International Women's Day March

International Women’s day – some cases to remember

In 1765, Sir William Blackstone, the pre-eminent legal commentator, described married women as ‘so great a favourite’ of the English law that she was owed a different status to men for her protection and benefit. The argument that discriminatory laws and policies serve to protect women rather than exclude them has remained surprisingly persistent.

BANGLADESH

Bangladesh National Women Lawyers Association v. Bangladesh (2009) 14 BLC 694

The High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh took the view holding that the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution are sufficient to embrace all elements of gender equality including prevention of sexual harassment or abuse of women in educational institutions and workplaces and giving directives in the form of guidelines to all employers and persons in charge of workplaces and authorities of all educational institutions to fill up the legislative vacuum in the nature of law declared within the meaning of Article 111 of the Constitution.

Bangladesh Biman v Rabia Bashi Irene (2003) 55 DLR (AD) 132

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh found fixing the age of retirement of stewards and stewardesses to the disadvantage of the stewardesses to be discriminatory.

Muller v. Oregon (1908):  While this Supreme Court case outcome was not exactly successful for women’s rights, it was a landmark case in the history of gender equality. Unanimously, the Supreme Court upheld an Oregon state law limiting women to working no more than ten hours a day (which was not the case for men). This ruling was negative in that it expressed an opinion of inequality between men and women. Claiming that the ruling was set in place to “protect” women, this result only upheld the patriarchal ideal that women are the lesser sex. However, Muller v. Oregon did ignite some positive consequences, beginning a widespread public discussion of women’s rights and gender equality.

Roe v. Wade (1973): Now one of the most infamous Supreme Court cases in history, Roe v. Wade struck down a Texas law restricting abortion. Texas had a law in place that made it a felony for a woman to get an abortion and the courts ruled that the state’s interest in protecting both the health of a pregnant woman and the potential life needed to be balanced against a woman’s right to privacy. The Roe v. Wade decision reshaped much of politics today and started the national debate over the morality of abortion.

Adkins v. Children’s Hospital (1923): In this case, the Supreme Court held that a federal law establishing a minimum wage for women was unconstitutional. Although the states were still regulating the hours worked by women (as established in Muller v. Oregon case), the Supreme Courts ruled that regulating hours was different from regulating the wages women could make. As a result of the Adkins v. Children’s Hospital ruling, women have the same rights as men do when it comes to work wages. This case should hold an interesting place within the WalMart Stores Inc. v. Betty Dukes case that began this week.

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965): One of the most important cases in women’s rights history, Griswold v. Connecticut dealt with a Connecticut state law banning the use of contraceptives. This landmark ruling established a right to privacy within a marriage, even though this was not explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution. Married women were granted the undeniable right to use contraceptives by the right to privacy. While this ruling did not address the question of use contraception outside of marriage, it was a step in the right direction for women’s rights.

International Union, UAW v. Johnson Controls, Inc. (1991): Johnson Controls, Inc. had a policy that barred fertile women from obtaining jobs involving exposure to lead because of the potential harm inflicted to fetuses as a result of lead poisoning. However, the company did not have a similar policy in place for fertile men, even though it was known that lead exposure could have dangerous effects on the male reproductive system. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the company could not discriminate with job positions based on gender.

Rape and consent - R v R [1991] UKHL 12 

Sir Matthew Hale was a barrister and a senior judge under Charles I, Oliver Cromwell and Charles II. He died in 1676. But his views on rape were thought to be good law as recently as 25 years ago. In his hugely influential History of the Pleas of the Crown, Sir Matthew wrote: “…the husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given herself up in this kind unto her husband which she cannot retract.“

In other words, a woman gave her husband her consent when she married him and it could not be retracted so long as they remained married. For over 300 years, the courts took Sir Matthew Hale’s view as read, even though in many of the cases before them, the wife was separated from the husband at the time of the alleged rape.

