Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Off-label drug use exists widely in medical practice and is also an area which easily triggers controversy between patients and medical institutions. Previous studies have identified the reasons why off-label drug use long exists. However, there is no multidimensional analysis on real judicial precedents about off-label drug use. This study aimed to investigate the dispute points on off-label drug use based on real cases in China, and proposed suggestions based on newly-leased Physicians Law. Methods Our study is a retrospective study with all the 35 judicial precedents on off-label drug use extracted from China Judgments Online from 2014 to 2019. This study mainly used the methods of statistical analysis, inferential analysis, exemplification, literature summarization and comparative analysis. Results According to the analysis of the 35 precedents of jurisdictions from 11 different aspects, it can be seen that the second-instance and retrial rates of this kind of cases are high, and the disputes between patients and medical institutions are fierce. In judicial practice of off-label drug use, medical institutions are determined whether to bear civil liability according to the constituent elements of medical tort liability: the rate of medical institutions’ bearing liability for off-label drug use is not high, and medical institutions are not directly identified as infringing acts and they don’t bear tort liability. The clear provisions about off-label drug use in Law of the People’s Republic of China on Physicians which was implemented in March 2022 confirm this at the legislative level. Conclusions By analyzing the current judicial practice of China’s off-label drug use cases, and summarizing the dispute points between medical institution and patients, the constituent elements of tort liability, and the rules of evidence etc., suggestions are proposed to further regulate off-label drug use and promote safe and rational drug use.

This new edition provides a highly practical and comprehensive resource for bankers and lawyers, at all levels of experience, involved in international lending. The author covers the terms of international loan documentation with comprehensive explanations of the purpose of the provisions, and of areas that may require negotiation.

This chapter contains sections titled: Introduction The Rise of Lloyd's and the London Insurance Market The Marine Insurance Market Today Principles of Insurance Law Hull Insurance Cargo Insurance Conditions Summary Notes References

Do international court judgments influence the behavior of actors other than the parties to a dispute? Are international courts agents of policy change or do their judgments merely reflect evolving social and political trends? We develop a theory that specifies the conditions under which international courts can use their interpretive discretion to have system-wide effects. We examine the theory in the context of European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) rulings on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) issues by creating a new data set that matches these rulings with laws in all Council of Europe (CoE) member states. We also collect data on LGBT policies unaffected by ECtHR judgments to control for the confounding effect of evolving trends in national policies. We find that ECtHR judgments against one country substantially increase the probability of national-level policy change across Europe. The marginal effects of the judgments are especially high where public acceptance of sexual minorities is low, but where national courts can rely on ECtHR precedents to invalidate domestic laws or where the government in power is not ideologically opposed to LGBT equality. We conclude by exploring the implications of our findings for other international courts.

Conspiracy jurisdiction is the theory that a defendant may be subject to personal jurisdiction in the forum state based on actions taken in furtherance of a conspiracy. What makes conspiracy jurisdiction unique is that as long as the acts of a co-conspirator were directed at the forum state, other members of the conspiracy may be subject to jurisdiction in the forum state, even if they otherwise lack their own direct contacts. While all personal jurisdiction issues are subject to the Due Process Clause, nowhere else is it so peculiarly implicated - and sometimes sidestepped - as when conspiracy forms the basis for personal jurisdiction. This still-developing gloss on specific jurisdiction has seen increasing but chaotic use in federal and state courts. As a result, and in contrast to the doctrine's increasing use in litigation, scholarship is extremely sparse. This article is the first to offer a comprehensive look at conspiracy jurisdiction's provenance and the complex current state of the law, analyzing the doctrine's varied applications in light of recent Supreme Court authority. Our article relies chiefly on 'Walden v Fiore' and 'Ford v Montana', which influence but do not control the doctrine, to analyze the due process contours of conspiracy jurisdiction and how the doctrine can - and will - survive once the Supreme Court inevitably grants review to resolve an active and jagged circuit split.

A significant milestone was reached with the first three inter-State communications ever submitted to a UN human rights treaty body, namely the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination ('CERD'). These landmark cases involved Qatar's submissions against the United Arab Emirates and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, as well as Palestine's communication against Israel, each claiming racial discrimination. This article analyzes the CERD's recent jurisprudence regarding precedents on procedural conditions. It arrives at four distinctive characteristics of the inter-State communications mechanism before the CERD, collectively resulting in an unprecedented low procedural threshold for its activation. From here it explores the mechanism's potential to enhance the justiciability of human rights abuses amounting to racial discrimination on the universal level. Ultimately, the article calls for greater recognition and utilization of the inter-State communications mechanism before the CERD, particularly in regions lacking functional regional human rights courts or in cases involving States that impede traditional forms of human rights abuse adjudication. Increased utilization could contribute significantly to the development and clarification of substantive and procedural human rights law, while reinforcing the universal and inalienable nature of human rights, transcending national boundaries.

