Your search

<p>In the wake of the global Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, a rise in creditorinitiated winding-up proceedings is likely to be impending in coming years (See e.g., RCMA Asia Pte. Ltd. v. Sun Electric Power Pte. Ltd. [2020] SGHC 205). At the same time, geopolitical developments, such as the scale and ambition of Belt &amp; Road Initiative projects, have raised questions over the issue of debt sustainability. Given the prevalence of arbitration clauses in modern international commercial and project agreements, the interplay and relationship between insolvency and dispute resolution, and especially arbitration, requires careful attention. While the intersections between the arbitration and insolvency regimes are numerous and multi-faceted, (Jennifer Permesly et al. ‘IBA Toolkit on Insolvency and Arbitration’ International Bar Association (March 2021), www.ibanet.org/LPD/Dispute_Resolution_Section/ Arbitration/toolkit-arbitration-insolvency.aspx (accessed 18 April 2021) the impact of an arbitration clause on winding-up petitions has attracted recent case law. The English, Hong Kong, and Singapore courts have each taken differing approaches to the question of how to deal with winding-up petitions presented over disputed debts that are subject to an arbitration clause. On one end of the spectrum, the Hong Kong courts currently appear to prefer a relatively more creditor-friendly approach. On the other hand, the Singapore Court of Appeal recently laid down a relatively more debtor-friendly approach. Undertaking a comparative analysis of the approaches taken by different common law jurisdiction, this article argues that the Singapore Court of Appeal’s approach is preferable. However, at least for courts in United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law jurisdictions (or jurisdictions where the mandatory stay regime of the Model Law is adopted), they ought to find that a disputed debt subject to an arbitration clause falls within the scope of the mandatory stay regime under the Model Law. This article further suggests a possible way in which the approach of the Singapore Court of Appeal can be reconciled with the mandatory stay regime under Singapore’s enactment of the Model Law.<br></p>

"This book provides an extensive account of the origins and evolution of the general anti-avoidance rule (GAAR), and offers a comprehensive examination and appraisal of the rule. The book's 28 chapters encompass a wide variety of perspectives on the GAAR; contributors include tax practitioners, academics from around the world, and government officials from the Canada Revenue Agency and the Department of Justice, as well as the former Supreme Court of Canada justice who wrote the reasons for judgment in the leading GAAR case. The book, unique in the thoroughness of its approach and the diversity of its points of view, is intended as the go-to source for government officials, tax professionals, academics, and judges--a reference book covering all aspects of the GAAR: its historical background, its major structural features and shortcomings, the evolution of the case law dealing with the GAAR, and the interpretive issues that continue to cause uncertainty."-- Provided by publisher.

Do states have a duty to assimilate refugees to their own citizens? Are refugees entitled to freedom of movement, to be allowed to work, to have access to public welfare programs, or to be reunited with family members? Indeed, is there even a duty to admit refugees at all? This fundamentally rewritten second edition of the award-winning treatise presents the only comprehensive analysis of the human rights of refugees set by the UN Refugee Convention and international human rights law. It follows the refugee's journey from flight to solution, examining every rights issue both historically and by reference to the decisions of senior courts from around the world. Nor is this a purely doctrinal book: Hathaway's incisive legal analysis is tested against and applied to hundreds of protection challenges around the world, ensuring the relevance of this book's analysis to responding to the hard facts of refugee life on the ground.

This chapter explores customary refugee law. Refugee law is primarily treaty law. However, many of the major refugee-receiving countries are not parties to either the Refugee Convention or the Refugee Protocol, for example Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Iran, Jordan, and Lebanon. Hence, customary international refugee law can be critically important in the identification of key principles of refugee protection and as an indication of what is permitted or not. While customary international law may not play as significant a role in refugee law as it does in other areas of international law, there are at least three practices of refugee protection aimed at safeguarding access and admission to refugee protection for which varying degrees of agreement exist in favour of a rule (or emerging rule) of customary law: non-refoulement, temporary refuge, and the right to be granted (to receive) asylum. These practices are deeply intertwined in their humanitarian purpose.

Rendered in December 2019, the Vavilov decision sets the contemporary analytical framework for the judicial review of an administrative decision on the merits. On this occasion, the Supreme Court expressed the desire to add a certain degree of certainty and consistency to this field of law. This article focuses on the new approach’s propensity to achieve that goal. The analysis begins with the observation that there exists a connection between the instability that has historically characterized the law of judicial review and the failure of previous approaches to adequately guide reviewing courts in the fulfillment of their mission, which consists of balancing the rule of law and legislative supremacy. In light of earlier case law, the author concludes that the Vavilov decision offers the prospect of greater certainty in determining the applicable standard of review, but that the risk of instability remains with respect to the application of the reasonableness standard. Indeed, while the Supreme Court’s guidance in this regard generally reflects a concern to alleviate the tension underlying the relationship between rule of law and legislative supremacy principles, some of the majority justices’ assertions, namely that certain statutory provisions “relating to the scope of a decision maker’s authority” may involve only one interpretation, may weaken the self-discipline of reviewing courts on which judicial deference is based.

"Legislated impact assessment requirements were first introduced over fifty years ago with the National Environmental Policy Act in the United States and have since spread to over a hundred and fifty jurisdictions around the world. The details have varied widely, reflecting the global diversity of socio-ecological and governance systems and associated issues, traditions, capacities, ambitions, and power structures. In 2015, Canada embarked on a task that no other country has attempted in recent years: fundamentally reconsidering how best to tackle environmental assessment. This review and revision process ended with the passage of the Impact Assessment Act (IAA) in 2019. The Next Generation of Impact Assessment explores the evolution of the Canadian assessment process and evaluates the effectiveness of the IAA."-- Provided by publisher.

"Legislated impact assessment requirements were first introduced over fifty years ago with the National Environmental Policy Act in the United States and have since spread to over a hundred and fifty jurisdictions around the world. The details have varied widely, reflecting the global diversity of socio-ecological and governance systems and associated issues, traditions, capacities, ambitions, and power structures. In 2015, Canada embarked on a task that no other country has attempted in recent years: fundamentally reconsidering how best to tackle environmental assessment. This review and revision process ended with the passage of the Impact Assessment Act (IAA) in 2019. The Next Generation of Impact Assessment explores the evolution of the Canadian assessment process and evaluates the effectiveness of the IAA."-- Provided by publisher.

Is sexual assault: (1) sexual abuse; (2) a sexual affair; (3) a youthful indiscretion; (4) a deviance; or (5) none of the above? It is not always easy to navigate the issue of sexual violence. In a society marked by rape culture, unconscious biases can lead us to euphemize, romanticize, eroticize, excuse, and even encourage sexual violence. This article offers a linguistic perspective on sexual violence by examining the biases, stereotypes, and myths about rape that permeate legal discourse. We discuss terms that trivialize sexual violence, such as “sexual abuse,” “stealing a kiss,” “fondling,” and “misconduct.” We also analyze victim-blaming language, sexist expressions that betray a view of rape as a “loss of control,” the unseen presence of violent men, and the shifting nature and pathologizing of perpetrators. By examining rape culture specifically from the perspective of language or discourse, we provide lawyers with new tools to advance the fight against violence towards women.