This article first examines criminal liability for negligently causing death or injury in English law, which it shows to be both complex and confused. It then examines French law on the subject, which at first sight appears both simpler and more rational, but has run into a number of difficulties in practice. A third and final section considers whether the French experience provides any useful lessons for the possible reform of English law.

This article considers the problem of ‘libel tourism’ (forum shopping in transnational libel cases) from the point of view of English and EU law (both relevant in certain situations). If proceedings are brought in a forum having no real connection with the case, and if the lex fori is applied, free speech in other countries could be undermined. This is particularly a problem where the case is brought in England, because of the pro-claimant slant of English libel law. The article notes when English conflicts law is applicable and when EU conflicts law is applicable, and explains the English and EU law regarding choice of law, jurisdiction and forum non conveniens in order to assess whether there is a genuine problem. It concludes that there is, particularly with regard to the Internet. Possible solutions are suggested.

This article aims to draw policy lessons from the American indirect purchasers' litigation experience for the design of the European private antitrust regime in the light of the European Commission's White Paper on damages actions. The article shows that in multi-level polities procedural aspects of antitrust litigation and judicial cooperation are as crucial as the substantive standards for the success of private enforcement regimes. From this perspective the article criticizes the White Paper for the lack of procedural assessment and urges the Commission to give due consideration to procedural standards and mechanisms of judicial cooperation before taking any legislative action.

This article examines the problem of divergent judicial interpretation of harmonized documents. Drawing on the experience of harmonization of the law of arbitration, it points out that divergent interpretation runs much deeper than is commonly assumed, and shows strong similarities to the ‘transplant effect’ discussed in the literature on legal transplants. The article examines why the transplant effect shows up in harmonization, and considers its importance for the eventual success or failure of harmonization projects.

This paper examines whether the evolving jurisprudence on necessity as developed by the WTO adjudicatory bodies reflects the same balance between trade liberalization and regulatory autonomy as that contained in the WTO treaty texts, particularly with regard to the GATT. It is argued that a divergence can be observed which raises questions of competence, legitimacy and transparency. Specific amendments to the prevailing test are also proposed in order to achieve what the author suggests is a textually consistent, and thus legitimate, necessity test of equal efficacy.