Purpose The purpose of this article is to review the legislation on limitation on cash payment from a comparative perspective with France. This legal provision has been the subject of inconsistency and lack of clarity for the past two decades. Design/methodology/approach This paper uses a doctrinal legal research technique based on an analysis of the law and how it is interpreted in relation to Mauritius's prohibition on cash payments. Section 5 of the FIAMLA 2002 is interpreted in large part by this assessment using legal precedents from the Supreme Court and other Mauritius judicial authorities. France has been chosen as the comparative jurisdiction as it has well-defined legal framework on cash payment limitations in Europe. Findings The Mauritian judiciary has played a far more significant and active role than the French judiciary. A cursory search reveals a dearth of case law concerning the interpretation of the pertinent sections of the French Monetary and Financial Code concerning the prohibition on cash payments. The French legal system places more emphasis on the kinds of transactions that are exempt, whereas the Mauritius system places more attention on the entities that are exempt, such as banks and other financial organisations. Originality/value This paper fills in the gap that exists on legal interpretation of legislation on limitation on payment by cash in Mauritius. It originally contributes to legal literature on money laundering by undertaking a comparison between Mauritius and France for the benefits of students and researchers around the world.

Objetivo: Este estudo tem como objetivo analisar a autoridade do Conselho Ulema da Indonésia (MUI) no fornecimento de garantias de rótulo halal após a implementação da Lei Número 33 de 2014 relativa a Garantias para Produtos Halal. Enquadramento teórico: A investigação emprega uma abordagem jurídica normativa, utilizando dados de regulamentos estatutários, decisões judiciais e literatura jurídica para avaliar a situação jurídica do MUI pósimplementação da Lei Número 33 de 2014. Resultados e discussão: As conclusões revelam que, apesar das alterações introduzidas pela lei, a autoridade do MUI permanece pertinente e aplicável. O MUI desempenha um papel crucial na emissão de fatwas e recomendações sobre o estatuto halal dos produtos, complementando as responsabilidades das agências governamentais na certificação halal. A lei delineia limites específicos para a jurisdição do MUI, enfatizando a colaboração com órgãos governamentais e organizações afiliadas para certificação e rotulagem eficazes de produtos halal. Método: Esta pesquisa adota uma metodologia jurídica normativa, analisando textos legais, precedentes judiciais e trabalhos acadêmicos para avaliar a continuidade e o alcance da autoridade do MUI pós-Lei número 33 de 2014. Originalidade/valor: Este estudo contribui ao delinear a evolução da autoridade do MUI no contexto da certificação halal pré e pós-Lei Número 33 de 2014. Ele destaca a transição do MUI de autoridade única para parceiro colaborativo na certificação de produtos halal, ressaltando a importância da certificação halal para os consumidores, conformidade regulatória e princípios religiosos.

This paper offers a comparative analysis of gubernatorial roles in university governance across India and Canada, highlighting the constitutional, statutory, and institutional frameworks that shape their influence. In India, Governors often serve as ex-officio Chancellors of state universities, wielding significant administrative authority over appointments, statutes, and oversight. This dual role-constitutional head and statutory executive-has led to tensions between academic autonomy and political oversight, especially in oppositionruled states. In contrast, Canadian universities operate under provincial jurisdiction with governance structures that emphasize institutional autonomy. Chancellors in Canada are largely ceremonial, with operational authority vested in boards and senates. Drawing on commission reports, judicial precedents, and legislative reforms, the study examines how each system balances autonomy, accountability, and federal principles. It argues that India's model requires urgent recalibration to align with democratic norms and global best practices, while Canada's decentralized approach offers valuable lessons in preserving academic freedom. The paper concludes by proposing normative reforms to reimagine the Governor's role as a constitutional steward rather than an administrative authority in higher education.

The primary aim of this research is to evaluate the imperative need for the establishment of a dedicated judicial body to address electoral disputes in Indonesia, particularly in light of the imminent concurrent elections scheduled for 2024 and the limited jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court in adjudicating such matters. This study employs normative legal research methodologies, incorporating legislative analysis, scrutiny of judicial precedents, and a comparative law framework as its principal approach. Uruguay serves as a pertinent comparative reference within the contextual parameters of this inquiry. The research findings unequivocally indicate the indispensability of instituting a specialized court for regional head elections, as mandated by Constitutional Court Decision Number 97/PUU-XI/2013. This imperative is substantiated by a series of legal arguments, namely: (a) the constrictive nature of the law's mandate. (b) the Constitutional Court's role as a constitutional enforcement institution rather than a court of justice, (c) the absence of an appellate process, contravening fundamental principles inherent to the electoral law system, (d) the quantitative approach to dispute resolution, impeding the attainment of justice, and (e) the presence of a distinct judicial system, engendering uncertainty and impeding the realization of justice, certainty, and expediency within the election legal framework. The establishment of specialized courts for regional head elections in Indonesia is analogous to the implementation of analogous courts in Uruguay and Costa Rica. In both jurisdictions, specialized election courts function as distinct entities, operating autonomously from the conventional judicial powers vested in the Supreme Court or the Constitutional Court.