This chapter examines how collective self-defence request needs to be issued. There are a number of unanswered questions about the necessary manner and form of such requests. First, the chapter analyses whether ‘open-ended’ requests will suffice, or whether they must be targeted at a particular state (or states). It then considers whether collective self-defence requests must take any specific form and, in particular, queries whether they can be inferred. Similarly, it examines whether a collective self-defence request must even be made publicly (or, at least, be publicised), or whether covert requests can suffice. Finally, the chapter engages with two questions concerning the timing of the request. These are whether the request must be made before the collective self-defence action begins, and whether the existence of a collective self-defence treaty arrangement between the relevant states suffices as a ‘request’ (or whether an ad hoc and specific request is still required in addition).

The author explores how consent functions as commitment, content, and constitution for international agreements. He argues that consent constructs all forms of international commitment. Consent elucidates an agreement’s contents – what the agreement ‘is’ in terms of scope and substance. Consent can also function as a constitution – delimiting not only ‘primary’ rules encapsulated by an agreement’s existence and contents, but ‘secondary rules’ determining who can make agreements, how they must do so, and ways to recognize, adjust, and end them. For all these functions, consent remains an under-examined and undifferentiated concept. Today, almost any of consent’s functions can be established by almost any formal or informal means. Alongside existing proposals (presumptions/defaults and content-based criteria), this chapter proposes that international law should pursue more – and different – formalities for consent. Having different forms of consent follow its different functions may, according to the author, improve the efficacy of consent and with it the efficacy of international agreements overall.

In chapter 2 we discussed contract formation in general, whereas here we shall dive deeper into formality and delivery in particular. Before doing so, we need to lay the foundations by which to evaluate the legal impact of formality and delivery on civil and commercial contracts. It will be recalled that under the civil law tradition, contracts are predicated on three general pillars, namely: (i) consent, consisting of offer, acceptance and intention to be legally bound; (ii) subject-matter; and (iii) cause. In addition, there may, although not necessarily, exist two further requirements (special pillars), namely: (iv) formality; and (v) delivery

IP accidents were a relatively small problem in the nineteenth century. Strict liability was an appropriate liability rule at this time because avoiding accidents was comparatively easy. However, due to changes in technology and the legal system, the volume of IP accident litigation has grown during the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Just as the tort of negligence was created during the Industrial Revoluion to handle the increase in accidental personal injury litigation, society should adopt a negligence principle to govern IP accidents in the Information Age.

Where a settlor creates a trust it will be enforceable once the requisite formalities are satisfied. A key feature of a trustis the separation of the legal and the beneficial title. The trustee holds the legal title and the beneficiaries hold the equitable interest. In order for the trust to be enforceable by the beneficiaries there must be no doubt that the property has been validly passed to the trustee or that the settlor has made a valid declaration of a trust. Anyone can create a trust of personalty unless he/she is shown to be mentally ill and unable to understand the nature of the gift and or in the case of land under under the age of eighteen. There are strict formalities where trust property comprises land the formalities are very specific and must conform with the Law of Property Act 1925 s.53. A distinction is drawn between trusts of land which must be evidenced in writing and trusts of equitable interests which must be in writing at the time of the disposition. There are some exceptions to this rule for instance there is no disposition if both the legal and equitable interest are transferred together. Emphasis is placed on the role of formalities. It is important to be able to locate the legal and equitable title in particular to prevent fraud.