interpretation – University of Bristol Law School Blog

The unbearable lightness of being in the public interest

Posted on July 8, 2024July 4, 2024 by foluke.adebisi

by John Coggon, Professor of Law, University of Bristol Law School

The public interest has no single, fixed definition. Even as a technical term of art its sense varies both for being context dependent and for being a question that may be settled by different sorts of institutional actor. It may, for instance, demand consideration of national security, national economic interest, protection of health, maintenance of a justice system, protection of fundamental rights. And determinations may be made by courts, politicians, legislators, executive agencies, and so on. Each can and will bring different forms and ranges of consideration to the process of determining what the public interest demands, and whether those demands are compelling. (more…)

The Public Interest, Law, and Regulation: Clear, Consistent, and Coherent Relationships?

Posted on July 1, 2024June 27, 2024 by foluke.adebisi

by John Coggon, Edward Kirton-Darling, Margherita Pieraccini, Albert Sanchez-Graells, University of Bristol Law School

*Rick Payne and team / Better Images of AI / Ai is… Banner / CC-BY 4.0*

Widely in legal education, research, and practice, and across different areas of legal jurisdiction, law is a discipline that is characterised by its sharp division into sub-disciplines. With this division comes super-specialisation. That specialisation has the effect of inviting in-depth focus on discrete areas of law and regulation, without claims to expertise or application across the whole. At the same time, though, there are some basic legal concepts and phenomena that span the different ways that we might carve up the legal system. One, of course, is the concept of law itself. And there is a diversity of others, such as rights, duties, enforceability, and burdens of proof. A significant concept on that list is the public interest: a consequential aspect of law and regulation in practice and legal analysis. (more…)

Why is entering into multiple procurement-related free trade agreements problematic?

Posted on June 20, 2022June 15, 2022 by foluke.adebisi

by Albert Sanchez-Graells, Professor of Economic Law and Co-Director of the Centre for Global Law and Innovation

*Banana stem cross section. Photo Credit: Ian Jacobs*

Post-Brexit, the UK has been repositioning itself in the global trade scene. Focusing on trade-related public procurement liberalisation, the first two moves for the UK were: one, to join the World Trade Agreement Government Procurement Agreement (GPA), of which it had been a member via the EU, and two, to enter into a comprehensive procurement chapter with the EU in the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA). As a result of these two moves, the UK largely consolidated the pre-Brexit status quo and ensured continuity in market access for UK suppliers abroad, as well as foreign suppliers in the UK.

The next move is now for the UK to expand procurement-related trade liberalisation via free trade agreements (FTAs), of which it has signed one with Australia and another with New Zealand. The UK is also seeking accession to other multilateral FTAs covering procurement, such as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). Interestingly, both Australia and New Zealand are parties to the GPA and to the CPTPP, so the UK is about to create a triple layer of regulation of procurement liberalisation with these two countries, as all relevant procurement exercises will be subjected to the GPA, the CPTPP and the FTAs. Is this a problematic strategy? (more…)

New Challenges for European Comparative Law

Posted on July 10, 2017July 4, 2017 by legalresearch

By Dr Jule Mulder, Lecturer in Law (University of Bristol Law School).

Dr Jule Mulder has published an article on European comparative law methodology entitled New Challenges for European Comparative Law: The Judicial Reception of EU Non-Discrimination Law and a turn to a Multilayered Culturally-informed Comparative Law Method for a better Understanding of the EU Harmonization.[1] This article argues that comparative law needs to explore its critical potential when engaging with the European harmonization process and its effects on the law of the Member States. (more…)

Conflicting jurisdiction and arbitration agreements: Exmek Pharmaceuticals SAC v Alkem Laboratories Ltd

Posted on April 25, 2016April 12, 2016 by legalresearch

By Prof Jonathan Hill, Professor of Law (University of Bristol Law School).

A previous blog addressed certain problems surrounding the interpretation of arbitration clauses, particularly in relation to a lack of transparency concerning the parties’ choice of the seat of arbitration. This blog continues the same theme – albeit in the context of different interpretative questions.

Although the notion of the ‘pathological’ arbitration clause has been part of the international arbitration literature for nearly half a century, difficulties generated by poor drafting continue to bedevil both arbitral tribunals and the courts. Notwithstanding the availability of a wealth of clear and helpful advice (see, for example, Born, International Arbitration and Forum Selection Agreements: Drafting and Enforcing (4^th edn, 2014), a surprising number of those who draft commercial contracts seem to be either unaware of the available advice or incapable of heeding it. (more…)

The interpretation of arbitration clauses: where is the seat of arbitration?

Posted on March 14, 2016March 15, 2021 by legalresearch

By Prof Jonathan Hill, Professor of Law (University of Bristol Law School).

It is a truism that arbitration clauses are often poorly drafted, not infrequently agreed at the 11th hour or lifted (inappropriately) from unrelated contracts. As a consequence, courts often have to try to make sense of clauses which are unclear or potentially inconsistent. In Shagang South-Asia (Hong Kong) Trading Co Ltd v Daewoo Logistics [2015] EWHC 194 (Comm), [2015] 1 All ER (Comm) 245 the parties had agreed that arbitration was to be ‘held in Hong Kong’, but that ‘English law [was] to be applied’. After the tribunal had rendered its award, the claimant applied to the English court for setting aside of the award under section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996. As in Dubai Islamic Bank v Paymentech [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 65, the English court’s setting aside jurisdiction depended on England being the seat of arbitration (see Arbitration Act 1996, s 2(1)). (more…)