It is a privilege to write the preface to the latest issue of the Bournemouth University Law Review. This issue is being published at the time of UK’s withdrawal from the European Union (EU) and what the journal shares with ‘Brexit’ is a concern for change.
The Taylor Review of Modern Working Practices 2017 states that ‘the way in which employment protections are applied, relies on individuals and employers understanding the type of relationship that exists between them – most basically, deciding whether the individual is an ‘employee’, a ‘worker’ or genuinely self-employed’. Concluding his report, Taylor found that, for numerous reasons, this categorisation was becoming more complex for an increasing proportion of the workforce; those in ‘atypical’ employment. In view of this complexity, this article seeks to analyse the law in which an individual is legally classified in their employment status. In particular, the article questions whether English law has released itself from its historic shackles of the binary divide between the employed and self-employed to protect those in atypical employment in modern working practice? Or has the judiciary over stretched the elastic of the legal framework leading to a need for legislative reform?
The historic economic goal of the European Union to achieve an internal market has led to the use of many instruments, one of them being Article 34 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union. This article will explore the substantial impact on consumers, producers and the regulatory autonomy of member states that an economically liberalist driven approach to Article 34 has had. Furthermore, the importance of Article 34 for the UK will be examined in light of its current reliance on it, and how the UK’s departure from the European Union may influence its capacity to depend on Article 34.
The path to legitimising the International Criminal Court (ICC) has been met with its fair share of challenges, and the implementation of the crime of aggression into the Rome Statute is no exception. The conceptualisation of ‘aggression’, mainly considered an unjustified attack from an individual with some level of power from one state to another state, has been discussed in global affairs as far back as World War II. Since then, the emphasis on the requirements of the definition and corresponding clauses has changed dramatically. Codified in articles 8bis and 15bis and 15ter of the Rome Statute, the crime has been formulated for the court to focus on the most important officials waging acts of aggression. However, in light of the Rome Statutes, this paper considers that the current substantive, procedural and jurisdictional definition is ‘too narrow’, and the jurisdictional threshold ‘too high’ to successfully achieve the goals of international criminal justice and bring perpetrators to trial. Whether this is a convincing argument, considering the purpose of the court and the ICC system has yet to be seen. As such, this article presents an analysis of the crime of aggression against the background of international legal discourses on the chequered history, relevance and effectiveness of its codification and enactment into the Rome Statute. Building on the evidence in literature, the paper demonstrates that the current literal text of the definition cannot be expanded to include non-state actors and quasi-state entities that do not necessarily possess state-like characteristics yet have the capacity to commit the crime. Re-characterisation of the definition and jurisdictional threshold of the crime, in particular, the material elements, requirements and specifications for ‘opt in’ and ‘opt out’ of state parties are imperative to making the codification of the crime more effective. In turn, the prospects of successful prosecution of perpetrators will be more likely.
The International Criminal Court at its inception was touted to be the international community’s means of bringing the perpetrators of the world’s most heinous crimes- genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes (and now also the crime of aggression) – to justice. Following the operation of earlier ad hoc tribunals set up by the United Nations (UN) Security Council in the aftermath of the atrocities committed in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda in the 1990, the international community, having witnessed the efficacy of international justice, set about establishing a permanent ‘world court’ from which no criminal, irrespective of political power or status could hide. Flash-forward to the present, however, and the dream of the ICC, for many, is woefully unrealised. The ICC has been tried repeatedly in the court of public opinion and has been found wanting. Discussions of its effectiveness, or lack thereof, in delivering justice to victims and being a deterrent for the commission of international crimes consistently reference its limited number of convictions, high cost and lack of an independent enforcement mechanism among its weaknesses. This article discusses the ICC’s ongoing case against Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi, who was once hailed as the heir apparent of controversial Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. It discusses the legal arguments in favour and against the ICC apprehending and prosecuting Gaddafi, whose continued evasion – with the help of Libyan authorities – of the court has been described as a glaring display of its impotence. Specific focus is given to the complementarity principle as applied by the ICC in determining the admissibility of the case, and whether recent developments in Libya have effect on the Courts claim of admissibility.
This book review presents an overview of Ulrich Haas’ and Deborah Healey’s Doping in Sport and the Law. The book includes multiple essays which are grouped into five parts, with themes of the WADA and its evolution, the effect of WADA on athletes, procedural questions regarding the regulations and the obligations of the code and its governance.
This book review presents an overview of Marta Iljadica’s book, Copyright Beyond Law: Regulating Creativity in the Graffiti Subculture. Through a legal and empirical analysis, the author presents a well researched and thought provoking insight into graffiti culture, its subculture and the codes of conduct in the context of copyright law.