This article seeks to explore and subsequently critique the International Organisation of Securities Commissions's (IOSCO) attempt to devise a globally recognized set of benchmarks of good practice in valuing hedge fund assets as set out in its recent Principles For the Valuation of Hedge Fund Assets (A Consultation Report, March 2007). The outcome of the IOSCO's consultation process is almost certain to have an important bearing on the future provision of hedge fund valuation services globally and, thus, is likely to be viewed with great interest by regulatory and industry bodies throughout the world.

This paper outlines recent developments in regional cooperation within the Gulf of Guinea region leading to the recent establishment of the Gulf of Guinea Commission. The huge interest generated among the major oil-producing multinational corporations, the newer independent producers and the participating States in the Gulf of Guinea necessitates a critical assessment of the Treaty Establishing the Gulf of Guinea Commission. This paper adopts a comparative analysis with pre-existing regional and institutional bodies having similar aims and objectives. The aim is to ascertain whether and to what extent the emergent regime can facilitate a sustainable and responsive regime for the anticipated explosion of exploitative activities in this resource-rich and strategic littoral zone. This paper, thus, places the existing regime in the context of international best practices for multinationals and governments involved in oil and gas exploration and production. The author identifies certain imperatives for the consideration of both the corporate and sovereign interests in the world's newest resource Eldorado.

The recognition of foreign judgments lacking reasons raises several policy issues. Reason-giving is perceived by the European Court of Human Rights as critical to ensure an effective access to justice. Yet, foreign judgments often lack reasons because the defendant failed to appear before the foreign court, and it may be right to sanction this strategy of foreign court avoidance. Finally, the European Union has begun to implement its policy of efficiency of cross-border enforcement, which commands states to recognize such judgments irrespective of any other consideration. This article explores whether these conflicting issues can be reconciled.

Litigation involving individuals and entities whose financial assets have been frozen and whose names have been blacklisted in the fight against terrorism is on the rise around the world. However, the global ‘securitization’ of terrorism has rendered court performance of judicial review and the provision of remedies in these cases more difficult. What the main judicial challenges are, the need to overcome them, and how they can be overcome, are identified in this article as questions of central concern in an effort to secure the human right of effective access to justice for persons subjected to counter-terrorism sanctions. Special attention is given to the specific challenges facing the Court of Justice in the European Communities, the manner in which it has responded, and outstanding issues.

This article examines how recent judgments of the European Court of Justice have interpreted the concept of a service of general interest in Article 86(2) EC in the delivery of healthcare services. The article explores how and why the Court has afforded greater latitude to Member States in organizational matters by not applying competition rules. By contrast, the Court has actively promoted patient mobility and has not applied the derogation in Article 86(2) EC where it would restrict the free movement of services. Does the Court's policy of protecting individual rights undermine the ability of Member States to deliver a universal healthcare service within finite resources?

This article examines the legality of the options that may be open to a State that is unwilling to accept a legal obligation created by a human rights treaty it has already ratified. It briefly addresses the subject of ‘derogation’ from human rights treaties before looking in detail at denunciation of the same. It proceeds to examine the legality of strategies such as entering a late reservation to a human rights treaty and of denouncing the treaty with the sole purpose of entering a new reservation to it.

This article studies the normative activity developed by the Security Council (SC) in recent years, particularly in the fight against terrorism. This legislative activity has aroused a great deal of controversy both among scholars and the States. Is the SC acting ultra vires? Has it revealed a new form of creating of international norms, which overrides definitively States' consent as the only material source of international law? This contribution tries to answer these questions by investigating the scope of the SC powers in the Charter, their historical background and the reaction of UN Member States towards its Resolutions. After this analysis, it is submitted that the SC does have a legislative capacity, but with important legal, political and practical limits.

Between 2002 and 2007, the Council of the European Union has entered into more than 70 international agreements with third parties pursuant to Article 24 of the Treaty on European Union in order to address various legal and practical matters relating to the conduct of EU crisis management missions in third countries. The purpose of this article is to examine the Council's practice in the implementation of Article 24 of the Treaty and to assess the widely held view that the international agreements concluded under this provision offer conclusive proof of the EU's status as an independent subject of international law. Even though the Council's recent practice does indeed suggest that it concludes international agreements on behalf of the Union as such, this does not lay to rest all uncertainties surrounding the EU's nature as an international legal person.

This article deals with a topic at the heart of modern comparative law: codification of private law on a national and European level. It offers a critical assessment of the recent French attempt to redraft the obligations provisions of its civil code, focusing on the revisions to the law of tort or delict. There has been little analysis of these provisions within or outside France. This article examines the key changes proposed and identifies the implications in terms of tort policy.

