Next Issue
Volume 9, December
Previous Issue
Volume 9, June
 
 

Laws, Volume 9, Issue 3 (September 2020) – 5 articles

Cover Story (view full-size image): Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, a receiving state may “at any time and without having to explain its decision” declare any member of a diplomatic staff persona non grata. A person so declared is considered unacceptable and is usually recalled to his or her home nation. If not recalled, the receiving state may refuse to recognize the person concerned as a member of the mission. However, despite the codification of the above rules, which is largely based on pre-existing customary international law, the opportunity for diplomatic protection is not free of issues or controversies. In recent times, unfortunately, there has been a growing tendency amongst diplomats to abuse their diplomatic status. This paper addresses the problem of abuse of immunities and privileges and its adverse implications on the balance between immunities and the duty to respect the local laws and regulations. [...] Read more.
  • Issues are regarded as officially published after their release is announced to the table of contents alert mailing list.
  • You may sign up for e-mail alerts to receive table of contents of newly released issues.
  • PDF is the official format for papers published in both, html and pdf forms. To view the papers in pdf format, click on the "PDF Full-text" link, and use the free Adobe Reader to open them.
Order results
Result details
Section
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
Article
A Study of the Implications of the European Securitisation Regulation 2017/2402 on Malta
Laws 2020, 9(3), 20; https://doi.org/10.3390/laws9030020 - 19 Sep 2020
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 3652
Abstract
A decade ago, the financial world was taken by surprise, when prominent credit institutions filed for bankruptcy. The financial crisis phenomena spurred the need for regulating Securitisation and enhancing the capital requirements framework. In response, the Basel Committee initiated the regulatory treatment for [...] Read more.
A decade ago, the financial world was taken by surprise, when prominent credit institutions filed for bankruptcy. The financial crisis phenomena spurred the need for regulating Securitisation and enhancing the capital requirements framework. In response, the Basel Committee initiated the regulatory treatment for the Simple Transparent and Comparable Securitisation (STC Securitisation), the USA passed the Dodd–Frank Act and the EU introduced Securitisation Regulation No. 2017/2402 to address the causes and failures, which were identified, following the aftermath of this financial crisis. With this article, we aim to analyse the main provisions of the Regulation No. 2017/2402 on Malta as a jurisdiction for securitisation and provide an insight on the prospective market development. To reach our aim we analysed scholarly documentation (academic chapters, journals, articles and monographs), rules, guidelines, recommendations, directives and regulations and use the case study methodology, as suggested by Yin (2003) and Yazan (2015), on Malta. In our opinion, recently, Malta has made significant improvements in the securitisation sector, mostly evidenced by the introduction of the legislation. All interviewees emphasised that Malta has substantial opportunities for further growth in the securitisation market and it is encouraged to be exploited well. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Securitization and Financial Innovation in a Post Crisis World)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Article
The UK Government’s Covid-19 Response and Article 2 of the ECHR (Title I Dignity; Right to Life, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU)
Laws 2020, 9(3), 19; https://doi.org/10.3390/laws9030019 - 31 Aug 2020
Cited by 3 | Viewed by 6075
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to assess the impact of the UK government’s response to the Covid-19 outbreak from a human rights perspective, particularly its apparent tension with Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in relation to non-Covid-19 [...] Read more.
The purpose of this article is to assess the impact of the UK government’s response to the Covid-19 outbreak from a human rights perspective, particularly its apparent tension with Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in relation to non-Covid-19 patients whose lives were put at risk by not being able to attend appointments and treatments for pre-existing conditions and illnesses. The UK has also rejected the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union with the European Union Withdrawal Act 2018, which will leave the population even more exposed to potential human rights violations. This seems to be a direct consequence of the narrative and slogan employed by the government: “Stay Home; Protect the NHS; Save Lives”. Other potentially threatened categories, the NHS staff and prisoners are also mentioned in the same context. The latter have already launched a judicial review application along the same lines: Article 2 of the ECHR and the due regard duty stemming from the Equality Act 2010. The NHS staff were directly at risk, and evidence was emerging almost on a daily basis that implied authorities’ responsibility for the shortage of personal protective equipment and testing kits. While there have been a number of discussions on other issues in relation to the lockdown and the strategy directly or indirectly impacting human rights, it appears that no discussion on the impact of the strategy for non-Covid-19 patients and other categories from a human rights perspective has taken place. This gap in analyses and literature merits the present analysis. Full article
