Open Research Repository
The Open Research Repository is the University’s online open access repository for collecting, maintaining and disseminating the scholarly output of the University.
Contribute to the Open Research Repository
Communities in DSpace
Select a community to browse its collections.
Recent Submissions
Problems of Contractual Interpretation: English and French Law Compared
(Lloyd's List Intelligence, 2020) Rowan, Solene
This article undertakes a comparative analysis of some problematic aspects of contractual interpretation in England and France. It considers the aspects of interpretation that have been contentious in English law, how French courts deal with them and the extent to which they have been similarly contentious in France. It then looks at the aspects of interpretation that have given rise to diffi culties in French law and conducts a comparison with English law. The article seeks to show that, whilst English and French law share many similarities, quite different aspects of the law of interpretation have attracted the attention of the courts and commentators in the two jurisdictions. It explains these differences and the contrasting policy choices made in each system. Drawing comparison with France is particularly topical, because French contract law has recently been the subject of sweeping reforms.
Who is Afraid of the Crime of Aggression?
(British Academy and Oxford University Press, 2021) Heller, Kevin
There is no question that deterring the illegal use of force is a noble goal. Unfortunately, the crime of aggression, heralded as a major accomplishment when adopted by the Assembly of States Parties, is but a pale shadow of the kind of criminal prohibition that might have convinced would-be aggressors that they will be held accountable for their belligerent acts. Instead, as this article explains, the crime of aggression at the International Criminal Court is so jurisdictionally narrow, so substantively limited, and so unlikely to promote domestic prosecutions that its deterrent value is essentially non-existent. Moreover, danger abounds in the very act of activation — the danger that victims (state and individual) might assume that the era of impunity for aggression is coming to an end. Nothing could be further from truth
China and the international multilateral human rights system
(Edward Elgar Publishing, 2019) Kent, Ann E; Sarah Biddulph; Joshua Rosenzweig
China’s involvement with international human rights institutions has, since 2008, moved beyond its earlier position combining rhetorical and procedural compliance, selective domestic legislative change and an emphasis on specific international human rights norms, such as the right to development, to policies and procedural strategies that undermine the very warp and weft of the international human rights system. It is challenging fundamental international norms and procedures such as the international rule of law, the principles of universality and consensus and the right and responsibility of international organizations to set standards and monitor states' compliance with them. It is also encouraging other states to defect from these universal norms in favor of individual state preference. Precisely because these fundamental international organizational norms, ideals and procedures are so critical to the authority, legitimacy and effectiveness of international human rights institutions, China’s general normlessness and strategic diplomacy arguably represent their greatest threat. The current US challenge to international human rights, moreover, has only encouraged and legitimized China's stance.
In Defense of Pure Sovereignty in Cyberspace
(Stockton Center for the Study of International Law, 2021) Heller, Kevin
States currently endorse three different positions concerning the international wrongfulness of cyber operations that penetrate computer systems located on the territory of another state but do not rise to the level of a use of force or prohibited intervention. The first position is that such low-intensity cyber operations are never wrongful, because sovereignty is a principle of international law, not a primary rule that can be independently violated. The second is that low-intensity cyber operations are always wrongful, because sovereignty is a primary rule of international law that is violated by any non-consensual penetration of a computer system located on the territory of another state – what has been called the “pure sovereigntist” approach. And the third position is that although sovereignty is a primary rule of international law, low-intensity cyber operations are internationally wrongful only insofar as they cause some kind of physical damage to the territorial state or render its cyber-infrastructure inoperable – what has been called the “relative sovereigntist” approach. This article provides a comprehensive analysis of these three positions on low-intensity cyber operations. It begins by discussing why sovereignty is a primary rule of international law, not simply a principle from which specific primary rules can be derived. It then argues that the pure-sovereigntist position has a stronger foundation in general international law than the relative-sovereigntist position. And finally, it explains why a variety of policy considerations favor pure sovereignty over either sovereignty as a principle or relative sovereignty.
What would Allan think?
(Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2023) Medcalf, Rory
What would Allan think? Allan Gyngell was a superlative analyst, adviser, leader, diplomat, mentor, friend and Australian. He was also an indispensable presence in this country’s foreign policy debate. This leaves his loss all the more wrenching. But for many of us, I am sure he will never be truly gone. He’s the only colleague and boss I’ve known whose perspective was always present. Many is the time, the decision, the questionable analytic judgement, where I’d find myself wondering ‘what would Allan think?’ I hope I always will.