Applying the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to immigration cases has always been a balancing exercise between the effective protection of human rights and the Contracting States' autonomy to regulate migration flows. In its recent case law, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg (ECtHR) has considerably extended the protective scope of Article 8 ECHR by granting autonomous human rights protection to the long-term resident status independent of the existence of family bonds under the heading of ‘private life’. This has important repercussions for the status of legal and illegal immigrants across Europe, since the new case law widens the reach of human rights law to the legal conditions for leave to remain, effectively granting several applicants a human right to regularize their illegal stay. The contribution analyses the new case law and develops general criteria guiding the application of the ECHR to national immigration laws and the new EU harmonization measures adopted in recent years.

The huge rise in the settlement of investment disputes by treaty has provoked an underlying question of great practical and theoretical importance: the relationship between the substantive standards protected in such treaties and general international law. This paper argues that the relationship is symbiotic: custom informing the content of the treay right; and State practice under investment treaties contributing to the development of general international law. It is the structured process of treaty interpretation which determines when and how reference to general international law may be made. Practice in this field supports a broader modern phenomenon, in which ‘general principles of law common to civilized nations’ may be informed not only by common principles of domestic law, but also by general principles of international law itself.

Article 103 of the United Nations (UN) Charter stipulates that the obligations of UN Member States under the Charter prevail, in the event of a conflict, over their obligations under any other international agreement. While this important provision is often mentioned, its precise meaning remains something of a mystery. The present article tries to shed some light on the scope of this ‘supremacy clause’ by discussing, first, its operation with respect to treaties, and then by looking at its relevance to various other contractual arrangements and to customary international law.

The Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture entered into force on 22 June 2006. It establishes a Sub-Committee for the Prevention of Torture that has authority to visit places of detention and to assess the conditions of that detention as a way to reduce the incidence of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Additionally, States parties are required to set up complementary national preventive mechanisms. This article explores both how these mechanisms established under the Optional Protocol could operate in the context of the detention of refugees and/or asylum-seekers, which is an increasingly common occurrence in many parts of the world, as well as whether they add value to existing international mechanisms that are already available in this field. It examines the purported applicability of the Optional Protocol to four refugee/asylum situations, namely detention at airports and other border zones; immigration (or administrative) detention, including semi-open (or semi-closed) asylum centres; closed refugee camps; and extraterritorial processing or holding centres. Reviewing definitional, jurisdictional, and practical issues that may impact on the success or otherwise of these new preventive mechanisms, this article concludes by making a number of recommendations to aid their work in the refugee/asylum context.

The General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) has been the leading force of trade liberalization in services. This article attempts to decipher the implications of GATS in financial services. It explains the schedules of commitments made by Member States, and the way countries engage in commitments in financial services. These are critical in understanding how the GATS rules are applied by each Member, and whether GATS has been effective.

The so-called ‘prudential carve out’ is analysed in detail with consideration to the general prudential regime of the financial system since it has implications for the stability and integrity of the financial system. The article concludes with some policy analysis on how prudential carve out might be better implemented.

This article will question the legality of measures of environmental ‘conditionality’ in the Generalized System of Preferences [GSP] of the European Community [EC].1 The GSP is a GATT/WTO2 authorized scheme which permits developed nations to grant non-reciprocal tariff preferences in favour of developing countries.3 The objectives of the GSP are primarily development-oriented in that it aims to increase the export earnings of developing countries, promote their industrialization and accelerate rates of economic growth.4 A recent case taken in the WTO examined the legal contours of the grant of tariff preferences and it is in the light of this that this article will examine the so-called ‘special incentive arrangements’ of the reformed EC GSP which offers additional tariff preferences to developing countries on the ‘condition’ that they adhere to specified standards of environmental protection.

This paper examines the regulatory questions surrounding transatlantic stock exchange consolidation. Underlying these questions is, in essence, a problem of fit between, on the one hand, the market space and, on the other hand, the regulatory space. Legislation which has predominantly a domestic focus is outdated in view of the increasingly global focus of financial market actors. High-profile mergers such as NYSE Euronext have brought the problem of the regulation of transatlantic or indeed global stock exchanges to the fore. Which national securities laws apply? What consequences does technological integration have for the regulatory position of exchanges and financial market actors? What are the extraterritorial implications? This article takes these questions as a starting point for investigating the problems of, and solutions to, transatlantic stock exchange consolidation.