Explore the vast range of titles available.

The Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 empowers staff in secure colleges to subject young people in custody to dangerous force for the purpose of ensuring 'good order and discipline'. The use of force to restrain young people in custody can cause serious physical injury, profound psychological damage and has contributed to the custodial deaths of two young people in 2004. Despite these dangers, in most youth custodial establishments the use of force remains high and has been increasing. The 2015 Act will further legitimise the use of coercive violence against vulnerable children, consequently sustaining the power imbalance between children and adults, diminishing the special status of childhood and violating the child's human rights. This comment considers the effectiveness of using force and argues that the deliberate infliction of pain should only be used as a last resort and exclusively to prevent harm to the child or others.

This paper critically examines the role of law in promoting economic development and argues that the most influential ‘law and development’ agenda—the World Bank Doing Business (DB) project—is not fit for purpose and should be replaced. The paper argues that the DB project and associated rankings embody a set of ideological and technical preferences whose relationship with economic development is at best uncertain. Context and cultural sensitivity are all important in the ‘real’ world and reducing complicated matters to a single ranking is not compatible with bringing about genuine improvements in the legal framework for doing business.

This paper considers whether UK corporate insolvency law and the UK Insolvency Act 1986 have extra-territorial effect post-Brexit, and whether – and to what extent – it is for the courts or the legislature to extend any extra-territorial effect. It does not deal with ‘inward recognition’, ie the recognition of foreign judgments and orders in the UK. Brexit has left something of a vacuum and provisions which might otherwise have applied extra-territorially, at least within the EU, may now have been deprived completely of extra-territorial effect. But all is not lost and Brexit here presents opportunities. There is room for clarifying that particular provisions which might otherwise have discriminated between EU application and application vis-à-vis the rest of the world can now be given a uniform global interpretation. Courts should, however, proceed incrementally in extending the extra-territorial scope of UK corporate insolvency law. A bolder reform would be to enact legislation that specifies the exact extent to which the UK Insolvency Act applies extra-territorially. Legislation obviously depends on parliamentary time and requires detailed drafting but also provides the opportunity for the UK to showcase that it remains at the forefront of international insolvency developments.

BANKRUPTCY forum shopping, it appears, is a popular pastime in the United States particularly in reorganisation cases under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. \"Forum shopping\" may be defined as a Chapter 11 filing in a court other than that which serves the location of the company's head office.1 In the US, there are a number of jurisdictional hooks and a large company has more or less free rein in terms of the venue for filing a case under the Bankruptcy Code. Manhattan and Delaware have become popular as shopping venues. On the other hand, bankruptcy law in the US is federal law and there should not be any difference in substantive law depending on the court in which the case is filed.

This paper critically evaluates ‘forum shopping’ possibilities offered by the UK and US in bankruptcy/insolvency cases. While recognizing that in some quarters forum shopping has a bad name, the paper makes the point that strategic manoeuvring and transaction planning is what litigation and case management is all about. Certain countries are popular as forum shopping venues because of substantive law or the procedural advantages brought about by litigating in that country. The paper concludes that while the UK may have shut its doors too firmly against foreign forum shoppers, the US is too much a safe haven. The paper calls for a measure of jurisdictional restraint through raising entry barriers. While a bit of jurisdictional competition in insolvency law-making may be no bad thing, the US approach runs the risk of undermining important policies considered important by other countries such as the protection of employees and the public purse. It is also asymmetrical in that US bankruptcy jurisdiction is assumed in situations where, if foreign countries had acted on a similar basis, US recognition of the foreign proceedings would be denied.

This paper addresses how the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross‐Border Insolvency has been implemented and interpreted in the US and the UK. The Model Law has attained a measure of international acceptance and is intended to achieve greater efficiencies in the administration of insolvency cases with transnational dimensions. But different manners of implementation in different countries and differing interpretations may hinder the prospects for harmonisation and coordination of laws. The paper will address in particular whether US interpretations differ from those in the UK and whether the US decisions are so infused with ‘American exceptionalism’ that they cannot be relied upon as sure guides in other countries.

