Explore the vast range of titles available.

Globalization has effectively enabled Canada’s domestically incorporated mining companies to escape the jurisdiction of the courts of the world, allowing them to carry out human rights abuses abroad with impunity. In February 2020, however, the Supreme Court of Canada issued a landmark judgment, Nevsun Resources Ltd v Araya, which attempted to address this jurisdictional gap. This decision held that Canadian corporations could potentially be liable under domestic law for breaches of customary international law perpetrated abroad. The decision has been criticized for straying too far from a classically positivist conception of international law. This article argues that such criticisms are well founded insofar as the majority’s judgment implicitly relies on progressive human-centric theories of international law without adequately addressing how these are reconcilable with international law as it is currently applied. It then explores the ideas that drive the majority’s opinion in order to propose two alternative approaches to holding corporations accountable that are more readily reconcilable with traditional state-centric conceptions of international law. Adopting these revised approaches could less contentiously lead to corporate accountability before future domestic courts. Finally, this article considers the potential international developments and repercussions to which this and other forward-looking decisions could lead.

The practice of arbitrators and counsel in investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) cases simultaneously playing both roles — known as “double-hatting” — has been the subject of much controversy in recent debates on ISDS reform, notably, at the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law’s (UNCITRAL) Working Group III where a Draft Code of Conduct for Adjudicators in International Investment Disputes is under discussion. While Canada has been less than consistent in its approaches to ISDS in recent international investment agreements (IIAs), its position against double-hatting has been rather constant. This article explores whether this stance reveals a commitment on the part of Canada towards increased judicialization of ISDS or reflects a “flavour of the month” reform likely to change with differing IIAs and negotiating partners. Analysis of Canada’s recent IIA practices, including its model Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement, released in May 2021, and the positions it has taken at UNCITRAL’s Working Group III, lead the author to conclude that Canada appears committed to increased judicialization of ISDS in the long run.

Haunani-Kay Trask encapsulated the essence of this Comment when she wrote: Despite American territorial and economic control of Hawai'i since 1900, Hawaiians are not Americans. Nor are we Europeans or Asians. We are not from the Pacific Rim, nor are we immigrants to the Pacific. We are the children of Papa – earth mother – and Wākea – sky father – who created the sacred lands of Hawai'i Nei. From these lands came the taro, and from the taro, came the Hawaiian people. As in all of Polynesia, so in Hawai'i. Younger siblings must care for and honor an elder sibling who, in return, will protect and provide for the younger sibling. Thus, Hawaiians must nourish the land from whence we come. The relationship is more than reciprocal, however, it is familial. The land is our mother, and we are her children. This is the lesson of our genealogy.

Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) are considered as private rights. The governments of the day grant these rights to protect private interest of the creators and authors in respect of their intellectual creations like inventions, designs and literary works. By their very nature, IPRs can be enforced against other private individuals, even though the government also is bound by them, if not totally. The fundamental question that arises is if such private rights could be enforced to advance private interest at the cost of public interest? The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights not only acknowledges the right of authors to protect moral and material interests resulting from any of their scientific, literary, or artistic works, but also emphasises the right to health, including public health, right to education, right to livelihood etc. Constitutionally also it is acknowledged that no right or freedom is absolute, and the State is empowered to curtail them in larger public interest through doctrines like Eminent Domain. However, the creators of the IP also claim that right to own, exploit and be acknowledged as creators, are their constitutionally guaranteed human rights. In this paper, the authors propose to examine whether IPRs can be exercised as human rights or whether they are restrictions on human rights? In the wake of recent COVID-19 pandemic, where there is huge demand for vaccine to treat it, and the clinical trials are going on, the debate regarding right to life versus right to livelihood, compulsory licensing, use of Traditional Knowledge (TK) and Traditional Cultural Expressions (TCEs) for commercial purposes etc., has become significant. This paper seeks to review the jurisprudential foundations of public interest and private rights, relevant position under the international human rights and IPR regime, the position under national laws, and the judicial response to such controversies in select cases. Questions like unjust enrichment, use of powers granted to the governments to ensure a balance between the private or protected interests on one hand, and the public interest on the other hand are examined and certain useful suggestions are given to maintain the much-needed balance.

The exponential development of technology has made mining minerals from the deep sea viable, with almost every nation wanting to lay claim to a portion of these valuable minerals. Deep sea mining is popularly viewed as the solution to dwindling mineral supplies on land. Its proponents argue that deep sea mining does not cause environmental damage through deforestation, toxic waste, carbon emissions or fresh water eutrophication. They also argue that suspending deep sea mining trials would squander the sizeable investment that research, exploration and equipment involved, which would compromise the quantum of current and future funding investors would be willing to contribute. Considering the apparent motive, most countries have to pursue deep sea mineral extraction, and it may be essential to take these arguments with a pinch of salt. According to article 297 of the Indian Constitution, the Union of India possesses exclusive rights to all minerals underlying the ocean within territorial waters and the exclusive economic zone. However, to mine minerals outside these areas, India needs to adhere to the UNCLOS. While the UNCLOS and ISA have been quick to lay down a property right regime to explore and extract deep sea minerals, the question of why these rights should be granted has not been considered. This paper seeks to illustrate the potential cost of mining and extraction on remote marine environments, the absence of merit in the arguments of deep sea mining advocates, and the futility of the present scheme of the ISA while exploring different philosophies of property law.

This paper shall identify and flag up key legal concerns regarding Human Rights Courts in India as provided for by the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (PHRA). To aid the gestalt comprehension, researcher will first study and analyse the concomitant circumstances which prevailed during the birth of PHRA in India. The legislative design including the institutional framework in terms of establishment of the fourth branch institutions, for the protection and promotion of human rights in India, will be scrutinised. In this context, Human Rights Courts will be analysed. Recent Delhi Gazette Notification F.No. 6/13/2011-Judl./Suptlaw/1132-1137 on November 24, 2020 has designated the court of Additional Sessions Judge in each District as Human Rights Court. It is opportune time to look at the legal concerns regarding such courts and need for immediate interventions, if any. The guiding aim of this research paper is to strengthen the institutional framework to effectively protect and promote human rights in India.

Jute, the golden fibre, is a natural plant fibre that has huge economic and social significance in India - in terms of employment generation, cultivation and commercial utility as synthetic substitutes, specially in the wake of the rising environmental concerns across the globe. In the commercial operations, the importance of competition law has huge implications. However, due to very specific characteristics of the jute sector, the implications of the competition laws needs to be analysed from the lens of the economic viability of the sector and social impacts that it may probably cast on nearly 40 lakh families that are dependent on the industry for their survival. In this context, the present paper aims to analyse the importance of competition law and its application on the jute sector and examines the way that the sector has been dealt by the competition authorities in recent times.