Legislation Blocking Antitrust Investigations and the September 2012 Russian Executive Order

This article offers a typology of so-called blocking legislation and analyses its development, functions and legality under international law. It also presents and discusses the new Russian blocking Order, issued in September 2012, focusing on its possible effects on the European Commission's investigation of Gazprom's business practices (in light of EU competition law) as well as, more broadly, on foreign operations of Russian strategic enterprises.

On Extraterritoriality and the Gazprom case

In September 2012 the European Commission opened a formal investigation of Gazprom’s business practices in the EU. The Gazprom investigation raises a number of questions. One of them is the issue of jurisdiction—whether EU competition law applies to Gazprom, a foreign company. A day after the opening of the proceeding, in a press note and alongside other issues, Gazprom raised the question of jurisdiction, noting that it complies with laws of the countries in which it operates and that is it ‘registered outside the jurisdiction of the EU’. This statement, possibly, prompted some commentators to consider the applicability of EU law in this case.
In a piece in the ECLR, entitled ‘Iron Curtain at the border: Gazprom and the Russian blocking order to prevent the extraterritoriality of EU competition law’, Sean Morris offered his views on some of the aspects of the Gazprom case, including the issue of jurisdiction. Morris discussed also the blocking Order issued by the Russian President in response to the European Commission’s investigation, and its possible effects in the Gazprom case.
This article seeks to add a few important and relevant issues of law relating to extraterritoriality and the reach of EU law generally and in particular— in the context of the Gazprom investigation and in the light of the Morris article. This piece also sheds some light on the considerations which might have informed Russia’s hastily enactment of the Blocking Order.

La responsabilité pénale des sociétés canadiennes pour les crimes contre l’environnement survenus à l’étranger

Avec l’accentuation du libéralisme, les entreprises multinationales ne cessent d’être de plus en plus présentes dans les États en développement, et certaines sont peu scrupuleuses du respect des normes environnementales. Par ailleurs, notons que la plupart de ces États ne disposent pas de mécanismes juridiques contraignant ces entreprises de répondre à d’éventuels crimes contre l’environnement qu’elles sont susceptibles de commettre sur leurs territoires. Or, en l’absence de telles dispositions, peu de sociétés se conforment aux politiques permettant d’internaliser les risques en raison de leur coût élevé. La volonté de maximiser le profit amène ces entreprises à se livrer à des actes attentatoires à l’environnement, à la santé et à la sécurité des individus lorsque rien ne les contraint à procéder autrement. De façon générale, il appartient à l’État sur le territoire duquel opère une société de réglementer ses activités. Précisons que dans plusieurs États en développement, les entreprises multinationales échappent aux mesures contraignantes en vertu de l’influence financière qu’elles exercent sur les dirigeants de ces États. De même, l’impunité des crimes contre l’environnement commis dans les pays en développement découle aussi du manque de volonté politique accentué par le phénomène de la corruption. Malgré la multiplicité de traités et de conventions internationales dédiés à la protection de l'environnement, ces instruments ne sont pas directement applicables aux sociétés multinationales, considérées comme des acteurs non-étatiques. Alors, les pays développés d’où proviennent la majeure partie des entreprises multinationales sont appelés à combler cette lacune en prenant des mesures qui obligent leurs entreprises à se préoccuper de la préservation de l’environnement dans leurs activités. Cette thèse propose d’examiner les mécanismes juridiques par lesquels les crimes contre l’environnement survenus dans les pays en développement peuvent entraîner des poursuites pénales au Canada. En l’absence de législation ayant une portée extraterritoriale explicite en la matière, cela exige de se référer au droit existant et de proposer une nouvelle approche d’interprétation et d’adaptation tenant compte des récents développements envisageant la protection de l’environnement comme une valeur fondamentale pour la société canadienne. De nos jours, la portée de la protection de l’environnement au Canada requiert l’abandon des anciennes conceptions du principe de la territorialité pour adopter une autre approche plus soucieuse des nouvelles réalités entraînées par la mondialisation économique. Il serait donc légitime pour le Canada d’étendre sa compétence pour réprimer les crimes contre l’environnement survenus à l’étranger lors des activités menées par ses ressortissants. La nécessité de réprimer les atteintes à l’environnement survenues à l’étranger devient plus pressante lorsque ces crimes présentent un degré de gravité comparable à celui des crimes internationaux.