This paper focuses critically on European conflicts and insolvency law – examining and evaluating the relationship between the Jurisdiction and Judgments Regulation and the Insolvency Regulation. The Regulations are founded on the notion of judicial cooperation in civil matters linked to maintaining and developing an area of freedom, security and justice. The paper asks whether these high-minded ideals have been achieved in practice. It also asks whether the recent recasting of the Jurisdiction and Judgments Regulation, and the proposals for revision of the Insolvency Regulation will improve the situation. The paper concludes that the ideals have not quite been achieved and the reform proposals provide only a partial solution.

Given the increasing prevalence of autism and the importance of early intervention, it is imperative that primary care physicians (PCPs) have a thorough knowledge of autism in order to offer families appropriate guidance and support. This study comprised a systematic review of research assessing PCPs’ knowledge of autism and evidence-based interventions for individuals with autism. Results indicated that PCPs in a majority of studies had inadequate knowledge of autism and its associated treatments. A variety of variables were associated with PCPs’ knowledge including personal experiences with autism, continuing medical education on autism, and years of clinical experience. Results are discussed with regard to their implications for further education in autism for PCPs and future research.

The UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (\"Model Law\") was conceived with the aim of providing a framework for states to obtain consistency in the recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings and granting relief in aid of the foreign courts. The Model Law has achieved moderate success internationally and four states in the Asia-Pacific, namely Australia, Singapore, Japan, and Korea, have enacted legislation based on the Model Law. Scholars agree on the importance of consistent implementation of the Model Law in managing cross-border insolvency to achieve quick, certain, and predictable outcomes. However, the Model Law's aims have not been completely met and existing accounts point to two reasons for why there is a lack of complete harmonization. First, states have not fully implemented the Model Law in their domestic law. Second, states' judiciaries have not consistently interpreted their legislation enacting the Model Law. This lack of harmony is reflected in the fact that UNCITRAL recently felt the need to promulgate a supplemental Model Law on Recognition and Enforcement of Insolvency-Related Judgments. In this Article, we examine the divergent implementation strategies of the Model Law in Australia, Singapore, Japan, and Korea, and explain the reasons for the divergence. In the case of Japan and Korea, legal origins have been put forward as a reason for the divergence; as these two jurisdictions are not based on common law, they require greater local modification to assure the Model Law will fit into their legal systems. However, we argue legal origins are insufficient reasons for the lack of uniformity. Instead, we argue that where states, like Australia and Singapore, are shifting from a moderately territorialist approach with cross-border insolvency to the modified universalist approach as envisaged by the Model Law, they are more likely to fully implement the Model Law. Where States start from an exclusively territorialist approach (such as in Japan and Korea), they are likely to recognize foreign insolvency proceedings as a broad signal of their international commitment towards adopting global norms, but would demand changes to allow for some room to depart from all of the consequences of recognition of foreign proceedings, even in situations where there may be no real impediment for the implementation of Model Law. However, in Korea, there are signs that judicial attitudes are changing as the judiciary sees the benefits of the Model Law in cooperation and communication, and there may be a greater chance of implementation. Our study illustrates the limitations of achieving the objectives of the Model Law. We argue that when determining the strategies for uniform implementation of UNCITRAL, in the context of \"soft law,\" we should take into account the importance of the signaling effect and path dependency of the countries, which will have implications for other jurisdictions considering the adoption of the Model Law or the supplementary Model Law on insolvency-related judgments.

This article provides a critical evaluation of the main provisions of the UNCITRAL Legislative Guide on Secured Transactions. It examines the Guide in the context of other international and national secured transactions instruments including article 9 of the United States Uniform Commercial Code. The clear objective of the Guide is to facilitate secured financing. It is very facilitating and enabling, and permits the creation of security in all sorts of situations. Security is seen as a good thing, through enhancing the availability of lower-cost credit. The paper suggests that this closeness in approach to article 9 is likely to militate against the prospects of the Guide gaining widespread international acceptance. This is the case for various interlocking reasons including the battering that American legal and financial norms have taken with the global financial crisis.