This changed in 1991, in the case of R v R [1991] UKHL 12. Lord Keith of Kinkel and four other Law Lords unanimously found that Sir Matthew Hale’s explanation of the law had been impliedly repealed by the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976. Therefore, the cases since 1976 had all been wrongly decided. 

Table service - Gill v El Vino [1983] QB 425

Until 1982, women who wanted to drink in El Vino’s on London’s Fleet Street had to sit in the back and wait for table service – or ask a man to go to the bar for them. The justification was supposedly based on chivalry: the management felt that the rowdy atmosphere of the bar was unsuitable for women. Parliament passed the Sex Discrimination Act in 1975, which made it unlawful for a person to discriminate against women when providing goods, facilities or services to the public. Anne Coote and Tess Gill brought a claim arguing that El Vino’s policy was a breach of the Sex Discrimination Act. They lost at first instance, but the Court of Appeal agreed with Coote and Gill, finding that the El Vino’s policy deprived women of the opportunity to enjoy the bar to the same extent as male customers and it was thus unlawful.

El Vino’s didn’t take the judgment very well. They continued to ban Coote and Gill on the grounds that they were troublemakers. The manager was quoted as saying that he would serve any women who ‘genuinely wanted to drink at the bar’ but not those who wanted to make trouble or a ‘feminist point’.

Muhamad Juzaili Bin Mohd Khamis and 2 Others v State Government of Negeri Sembilan and 4 Others 

(CIVIL APPEAL NO. N-01-498-11/2012; COURT OF APPEAL)

On 7 November 2014, the Court of Appeal of Malaysia in Khamis and Ors v State Government of Negeri Sembilan and Ors held that a law prohibiting Muslim men from cross-dressing was unconstitutional and therefore void. The Equal Rights Trust, noting the importance of the case, prepared a legal brief for the Appellants’ counsel outlining the right to be free from discrimination on grounds of gender identity. The Court’s decision, which recognized that the law in question violated the rights to live with dignity and freedom from discrimination is a significant step forward for transgender women in Malaysia.

Supreme Constitutional Court of Egypt Case No. 8 of Judicial Year 17 (May 18, 1996) 

The jurisprudence of the Supreme Constitutional Court of Egypt is creative and influential in the Arab world. Among its opinions, Case No. 8 of Judicial Year 17, decided on May 18, 1996, is particularly interesting. In this opinion, the SCC argues that a regulation on face-veiling in public schools is consistent not only with Islamic law, but with the Egyptian Constitution’s guarantees of freedom of religion and freedom of expression. Not only does it illustrate the SCC’s approach to Islamic legal reasoning, but it gives insight into the Court’s views with respect to civil and political rights. The case also provides intriguing opportunities for comparative legal scholars. Regulations restricting women’s right to veil have been challenged as unconstitutional in many countries. This should thus be of great interest to scholars of comparative law, comparative constitutionalism and international human rights. We provide here an annotated translation of this SCC opinion. We thus hope to facilitate comparative discussion about, inter alia, free exercise of religion, freedom of expression, women’s rights, and children’s rights.

[Brown, Nathan J. and Lombardi, Clark B., The Supreme Constitutional Court of Egypt on Islamic Law, Veiling and Civil Rights: An Annotated Translation of Supreme Constitutional Court of Egypt Case No. 8 of Judicial Year 17 (May 18, 1996). American University International Law Review, Vol. 21, p. 437, 2006. Available at SSRN: https:// ssrn.com/abstract=910443]

The Supreme Court of Bangladesh

Unconditional apology of two sitting minsters refused: Τhe Court holds them in contempt

State v Advocate Md. Qamrul Islam,M.P., Minister, Ministry of Food, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh and Mr. A.K.M. Mozammel Huq, M.P.,Minister, Ministry of Liberation War Affairs, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh

(CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 09 OF 2016 -EXCERPTS FROM JUDGMENT)

Muhammad Imman Ali J:

(Surendra Kumar Sinha CJ, Md. Abdul Wahhab Miah J, Najmun Ara Sultana J agreeing)

