Over a decade ago, an important debate began concerning the proper role of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in an international legal universe characterized by a large and rapidly increasing number of specialized courts and tribunals. What functions can and should the Court perform in response to the fragmentation of international law, and the proliferation of international tribunals? Initial proposals, especially those emerging in the late 1990s, were hierarchical and centralist in their orientation, and have justifiably fallen out of favour. This article uses the current international legal disputes about Australia's plain packaging tobacco legislation as the basis for an exploration of the possibilities for an alternative, non-centralist vision for the ICJ, which is sensitive both to the institutional limits of the international judiciary, and to the benefits of a fundamentally pluralist international legal order.

A burgeoning international interest in Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) as a means of mitigating the effects of climate change has raised a number of novel legal issues, one of which concerns ownership of the underground sites in which captured carbon dioxide can be stored. This paper considers the extent of a surface landowner's rights above and below land and explores the treatment of underground space within the context of CCS in relation to differing jurisdictions. Particular attention is paid to legal principles applied in the United Kingdom and the United States, and consideration is also given to relevant legislation in Australia and Canada.

Through the joint ‘North Seas Countries Offshore Grid Initiative’ the states bordering the North Seas are establishing shared large-scale offshore electricity infrastructure in order to exploit their offshore wind energy resources. The article argues that this international governance of oceans space comes about legally because international law, European law and national law each fulfil a specific function. The climate regime provides the normative impetus, the law of the sea allocates competences, and European law contains principles of cooperation, which are then implemented through coordinated national law. International law, European law and national law thus become functionally integrated. This analysis has significance beyond shared offshore electricity infrastructure. It illustrates the way in which the functional integration of international law, European law and national law is emerging as a distinct legal institution in its own right, separate and distinct from the various legal orders themselves.

The WTO Agreement on Agriculture was designed to maximize trade flows at a time of surplus agricultural production. It required Members to open markets and to reduce domestic and export subsidies. Proposals for reform in the Doha Round negotiations largely adopt the same pattern. Yet, as surplus is replaced by shortage, Members are increasingly concerned about food security and the impact of agriculture on climate change. And contemporary agricultural policies crystallize around ‘sustainable intensification’, where domestic production is promoted, but not at the expense of future production. This article suggests that, although both the Agreement on Agriculture and the Doha Round proposals do provide some scope for measures to address this new policy paradigm, there are instances where they may work actively against it.

This article seeks to consider the EU's new approach to arbitration as set out in Recital 12 of the Brussels I Regulation (Recast). The article first considers the Court of Justice of the European Union's West Tankers decision and the foremost English authority applying that case (The Wadi Sudr) in order to provide some background to the problem which gave rise to Recital 12. Following this, the article goes on to consider whether Recital 12 does in fact act as a solution to the problem created by the West Tankers decision.

In December 2012, the European Parliament supported the creation of a European patent with unitary effect. For the next year at least, the international patent community will be on the edge of its proverbial seat, waiting to see whether the proposal becomes a reality. If it does, it will be a significant event in both the long and rich history of patent law, and in the equally rich and understudied history of attempts to create a European patent system. In this article I consider the three post-war European patent initiatives of the most direct and enduring relevance in that regard with a view to answering the following questions. First, what drove them? Second, what issues confronted them? And third, how were those issues resolved and with what ultimate effect? In the concluding section I relate the discussion back to the present by offering some remarks on the current European patent proposal in light of the same.

On 5 July 2012, the CJEU rendered a ruling in Erste/BCL on the temporal application of the Insolvency Regulation in Member States that joined the EU after the Regulation's initial entry into force on 31 May 2002 (new Member States).1 The uncertainties of interpretation concerned ‘cross-date’ proceedings; that is, when the insolvency proceeding was launched before the accession of the (new) Member State but after the Regulation's original entry into force (in the old Member States) and remained pending also after the accession. Taking into account that 44.4 per cent of the Member States joined the EU after the Insolvency Regulation's entry into force (12 out of 27 Member States),2 the ruling has an enormous practical and economic relevance, which will be refreshed following the accession of Croatia.3

Some five years on from the Autumn 2008 collapse of Lehmans, the regulatory dust from the Global Financial Crisis has settled. Significant regulatory policy debates are still underway internationally, notably with respect to the treatment of shadow banking.1 But the main contours of the crisis-era regulatory landscape are now clear. Internationally, most major economies, including the EU, have implemented the G20 reform agenda, set out initially in the 2008 Washington Declaration,2 and covering, inter alia: bank capital, liquidity and leverage; hedge funds; rating agencies; and the over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives markets. That major regulatory change would have followed the financial crisis is not, of course, a surprise.3 Observation of responses to major financial crises over the years from the 1929 Crash to the ‘dotcom bubble’ era and beyond4 makes clear that what Professor Coffee has vividly described as the ‘regulatory sine curve’5 leads to a regulatory boom after financial market bust.

In the three years since last surveyed in the Quarterly,1 EU environmental law has continued to justify its reputation as one of the most fast-moving fields of EU law, with a large number of highly significant legislative and jurisprudential developments. This review selects some of the most important areas of development in the field in recent years: in particular, the EU's new environmental action programme for 2013–20, EU climate and energy law, environmental governance and enforcement, and integration of environmental concerns into other EU policy areas.