This article explores the issue of norm conflict in the context of specific multilateral agreements that are administered and enforced by the World Trade Organization (WTO), namely, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT), the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), and the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). Any discussion of norm conflict between treaty provisions must necessarily draw a critical distinction between an apparent conflict, on the one hand, and a real conflict, on the other hand. An apparent conflict is one where the content of two or more norms is at first glance contradictory, yet the conflict can be avoided, most often by interpretative means. A real conflict represents an irreconcilable divergence between norms which cannot be interpreted away and can only be solved by the application of a conflict rule. The notion of intra WTO conflict is largely unexplored and consequently under-theorized. It is explored here not as an abstract notion, but rather against the backdrop of the institutional and normative environment of the WTO. It is submitted that intra WTO norm conflict is hardly likely to arise as a legal issue under WTO law. This is because the normative and institutional environment of the WTO militates against treating overlapping WTO provisions as situations of real norm conflict. This environment allows for, and potentially mandates a judicial approach to intra WTO conflict that accords with the telos of the single undertaking nature of WTO rights and obligations. In the result, intra WTO conflict will possibly never be real; will often be deemed as merely apparent; and will sometimes be avoided.

The ‘indigenous renaissance’ of the last few decades continues to generate copious litigation around the Commonwealth. While courts frequently invoke common principles, it would be going too far to say that a unified jurisprudence exists. Moreover, modern jurisprudence in this area is arguably inconsistent and frequently discriminatory, which means that borrowing across jurisdictions should proceed cautiously, mindful of localized nuances and limitations. This article argues that any suggestion that the common law as it has evolved in any particular jurisdiction should be emulated as a model indigenous rights theory must be rigorously scrutinized, for indiscriminate application of doctrines could lead to discordant outcomes.

Globalization redefines the relationship between law and space, resulting in the emergence of transnational administrative law in a globalizing legal space. I aim to shed light on transnational administrative law by examining how administrative law relates to the process of European integration. I argue that the idea of administrative legitimation is at the core of this relationship. In the European Union, transnational administration grounds its legitimacy on the fulfilment of administrative law requirements. However, given that in the European Union, administrative legitimation is rooted in Europe's constitutional transformation, I caution against the projection of Europe's experience onto global governance.

This article is an examination of the merits of permitting the exercise of party autonomy in choice of court and choice of law in respect of the personal and patrimonial aspects of adult relationships. It provides a commentary on the party autonomy provisions of EU harmonization instruments, actual and proposed, in family law. The treatment considers the particular issues of drafting which arise from the specialties of family law, and ponders whether or not the refinements required render the exercise of permitting party autonomy self-defeating.

Currently there is no clear understanding of the meaning of ‘slavery’ in modern international law. While generally it is accepted that the authoritative definition of slavery is provided by Article 1 of the Slavery Convention 1926, in recent times slavery has been understood in such a wide variety of ways that effectively it is a meaningless term. This paper reflects on this interpretation problem and aims to redress this balance by reclaiming the core meaning of the legal definition. It applies property law perspectives to explain the conception of ownership invoked by Article 1, to argue that it remains relevant and to explore how it might be applied in identifying modern cases of slavery.

At a time when globalization is driving greater connections between governments, this article examines a key facilitator of such connections, namely the international legal adviser. It elaborates on their role, how they are selected, how their offices are structured and what makes a good international legal adviser.

Ceuta, Melilla, Vélez de la Gomera, Alhucemas and the Chafarinas Islands are Spanish territories that lie along Morocco's northern coastline. Morocco has claimed the territories since its independence in 1956. The sovereignty of a further territory, the islet of Perejil, remains unresolved after a military confrontation between Morocco and Spain in 2002. The author examines the arguments in the ongoing sovereignty dispute. Morocco's claim to Ceuta and Melilla is found to be weak. However, its claim to the remaining territories may be supported by the analogous case of São João Baptista de Ajudá, an unpopulated Portuguese fortress territory in Dahomey (Benin) that was singled out for ‘statutory decolonization’ by the UN.

For the last 15 years the European Union (EU) has been particularly active, both internally and internationally, in the fight against global warming, and it is determined to continue to play a global leadership role in this strategic issue. Among the various market-based measures decided upon, the Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) for energy-intensive industrial sectors has been rightly described as the ‘flagship of the EU climate policy’.1 Even before proceeding to a general overhauling of Directive 2003/87 in the framework of the 2009 Climate and Energy package, the EU had decided to modify the Directive by including aviation activities in the ETS. Directive 2008/1012 provides that all flights from whichever aircraft operator taking off from or landing in the EU territory will be subjected to the ETS from 1 January 2012. For the year 2012 97 per cent of all emissions allowances will be freely assigned, from 2013 the amount will decrease to 95 per cent, whereas 15 per cent of all allowances will be auctioned. In reality the percentage of free allowances is much lower, about 60 per cent, because it takes as parameter the historical aviation emissions of the years 2004–06, when the air traffic was 40 per cent lower than it is now. The idea underlying the Directive is that aircraft operators will either purchase the necessary allowances in the market or will try to reduce their emissions by using bio-fuels (or else reducing the number of flights), with the second option becoming more economically attractive over time.

The period under review (January 2010 – June 2012) has been a time of consolidation (or exhaustion) for the Union generally, as the Lisbon changes are allowed to bed in. The competition sphere is no exception. There has been limited initiative, certainly nothing ambitious to come out of the Commission over the period. At the same time a new Commission took up office—three months late, and by a little-remarked constitutional sleight of hand1—in 2010, and with it came a new Commissioner for Competition (Mr Almunia) and with him a new Director-General of DG Competition (Mr Italianer—Dutch notwithstanding the name), which event sometimes, but not always, marks a reorientation of Union competition policy. Both are economists which, again, may or may not influence the direction of policy. At the same time the Union has been buffeted by a financial crisis not wholly of its own making in which the competition rules must have a significant role to play.

In the conjoined cases C-509/09 e-Date Advertising GmbH v X and C-161/10 Olivier Martinez and others v MGN Ltd,1 the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) was required to determine the scope of applicability of both Article 5(3) of Regulation EC 44/2001 (the Brussels I Regulation)2 and Article 3 of Directive EC 2000/31 (the Electronic Commerce Directive). Both cases were concerned with defamation and breach of personality and image rights as a result of the publication of two newspaper articles which were accessible online via each of the defendants' websites. As readers will be fully aware, Article 5(3) of the Brussels I Regulation enables claimants to establish special jurisdiction in the case of a tort, delict or quasi-delict, in the courts of the Member State where a harmful event has occurred or may occur. The effectiveness of Article 5(3) as a ground of jurisdiction focuses on the locality of the event. The question that arose in both cases was, essentially, where could the claimants bring proceedings for breach of personality and defamation as a result of newspaper articles published online via websites,3 when those websites were accessible in multiple jurisdictions? According to an experienced legal practitioner in the United Kingdom, ‘more than 25 billion individual items of content are shared each month on Facebook alone.’4 There are increasing concerns regarding the dissemination of comments through the medium of ‘ubiquit(ous), converged and displace(d)’5 Web 2.0 communications technologies. Such communications increase the potential for criminal and civil consequences in numerous jurisdictions. The ability of injured parties (famous or not) to seek redress in the most appropriate forum for the purposes of protecting their private lives and reputations is acutely significant.6