On 6th March, 2016 the electronic and print media,including the Daily Jugantor, which is one of the popular national dailies of Bangladesh, published details of statements/comments/remarks made by, amongst others, two sitting Ministers of the Government of Bangladesh. These comments prima facie appeared derogatory and highly contemptuous, and hence this Court issued the following notice on 8th March, 2016:

“Let a notice issue calling upon Advocate Md. Qamrul Islam,M.P., Minister, Ministry of Food, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh and Mr. A.K.M. Mozammel Huq, M.P., Minister, Ministry of Liberation War Affairs, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh to show cause on or before 14th March, 2016 as to why they shall not be proceeded against for their derogatory and highly contemptuous statements made on 5th March, 2016, at a roundtable discussion held at BILIA Auditorium, Dhanmondi, Dhaka, which were broadcast and published in different electronic and print media, against the Chief Justice of Bangladesh and the Supreme Court in relation to a judgement to be pronounced in a criminal appeal on 8th March, 2016.

The statements and the comments are flagrant interference with the administration of Justice, questioning the independence of the judiciary. Such statements and comments have undermined the dignity, prestige and authority and impartiality of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh and the office of the Chief Justice in the estimation of the public at large.

You are hereby directed to appear in person on 15th March, 2016 at 9:00 A.M. before this Court.

The offending portion of the statements published in an issue of the Daily Jugantor, one of the national dailies dated 6th March, 2016, is enclosed herewith.”

In the instant case the contemnorrespondents are highly placed Ministers of the Government. What they say in public is listened to by the masses. They are respected by the public at large for the positions they hold. They represent the people in Parliament and the general public look up to them. Anything they say is bound to have an effect on the minds of the public at large. When Ministers make utterances denigrating the Chief Justice and question the impartiality of the justice delivery system, which they do by doubting the impartiality of the Chief Justice, then the whole judiciary is brought to disrepute

Our discussion above regarding the utterances of the contemnors has clearly shown their wish to remove the Chief Justice from the Bench hearing the appeal in question. Their further utterance that they must have their expected judgement shows their utter indifference to the authority of the Supreme Court to act independently. It also shows their utter disregard for the rule of law. The Constitution gives the Supreme Court authority to deliver judgements in accordance with law, but the respondents wished to dictate what decision should be announced by the Supreme Court for it to be acceptable to them. The said utterances show an intention to divert the course of justice in a particular way, come what may, which is contrary to the mandate of the Constitution which requires that every citizen should enjoy the protection of the law and be treated in accordance with law. The utterances of the respondents therefore demand that the Supreme Court should decide the appeal other than in accordance with law which is violative of the Constitution.

The respondents thus neglected their sworn duty to protect the rule of law enshrined in the Constitution. We are in no doubt that the respondents have intentionally made the utterances as reported and have indeed expressly admitted their guilt. They have acted in violation of law and are in breach of their oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. In their exuberance, they have undermined the sanctity of the institution of the judiciary by questioning the justice delivery system. The Constitution enjoins all citizens to abide by the law and makes the decisions of the Supreme Court law to be given effect to by all. The respondents have scandalized the Supreme Court in a highly motivated manner in order to influence the judgement of the Court. This is gross criminal contempt and a violation of the provisions of the Constitution. The contemnors deserve no sympathy other that the lenient view taken in awarding sentence which has already been expressed in the short order passed by this Court on 27th March, 2016.

In the light of the above discussion, the matter is disposed of finding the contemnors guilty of gross contempt and awarding the punishment as already mentioned in the short order of this Court.

Hasan Foez Siddique, J:

(Syed Mahmud Hossain J agreeing)

I have had the privilege of perusing the opinion tendered by my esteemed brother Muhammad Imman Ali, J. The opinion is based on cogent reasons and correct proposition of law. There can, therefore, be no question of disagreement with my learned brother as to the findings of guilt of the contemners and sentence awarded. But I am unable to agree with the portion that the contemners are in breach of their oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.

