The practice in bankruptcy, with the Bankrupt Law of the United States as amended, and the rules and forms; together with notes referring to all decisions reported to September 1, 1874 /

Spine title: Bump's law and practice of bankruptcy.

Tax fraud and evasion; a guide to civil and criminal principles and practice under Federal law.

Previous editions published under title: Fraud under Federal tax law.

The law relating to canals : comprising a treatise on navigable rivers and canals; and including all legislation to the close of the last session of Parliament, together with the procedure and practice in private bill legislation; with a map of the existing canals in England and Wales /

Includes index.

The urban community in fifteenth-century Scotland : language, law and political practice

Peer reviewed

Social Movement Casework and the Law and Organizing Ideal : Toward a modified law and organizing model

En Amérique du Nord, les militants et les juristes ont longtemps cru que les avocats progressistes pourraient offrir des avantages tactiques importants aux mouvements sociaux. Cette perspective optimiste a cédé la place pendant les années 1970 à une attitude critique à l'égard des avocats et des litiges. Les chercheurs se sont interrogés sur l’efficacité d’assimiler les revendications politiques à des atteintes aux droits individuels, pour être ensuite présentées devant les tribunaux. Le litige était perçu comme source d’une influence négative qui favorise l’isolement et l’individualisme. De plus, les chercheurs ont remarqué qu’il y avait le potentiel pour les avocats militants – bien qu’ils soient bien intentionnés – d’exercer leur profession d’une manière qui pourrait donner un sentiment d’impuissance aux autres participants du mouvement social. Les premières versions de cette critique vont souvent assimiler la « stratégie juridique » avec le litige présenté devant les tribunaux judiciaires et géré par les avocats. Une réponse inspirante à cette critique a développée au début des années 2000, avec l'émergence d’un modèle de pratique que les chercheurs aux États-Unis ont nommé « law and organizing ». Des études normatives sur ce modèle offrent des arguments nuancés en faveur d’une pratique militante interdisciplinaire, partagée entre les avocats et les organisateurs. Ces études continuent à attribuer les risques d’individualisation et d’impuissance aux avocats et aux litiges. Selon ce modèle, au lieu de diriger la stratégie, les avocats travaillent en collaboration avec les travailleurs sociaux, les organisateurs et les citoyens pour planifier la stratégie du mouvement social, tout en favorisant l'autonomisation et la mobilisation de la collectivité. La présente thèse offre un examen critique de ce modèle, à travers l'une de ses tactiques bien connues: le traitement des problèmes juridiques individuels par les organisations militantes. La thèse examine les hypothèses fondatrices du modèle « law and organizing », en réinterprétant les problèmes d’individualisation et d’impuissance comme étant des enjeux reconnus dans de multiples disciplines, partout où les acteurs font de l’intervention sur une base individuelle afin de provoquer un changement systémique. La thèse soutient qu’un modèle de la pratique engagée du droit qui associe l'individualisation et l'impuissance exclusivement à la profession d'avocat risque de répondre de façon inadéquate aux deux problèmes. La recherche propose un modèle modifié qui met l'accent sur les options juridiques accessibles aux militants, tout en reconnaissant que la mobilisation et l'autonomisation sont des priorités qui sont partagées entre plusieurs disciplines, même si elles peuvent être traitées de façon particulière à l’intérieur de la profession juridique.

Alternatives to Reparations in International Investment Arbitration– A Debate Between Theory and Practice

An analysis of the alternatives of compensation in relation to international investment disputes is relevant, because a pecuniary award is not always the appropriate remedy to solve disputes arising between investors and States. This is the case because States may be increasingly interested in opting for a different type of compensation. Furthermore, it is still not clear whether arbitral tribunals have recognised alternative types of awarding damages in respect of international investments disputes. This analysis comprises two principal components, the first, is to identify whether or not the tribunals may render an award that not only demands the payment of a sum of money but also considers some other means of compensation. The second, centres on how compliance with these non-pecuniary awards may be demanded. Our approach to these two principal components will always revolve around the idea of respecting the sovereignty of the State, bearing in mind that the execution of an arbitral award, which obliges the State to refrain from or to perform an act in its territory, relies precisely on the sovereignty of the State to execute it. 

Framing fracking: which frames are heard in English planning and environmental policy and practice?

Fracking in England has been the subject of significant controversy and has sparked not only public protest but also an associated framing war with differing social constructions of the technology adopted by different sides. This article explores the frames and counter-frames which have been employed by both the anti-fracking movement and by government and the oil and gas industry. It then considers the way in which the English planning and regulatory permitting systems have provided space for these frames within the relevant machinery for public participation. The article thus enables one to see which frames have been allowed a voice and which have been excluded.

The abuse of intellectual property rights and regulations in China: a law and economic analysis

From the institutional point of view, the legal system of IPR (intellectual property right, hereafter, IPR) is one of incentive institutions of innovation and it plays very important role in the development of economy. According to the law, the owner of the IPR enjoy a kind of exclusive right to use his IP(intellectual property, hereafter, IP), in other words, he enjoys a kind of legal monopoly position in the market. How to well protect the IPR and at the same time to regulate the abuse of IPR is very interested topic in this knowledge-orientated market and it is the basic research question in this dissertation. In this paper, by way of comparing study and by way of law and economic analyses, and based on the Austrian Economics School’s theories, the writer claims that there is no any contradiction between the IPR and competition law. However, in this new economy (high-technology industries), there is really probability of the owner of IPR to abuse his dominant position. And with the characteristics of the new economy, such as, the high rates of innovation, “instant scalability”, network externality and lock-in effects, the IPR “will vest the dominant undertakings with the power not just to monopolize the market but to shift such power from one market to another, to create strong barriers to enter and, in so doing, granting the perpetuation of such dominance for quite a long time.”1 Therefore, in order to keep the order of market, to vitalize the competition and innovation, and to benefit the customer, in EU and US, it is common ways to apply the competition law to regulate the IPR abuse. In Austrian Economic School perspective, especially the Schumpeterian theories, the innovation/competition/monopoly and entrepreneurship are inter-correlated, therefore, we should apply the dynamic antitrust model based on the AES theories to analysis the relationship between the IPR and competition law. China is still a developing country with relative not so high ability of innovation. Therefore, at present, to protect the IPR and to make good use of the incentive mechanism of IPR legal system is the first important task for Chinese government to do. However, according to the investigation reports,2 based on their IPR advantage and capital advantage, some multinational companies really obtained the dominant or monopoly market position in some aspects of some industries, and there are some IPR abuses conducted by such multinational companies. And then, the Chinese government should be paying close attention to regulate any IPR abuse. However, how to effectively regulate the IPR abuse by way of competition law in Chinese situation, from the law and economic theories’ perspective, from the legislation perspective, and from the judicial practice perspective, there is a long way for China to go!