Prevention of transnational transplant-related crimes—What more can be done?

Many nations are able to prosecute transplant-related crimes committed in their territory, but transplant recipients, organ sellers and brokers, and transplant professionals may escape prosecution by engaging in these practices in foreign locations where they judge the risk of criminal investigation and prosecution to be remote.Methods. The Declaration of Istanbul Custodian Group convened an international working group to evaluate the possible role of extraterritorial jurisdiction in strengthening the enforcement of existing laws governing transplant-related crimes across national boundaries. Potential practical and ethical concerns about the use of extraterritorial jurisdiction were examined, and possible responses were explored. Results. Extraterritorial jurisdiction is a legitimate tool to combat transplant-related crimes. Further, development of a global registry of transnational transplant activities in conjunction with a standardized international referral system for legitimate travel for transplantation is proposed as a mechanism to support enforcement of national and international legal tools. Conclusions. States are encouraged to include provisions on extraterritorial jurisdiction in their laws on transplant-related crimes and to collaborate with professionals and international authorities in the development of a global registry of transnational transplant activities. These actions would assist in the identification and evaluation of illicit activities and provide information that would help in developing strategies to deter and prevent them.

The inherent equitable jurisdiction and the plenary power of the Supreme Court of New South Wales to order the winding up of companies

Not all companies in Australia are amenable to a winding up order pursuant to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The Supreme Court of New South Wales has previously dealt with such winding up applications by apparently focusing on the inherent jurisdiction of the court to consider whether the court has jurisdiction to firstly consider the winding up application. This article proposes an original alternative paradigm: the plenary power provided to the court by s 23 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) can be utilised to initially attract the jurisdiction of the court and subsequently the inherent jurisdiction specifically utilising the equitable “just and equitable” ground is available to the court to consider and make such a winding up order if appropriate. Variation of such a paradigm may also be available to the court when considering the inherent jurisdiction in relation to corporation matters more generally.

Labour rights as human rights : workers' safety at work in Australian-based supply chains

The increase of buyer-driven supply chains, outsourcing and other forms of non-traditional employment has resulted in challenges for labour market regulation. One business model which has created substantial regulatory challenges is supply chains. The supply chain model involves retailers purchasing products from brand corporations who then outsource the manufacturing of the work to traders who contract with factories or outworkers who actually manufacture the clothing and textiles. This business model results in time and cost pressures being pushed down the supply chain which has resulted in sweatshops where workers systematically have their labour rights violated. Literally millions of workers work in dangerous workplaces where thousands are killed or permanently disabled every year. This thesis has analysed possible regulatory responses to provide workers a right to safety and health in supply chains which provide products for Australian retailers. This thesis will use a human rights standard to determine whether Australia is discharging its human rights obligations in its approach to combating domestic and foreign labour abuses. It is beyond this thesis to analyse Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) laws in every jurisdiction. Accordingly, this thesis will focus upon Australian domestic laws and laws in one of Australia’s major trading partners, the Peoples’ Republic of China (China). It is hypothesised that Australia is currently breaching its human rights obligations through failing to adequately regulate employees’ safety at work in Australian-based supply chains. To prove this hypothesis, this thesis will adopt a three- phase approach to analysing Australia’s regulatory responses. Phase 1 will identify the standard by which Australia’s regulatory approach to employees’ health and safety in supply chains can be judged. This phase will focus on analysing how workers’ rights to safety as a human right imposes a moral obligation on Australia to take reasonablely practicable steps regulate Australian-based supply chains. This will form a human rights standard against which Australia’s conduct can be judged. Phase 2 focuses upon the current regulatory environment. If existing regulatory vehicles adequately protect the health and safety of employees, then Australia will have discharged its obligations through simply maintaining the status quo. Australia currently regulates OHS through a combination of ‘hard law’ and ‘soft law’ regulatory vehicles. The first part of phase 2 analyses the effectiveness of traditional OHS laws in Australia and in China. The final part of phase 2 then analyses the effectiveness of the major soft law vehicle ‘Corporate Social Responsibility’ (CSR). The fact that employees are working in unsafe working conditions does not mean Australia is breaching its human rights obligations. Australia is only required to take reasonably practicable steps to ensure human rights are realized. Phase 3 identifies four regulatory vehicles to determine whether they would assist Australia in discharging its human rights obligations. Phase 3 then analyses whether Australia could unilaterally introduce supply chain regulation to regulate domestic and extraterritorial supply chains. Phase 3 also analyses three public international law regulatory vehicles. This chapter considers the ability of the United Nations Global Compact, the ILO’s Better Factory Project and a bilateral agreement to improve the detection and enforcement of workers’ right to safety and health.