It is not the issue in the proceeding to adjudicate whether the contemnerrespondents have acted in breach of their oath of office or not. No notice was issued in that regard drawing attention to the contemnerrespondents, who are sitting ministers of the Cabinet. I am of the view, that our point for consideration is whether by making utterances, published in the newspapers, the contemnerrespondents have committed any contempt of this Court or not.

The High Court Division asks for list of companies, individuals – the case of written off loans

The High Court Division (HCD) of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh has sought for a list of the companies, organisations and individuals whose bank loans have been written-off till December 2016.

The court ordered the governor of Bangladesh Bank (BB) to submit the list to it in 30 days. The governor has also been ordered to inform the High Court in 30 days whether those companies, organisations and individuals, whose bank loans have been written off, were further given any loan. The HCD bench comprising Mr. Justice Zubayer Rahman Chowdhury and Mr. Justice Md Iqbal Kabir passed the order yesterday on a suomoto (of its own) move following a report published on The Asian Age under a headline “The Tk 30,000cr vanishing trick, 60% of defaulted loans from public banks written off ’” on February 26. The report spoke of the ‘alarming’ situation of loan default, and said Tk 300 million “will have to be written off ”. The amount is more than enough to take care of the education budget for this year, according to the report. According to the Bangladesh Bank, the amount of waived loans is around Tk 450 million  while the amount of defaulted credit is Tk 650 million. The banks have been writing off loans in line with the Policy for Loan Write Off included in the Prudential Regulations for Banks. The Bangladesh Bank states in the policy: “Banks may, at any time, write off loans classified as bad/loss. Those loans which have been classified as bad/loss for the last five years and for which 100% provisions have been kept should be written off without delay.

The High Court asked why the provision relating to “waiver of loan or part of loan” contained in Section 28 (1) of the Bank Companies Act, 1991 and the power given to the Bangladesh Bank to “waive loans”, as contained in Sub-Section 9 (Cha) of Section 49 of the Act, would not be declared unconstitutional.

Besides the Bangladesh Bank governor, the finance secretary, Banking Division secretary, law secretary, the comptroller and auditor general, and the central bank’s Banking Operation Division general manager have been made respondents of the rule.

The HCD set April 2, 2017 to deliver further orders on the suo moto rule issued.

The registrar general of the Supreme Court was directed to communicate the order to all the respondents by ‘special messenger’.

The High Court Division asks for list of companies, individuals – the case of written off loans The High Court Division (HCD) of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh has sought for a list of the companies, organisations and individuals whose bank loans have been written-off till December 2016.

The court ordered the governor of Bangladesh Bank (BB) to submit the list to it in 30 days. The governor has also been ordered to inform the High Court in 30 days whether those companies, organisations and individuals, whose bank loans have been written off, were further given any loan. The HCD bench comprising Mr. Justice Zubayer Rahman Chowdhury and Mr. Justice Md Iqbal Kabir passed the order yesterday on a suomoto (of its own) move following a report published on The Asian Age under a headline “The Tk 30,000cr vanishing trick, 60% of defaulted loans from public banks written off ’” on February 26. The report spoke of the ‘alarming’ situation of loan default, and said Tk 300 million “will have to be written off ”. The amount is more than enough to take care of the education budget for this year, according to the report. According to the Bangladesh Bank, the amount of waived loans is around Tk 450 million while the amount of defaulted credit is Tk 650 million. The banks have been writing off loans in line with the Policy for Loan Write Off included in the Prudential Regulations for Banks. The Bangladesh Bank states in the policy: “Banks may, at any time, write off loans classified as bad/loss. Those loans which have been classified as bad/loss for the last five years and for which 100% provisions have been kept should be written off without delay.”

The High Court asked why the provision relating to “waiver of loan or part of loan” contained in Section 28 (1) of the Bank Companies Act, 1991 and the power given to the Bangladesh Bank to “waive loans”, as contained in Sub-Section 9 (Cha) of Section 49 of the Act, would not be declared unconstitutional.

Besides the Bangladesh Bank governor, the finance secretary, Banking Division secretary, law secretary, the comptroller and auditor general, and the central bank’s Banking Operation Division general manager have been made respondents of the rule.

