunals may perform a decentralised application of the international rule of law - crystallises international fundamental standards of fairness and human rights.

Liberal Democracy and the Inferior 'Other'Other’: Could the peace liberal democracy promises to bring not extend to ‘Others’?

Advocates of liberal democracy argue that its principles and practices contribute directly to peace (at both inter-state and domestic levels). They rely on ideals such as the rule of law, institutional checks and balances on power, an ethos of tolerance, and free market economics to deliver the liberal peace. Liberals, however, overlook three important features embedded in the construction of liberal democracy which can serve to facilitate political violence: 1) the fixed and thus non-negotiable nature of liberal democracy’s core principles, 2) the inferior manner in which it conceives ‘Other’ social orders that do not share its core principles, and 3) the urge to proselytise Others. Together, these constitutive qualities can facilitate moves by leaders of Other groups to argue that liberal democracy threatens ‘their’ preferred identity, and thus its promised peaceful outcomes can be put in doubt.

Homing devices in choice of Tort Law: Australian, British and Canadian Approaches

Since 1994, Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia have adopted new choice of law rules for cross-border torts that, in different ways, centre on the application of the law of the place where the tort occurred (the lex loci delicti). All three countries abandoned some species of the rule in Phillips v Eyre, which required some reference to the law of the forum (the lex fori) as well as the lex loci delicti. However, predictions were made that, where possible, courts in these countries would continue to show a strong inclination to apply the lex fori in cross-border tort cases - and would use a range of homing devices to do so. A comprehensive survey and analysis of the cases that have been decided under the Australian, British and Canadian lex loci delicti regimes suggests that courts in these countries do betray a homing instinct, but one that has actually been tightly restrained by appeal courts. Where application of the lex fori was formally allowed by use of a 'flexible exception' in Canada and the United Kingdom, this has been contained by courts of first appeal. Indeed, only the continuing characterization of the assessment of damages as a procedural question in Canada and the United Kingdom, seems to remain as a significant homing device for courts in these countries. © 2006 Oxford University Press.