Bringing protection home : healing the schism between international obligations and national safeguards created by extraterritorial processing

Extraterritorial processing schemes are designed to prevent and deter access to statutory and judicial safeguards in the country responsible for the interception and transfer of asylum seekers to a third country. In line with this objective, they incorporate interdiction, transfer and processing practices and standards that are deliberately isolated from the national legal and institutional protections within either the intercepting state or the third country where processing occurs. Australia's recent disbandment of its extraterritorial processing centres in third countries highlights the fact that extraterritorial processing schemes have proven unworkable as a matter of international law, as they negate the national safeguards fundamental to the satisfaction of a state's protection obligations.

Country of Origin and Internet Publication : Applying the Berne Convention in the Digital Age

Historically, determining the country of origin of a published work presented few challenges, because works were generally published physically – whether in print or otherwise – in a distinct location or few locations. However, publishing opportunities presented by new technologies mean that we now live in a world of simultaneous publication – works that are first published online are published simultaneously to every country in world in which there is Internet connectivity. While this is certainly advantageous for the dissemination and impact of information and creative works, it creates potential complications under the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (“Berne Convention”), an international intellectual property agreement to which most countries in the world now subscribe. Under the Berne Convention’s national treatment provisions, rights accorded to foreign copyright works may not be subject to any formality, such as registration requirements (although member countries are free to impose formalities in relation to domestic copyright works). In Kernel Records Oy v. Timothy Mosley p/k/a Timbaland, et al. however, the Florida Southern District Court of the United States ruled that first publication of a work on the Internet via an Australian website constituted “simultaneous publication all over the world,” and therefore rendered the work a “United States work” under the definition in section 101 of the U.S. Copyright Act, subjecting the work to registration formality under section 411. This ruling is in sharp contrast with an earlier decision delivered by the Delaware District Court in Håkan Moberg v. 33T LLC, et al. which arrived at an opposite conclusion. The conflicting rulings of the U.S. courts reveal the problems posed by new forms of publishing online and demonstrate a compelling need for further harmonization between the Berne Convention, domestic laws and the practical realities of digital publishing. In this article, we argue that even if a work first published online can be considered to be simultaneously published all over the world it does not follow that any country can assert itself as the “country of origin” of the work for the purpose of imposing domestic copyright formalities. More specifically, we argue that the meaning of “United States work” under the U.S. Copyright Act should be interpreted in line with the presumption against extraterritorial application of domestic law to limit its application to only those works with a real and substantial connection to the United States. There are gaps in the Berne Convention’s articulation of “country of origin” which provide scope for judicial interpretation, at a national level, of the most pragmatic way forward in reconciling the goals of the Berne Convention with the practical requirements of domestic law. We believe that the uncertainties arising under the Berne Convention created by new forms of online publishing can be resolved at a national level by the sensible application of principles of statutory interpretation by the courts. While at the international level we may need a clearer consensus on what amounts to “simultaneous publication” in the digital age, state practice may mean that we do not yet need to explore textual changes to the Berne Convention.