The HCD set April 2, 2017 to deliver further orders on the suo moto rule issued.

The registrar general of the Supreme Court was directed to communicate the order to all the respondents by ‘special messenger’.

International Courts

EU court rules against obligation to issue humanitarian visas

European Union member states do not have to issue entry visas to people at risk of torture or inhuman treatment, the EU’s top court has ruled, cutting off a possible channel for refugees.

The decision by the European Court of Justice goes against advice from its chief lawyer, who said last month that such visas had to be issued under EU law.

The court ruled on a case of a Syrian family from the city of Aleppo who applied for a visa to stay with acquaintances in Belgium in October. Belgian authorities had refused the visa, leading to a court battle. “Member States are not required, under EU law, to grant a humanitarian visa to persons who wish to enter their territory with a view to applying for asylum, but they remain free to do so on the basis of their national law,” the court said. Belgium’s immigration minister had said at the time that ruling in favour of humanitarian visas would “throw the gates wide open” to asylumseekers. The ruling comes as the EU is trying to curb immigration after taking in around 1.6 million refugees and migrants who arrived across the Mediterranean in 2014-2016. EU states have struggled to accommodate the influx, ensure security screening and agree between themselves on how to share out the responsibility. The bloc has also started to arrange treaties with countries south and east of the Mediterranean to have them block people on their way to Europe and be able to send them back more easily.

IACHR Takes Case involving Guatemala to the InterAmerican Court

December 19, 2016

Washington, D.C. - The InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) filed an application with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in Case 12.484, Cuscul Pivaral et al., with regard to Guatemala.

The case involves the State’s international responsibility for violating various rights established in the American Convention, to the detriment of 49 victims who were diagnosed with HIV/AIDS between 1992 and 2003. Until 2006 or 2007, there was a total lack of public medical care for these individuals with HIV/AIDS who were living in poverty. This omission had a serious impact on their situation of health, life, and personal integrity. Moreover, the deaths of eight of the victims—Alberto Quiché Cuxeva, Reina López Mujica, Ismar Ramírez Chajón, Rita Bubón Orozco, Facundo Gómez Reyes, José Rubén Delgado, Luis Edwin Cruz Gramau, and María Vail—resulted from what are known as opportunistic diseases, during a time in which they did not receive the care they needed from the State, or received inadequate care. While the State began implementing in the public sector some treatment for people with HIV/AIDS after 2006 and 2007, this medical care did not meet the minimum standards to be considered comprehensive and acceptable, and these deficiencies thus continued to violate the surviving victims’ rights to health, life, and personal integrity. Moreover, the appeal for legal protection (amparo) filed on July 26, 2002, in the Constitutional Court did not provide effective judicial protection to the victims.

Finally, family members and others with close ties to the victims also suffered harm to their mental and moral integrity

In its Merits Report on the case, the Commission recommended that the State provide full compensation to the surviving victims, and to the family members and loved ones of the victims who died, for the human rights violations laid out in the report, both for material and moral damages. It also recommended that the State take the necessary measures to ensure that all the surviving victims in the case are provided with comprehensive medical attention, in accordance with international standards, and to ensure that the victims do not have to encounter obstacles of accessibility or other obstacles to comprehensive treatment. The IACHR also asked the State to put mechanisms of non-repetition in place including, among others, the provision of free, comprehensive, and uninterrupted treatment and health care to those with HIV/AIDS who do not have the resources for such medical attention.

The Inter-American Commission took the case to the Court’s jurisdiction on December 2, 2016, because it deemed that the State had failed to comply with the recommendations contained in the Merits Report. Specifically, the State did not inform the Commission regarding measures of individual compensation for the family members of the victims who died and for the surviving victims.