Article
The Obligation of Diplomats to Respect the Laws and Regulations of the Hosting State: A Critical Overview of the International Practices
Laws 2020, 9(3), 18; https://doi.org/10.3390/laws9030018 - 30 Aug 2020
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 15388
Abstract
Under Article 9 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, a receiving state may “at any time and without having to explain its decision” declare any member of a diplomatic staff persona non grata. A person so declared is considered unacceptable and [...] Read more.
Under Article 9 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, a receiving state may “at any time and without having to explain its decision” declare any member of a diplomatic staff persona non grata. A person so declared is considered unacceptable and is usually recalled to his or her home nation. If not recalled, the receiving state “may refuse to recognize the person concerned as a member of the mission.” However, despite the codification of the above rules, which is largely based on pre-existing customary international law, the opportunity for diplomatic protection is not free of issues and controversies. In recent times, unfortunately, there has been a growing tendency amongst diplomats to abuse their diplomatic status, in order to commit acts prohibited by law and claim immunity from the legal process. This paper addresses the problem of abuse of immunities and privileges and its adverse implications on the balance between immunities and the duty to respect the local laws and regulations. We analyze several past cases of declaration of persona non grata involving various countries. Full article
Article
No Passport Required: Crossing Interdisciplinary Borders in an Australian Legal Clinic
Laws 2020, 9(3), 17; https://doi.org/10.3390/laws9030017 - 29 Jul 2020
Viewed by 3648
Abstract
How can disparate professions better collaborate in a legal clinic environment to improve the health and wellbeing, legal and social outcomes for patients/clients? In this paper, we explore how an intentional blurring of the boundaries between the health and legal professions in practice—between [...] Read more.
How can disparate professions better collaborate in a legal clinic environment to improve the health and wellbeing, legal and social outcomes for patients/clients? In this paper, we explore how an intentional blurring of the boundaries between the health and legal professions in practice—between lawyers, general practitioners and psychologists, in particular—in the context of clinical legal education may result in better patient/client outcomes. We find that direct interdisciplinary professional referrals for patient/clients within a legal clinic environment can promote effective and timely therapeutic interventions for those with complex and interrelated legal and health problems. Drawing upon the literature around cross-disciplinary professional client referrals and two client case studies from a health–justice legal clinic environment in which doctors, psychologists and lawyers personally cross-refer patients with legal and health problems, we recommend some steps to break down the interdisciplinary borders so as to improve access to justice and health outcomes for vulnerable clients. Full article
Editorial
Postscript: Feminist Legal Theory in the 21st Century
Laws 2020, 9(3), 16; https://doi.org/10.3390/laws9030016 - 21 Jul 2020
Cited by 2 | Viewed by 4276
Abstract
This editorial takes the form of a short postscript to a special issue of Laws published in 2019–20. It shows how feminist legal theory (FLT), a corollary of second wave feminism, was initially embraced by law schools but soon subjected to a backlash. [...] Read more.
This editorial takes the form of a short postscript to a special issue of Laws published in 2019–20. It shows how feminist legal theory (FLT), a corollary of second wave feminism, was initially embraced by law schools but soon subjected to a backlash. FLT was nevertheless able to turn around the negative discourse of post-feminism to show that the “post” can mean not just the end but a new beginning. The Special Issue attests to the resurgence of FLT in the 21st century. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Feminist Legal Theory in the 21st Century)
Previous Issue
Next Issue
Back to TopTop