Termination fees in a ‘bright line’ jurisdiction

We seek to statistically inform the debate regarding the Australian Takeovers Panel’s ‘bright line’ policy towards break fees. Based on 313 takeovers from 2002 to 2006, 85 involving break fees, we find post-bid competition to be unrelated to break fee usage and inversely related to bid success. We also find that break fee usage has a detrimental effect on shareholder wealth as measured by both the final bid premium and abnormal returns. Therefore, although break fees appear to be neither anticompetitive nor coercive within the Australian context, they do appear to have had a deleterious effect on shareholder wealth.

District Court of Queensland Act 1968 s 68 : jurisdiction in pre-proceedings applications under Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002

In Woolworths Ltd v Graham [2007] QDC 301 Searles DCJ struck out a pre-proceedings application under the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld)on the basis that the material before the Court was not sufficient to attract the jurisdiction of the District Court.The decision serves more broadly as a reminder that the District Court is an inferior court of defined and limited jurisdiction and that any proceedings brought in it must be demonstrably within the jurisdiction conferred on that court by legislation.

“Best interests” and withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment from an adult who lacks capacity in the parens patriae jurisdiction

Disputes about withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment are increasingly coming before Australian Supreme Courts. Such cases are generally heard in the parens patriae jurisdiction where the test applied is what is in the patient’s “best interests”. However, the application of the “best interests” test, and its meaning, remains unclear in this context. To shed light on this emerging body of jurisprudence, this article analyses the Australian superior court decisions that consider an adult’s best interests in the context of decisions about life-sustaining treatment. We identify a number of themes from the current body of cases and consider how these themes may guide future decision-making. After then considering the law in the United Kingdom, we suggest an approach for assessing best interests that could be adopted by Australian Supreme Courts. We argue that the suggested approach will lead to a more structured and systematic decision-making process that better promotes the best interests of the patient.

An Axiom of Military Law : Applicability of National Criminal Law to Military Personnel and Associated Civilians Abroad

States regularly deploy elements of their armed forces abroad. When that happens, the military personnel concerned largely remain governed by the penal law of the State that they serve. This extraterritorial extension of national criminal law, which has been treated as axiomatic in domestic law and ignored by international law scholarship, is the subject of this dissertation. The first part of the study considers the ambit of national criminal law without any special regard to the armed forces. It explores the historical development of the currently prevailing system of territorial law and looks at the ambit that national legal systems claim today. Turning then to international law, the study debunks the oddly persistent belief that States enjoy a freedom to extend their laws to extraterritorial conduct as they please, and that they are in this respect constrained only by some specific prohibitions in international law. Six arguments historical, empirical, ideological, functional, doctrinal and systemic are advanced to support a contrary view: that States are prohibited from extending the reach of their legal systems abroad, unless they can rely on a permissive principle of international law for doing so. The second part of the study deals specifically with State jurisdiction in a military context, that is to say, as applied to military personnel in the strict sense (service members) and various civilians serving with or accompanying the forces (associated civilians). While the status of armed forces on foreign soil has transformed from one encapsulated in the customary concept of extraterritoriality to a modern regulation of immunities granted by treaties, elements of armed forces located abroad usually do enjoy some degree of insulation from the legal system of the host State. As a corollary, they should generally remain covered by the law of their own State. The extent of this extraterritorial extension of national law is revealed in a comparative review of national legislation, paying particular attention to recent legal reforms in the United States and the United Kingdom two states that have sought to extend the scope of their national law to cover the conduct of military contractor personnel. The principal argument of the dissertation is that applying national criminal law to service members and associated civilians abroad is distinct from other extraterritorial claims of jurisdiction (in particular, the nationality principle or the protective principle of jurisdiction). The service jurisdiction over the armed forces has a distinct aim: ensuring the coherence and indivisibility of the forces and maintaining discipline. Furthermore, the exercise of service jurisdiction seeks to reduce the chances of the State itself becoming internationally liable for the conduct of its service members and associated civilians. Critically, the legal system of the troop-deploying State, by extending its reach abroad, seeks to avoid accountability gaps that might result from immunities from host State law.