This case will enable the InterAmerican Court to develop case law on States’ international obligations stemming from the right to life, integrity, and health with respect to people under its jurisdiction who are living with HIV/AIDS. The case will enable the Court to delve more deeply into the specific needs for comprehensive health care to which these individuals are entitled, including the performance of tests for diagnostic and followup purposes, the provision of antiretroviral medications, and any necessary physical and psychological follow-up. The Inter-American Court will also be able to take a position on the characteristics that a remedy to protect the life, personal integrity, and health of people living with HIV/AIDS should include to be considered a simple and effective recourse under the terms of the American Convention.

A principal, autonomous body of the Organization of American States (OAS), the IACHR derives its mandate from the OAS Charter and the American Convention on Human Rights. The InterAmerican Commission has a mandate to promote respect for human rights in the region and acts as a consultative body to the OAS in this area. The Commission is composed of seven independent members who are elected in an individual capacity by the OAS General Assembly and who do not represent their countries of origin or residence.

Books of Interest

The History of ICSID

Antonio R. Parra

This is the first book to detail the history and development of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) and its constituent treaty, the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States, covering the years from 1955 to 2010.

Antonio Parra, the first Deputy Secretary-General of ICSID, traces the immediate origins of the Convention, in the years 1955 to 1962, and gives a stage-by-stage narrative of the drafting of the Convention between 1962 and 1965.

He recounts details of bringing the Convention into force in 1966 and the elaboration of the initial versions of the Regulations and Rules of ICSID adopted at the first meetings of its Administrative Council in 1967. The three periods 1968 to 1988, 1989 to 1999, and 2000 to June 30, 2010, are covered in separate chapters which examine the expansion of the Centre’s activities and changes made to the Regulations and Rules over the years. There are also overviews of the conciliation and arbitration cases submitted to ICSID in the respective periods, followed by in-depth discussions of selected cases and key issues within them. A concluding chapter discusses some of the broad themes and findings of the book, and includes several suggestions for further changes at ICSID to help ensure its continued success.

The book offers unique insight into the establishment and design of ICSID, as well as into how the institution evolved and its relationship with the World Bank. It is essential reading for those involved in this field.

Tort Law and Human Rights 2nd ed

Jane Wright

This is a completely revised and expanded second edition, building on the first edition with two principal aims: first, to elucidate the role that domestic tort principles (including the new “remedy” under the Human Rights Act 1998) play in securing to citizens the human rights standards laid down in the European Convention on Human Rights and, secondly, to evaluate tort principles for compliance with those standards.

The first edition was written when the Human Rights Act 1998 was newly enacted and many questions existed as to its potential impact on tort law; answers to many of the questions which were raised at that time are only now emerging. Therefore the text has been completely updated to reflect these developments.

Whether it is appropriate to attribute particular goals and functions to tort law is highly contested and the analysis begins by locating the discussion within these contemporary debates. The author goes on to examine the extent to which the action against public authorities under section 7 of the Act has impacted on the development of common law principles as well as the issue of horizontal effect of the Act between non-state actors. New chapters include: Public Authority Liability, Privacy and Autonomy Rights, Land Torts and Death.

Basic Documents on International Investment Protection

Martins Paparinskis

To be Published: March 2018

The increase in the number and complexity of investor-State treaty arbitrations in the last decade has attracted considerable attention from practitioners and academics of international investment protection law. Rules aimed at regulating the protection of foreign investment have been expressed in a decentralised manner, making a clear and comprehensive overview of the topic important.

This volume focuses on the relevant documents and aims to provide an exhaustive treatment of relevant procedural and substantive issues. It includes documents explaining the historical development of investment law, substantive investment rules (multilateral and bilateral treaties and model documents, and general rules on the law of treaties and responsibility) and procedural investment rules (relating to the arbitral process in different fora, immunity, recognition and enforcement).

The new edition of this highly regarded book is aimed at teachers, students and practitioners in the area. It can be used both as a practitioners’ handbook and as a classroom companion for courses on international dispute settlement and investment protection law.

International Conferences

2nd International Conference on NonAdversarial Justice

Sydney, Australia, April 6, 2017 - April 8, 2017

Consolidating on the successful inaugural Non-Adversarial Justice: Implications for the Legal System and Society Conference, hosted by the AIJA and Monash University Faculty of Law in 2010, the second conference aims:

To promote discussion and consolidate knowledge about non-adversarial justice practices operating in justice systems today.

