This chapter describes the legal landscape related to Miranda rights and waivers, as well as the relevant research literature regarding Miranda waiver decisions. The chapter identifies factors related to Miranda rights comprehension and waiver and emphasizes research addressing interrogations of youth and their abilities to provide a valid waiver. Research has identified that suspect-related factors, including age, IQ, and psychosocial maturity, as well as structural factors, such as the length, reading level, and content of the Miranda warnings, are related to Miranda comprehension and waiver decisions. The chapter also discusses the legal standard for judicial decisions related to the admissibility of confessions following Miranda waivers, as well as the factors that judges typically consider when making such decisions. Because research demonstrates that many suspects struggle when making Miranda waiver decisions, we conclude by making policy recommendations and identifying areas in which future research is needed.

In other chapters, we examined how party autonomy shapes the parties’ contractual relations. Indeed, party autonomy is the cornerstone of the law of contracts and in general terms, the law intervenes in this process only sparingly with mandatory rules. In this chapter, we examine those circumstances where the civil law (both the CC and special laws) not only intervenes but invalidates the parties’ express consent on the ground that their agreement lacked good faith or imposed unfair terms on the weaker party. The imposition of good faith is equally justified by reference to public policy even if not expressly spelt out. This ‘parental’ regulation of contracts is not without contention and as the reader will come to realize, the contours of the application of good faith differ among jurisdictions, although our emphasis here is on the Qatari experience.

Language issues have gained a complex and important role in international commercial arbitration. Questions have emerged pertaining to setting the language of arbitration, communication during the arbitral proceedings, and control of arbitral awards. If the parties fail to agree on the language (or languages) of arbitration, and no default language is offered, the actors are facing the question of the “initial language”. Cohabitation of more languages is another relevant problem-pattern - which gained specific weight in ICSID proceedings. Closely related languages give rise to some specific questions. Furthermore, at a time when international contracts are frequently drafted in a language other than the mother tongue of the parties, the question emerges whether the anchor language (the hidden original) may gain any relevance during the scrutiny aiming to discover the true intentions of the parties.

During the process of court control, language issues are also gaining special relevance. Language-based post-award challenges are typically sheltered under the grounds articulated in Article V(1)(b) and Article V(1)(d) of the New York Convention. The focus is usually on a failure (or alleged failure) to follow the language(s) set. Added important dimensions are being shaped through the argument of waiver, and through the issue of relevance.

Chapter 13 discusses numerous contractual clauses that are often relegated to the “back” of an agreement, but which can have important effects on the parties. These include the front matter of the agreement, definitions, assignment (PPG v. Guardian), marking, compliance with law, force majeure, merger and entire agreement, no waiver, severability, precedence, amendment, mutual negotiation, notices and interpretation.

This chapter discusses the rights (‘privileges and immunities’) that allow a party to resist compulsory demands for information. Privileges have a long history in the common law, with some departure from traditional privilege rules arising in statutory formulations. Privilege is a ‘bar to compulsory process for the obtaining of evidence rather than a rule of inadmissibility’. However, a successful claim of privilege will result in the exclusion of evidence, derogating from the general principle that all relevant evidence should be admitted.

Privilege can generally be regarded as an evidentiary right, allowing individuals to refuse to disclose evidence. In some cases, privileges allow directions to be given to others not to disclose. Some privileges extend to corporate entities. Privileges may arise because of the circumstances in which information is communicated, or the way in which it may be used.

The common law’s stance on privilege and the consequent restriction on access to evidence are reflected to a large extent in the Acts. Nonetheless, the categories of privilege have expanded under the legislation and, inevitably, anomalies have arisen between the two branches.

An application for anti-dumping action on behalf of a third country shall be made by the authorities of the third country requesting action.