To promote dialogue between courts and tribunals and the social sciences in relation to non-adversarial justice practices.

To consider the theoretical and practical challenges facing courts utilising non-adversarial justice practices and programs including ensuring theory is reflected in the practice of nonadversarial justice and vice versa.

Conference Themes: Concepts of Non-Adversarial Justice, Therapeutic Jurisprudence, Restorative Justice, Procedural Justice, Community Justice, Appropriate or Alternative Dispute Resolution Conflict Resolution, Dispute Prevention or Preventative Law, Collaborative Law, Creative Problem Solving Holistic Law, Solution-Focused Courts, Problem-Solving Courts or ProblemOriented Courts.

Interdisciplinary Collaboration in the Legal Context, Diversion and Intervention Programs, NonAdversarial Justice and Vulnerable Groups, Non-Adversarial Justice and CALD groups, Non-Adversarial Justice and Indigenous justice issues, Managerial Justice: Non-adversarial and Judicial Control.

Administrative Decision-making/ tribunals, Civil/European Legal Approaches, Truth and Reconciliation Commissions, Apology and Forgiveness, Implications on nonadversarial justice for: Judicial officers, court administrators, the legal profession, victims of crime, litigants, support services, correctional agencies, legal education.

Contact: Liz Richardson

Email: liz.richardson@monash.edu

Phone: 61 3 9600 1311

Corporate Counsel & Compliance Exchange

London, UK, April 19, 2017 - April 20, 2017

Innovating our operations and boldly re-branding the perception of legal and compliance to stay one step ahead in an ever more scrutinising regulatory landscape.

The 16th Corporate Counsel & Compliance Exchange will bring together Europe’s most senior legal and compliance leaders who are looking to uncover new innovative ideas, strategic insight and develop a practical road-map to building a bulletproof legal and compliance operation.

This exclusive invitation-only meeting is open to Group General Counsel and General Counsel, Chief Compliance Officers and Chief Legal Officers plus a selected group of innovative solution providers.

“A great opportunity to meet GCs from other industries and discuss current topical legal issues in an informal environment.” GSK, VP Legal Operations CH Europe, Global Categories and R&D.

Contact: IQPC Exchange

Email: info@thelegalexchangenetwork.com

Phone: +44 207 368 9484

34th IBA International Financial Law Conference

Swissôtel, Tallinn, Estonia, 17–19 May 2017

A conference co-presented by the IBA Banking Law Committee and IBA Securities Law Committee, supported by the IBA European Regional Forum This year our conference sessions and topics will continue to discuss recent trends relating to capital markets and banking transactions and regulatory developments, such as:

• Payment services industry novelties, regulatory and technological challenges
• Can the current legal framework on financial services cope with blockchain trade models?
• Artificial Intelligence in the financial industry
• Follow-up on capital markets regulatory overflows from Dodd Frank to, Basel III or rather IV and well as CRD, EMIR, MAD, not forgetting the Prospectus regulations
• Liability of rating agencies – attempting to dispel the fog
• How can you do an M&A deal without knowing your shareholders or bondholders? Role of proxy advisors
• Clawback policy on incentive compensation in light of required restatements
• How to reach the financial close in PPP Projects

 

YOU ARE WELCOME TO CONTRIBUTE.

Your thoughts, comments and ideas would be respected and treated in confidentiality. Please write to nawshad@juristschambers.com

If you wish to receive a FREE Jurists Chambers (JC) Law Gazette, which we believe may be of interest to you, please either send us an email to nawshad@juristschambers.com or by post at Jurists Chambers, City Reach 7th Floor, 5 Greenwich View Place, Docklands, London E14 9NN.

This newsletter is also available on our website for free download. Link in description bellow.

© Muhammad Nawshad Zamir

Based in Bangladesh and UK, we have representative office in USA and Network Partners in France and Saudi Arabia.