The Legal Research Society

Lawyers and social scientists alike have for a number of years agreed that environmental conditions and scarcity of natural resources have the potential to act as a catalyst for armed conflicts. Such assertions have strengthened the normative link between environmental law and the law governing armed conflicts on a general level. This linking is already recognised, in general, in the area of international law of armed conflicts, which, inter alia, lays down that the methods and means of warfare are not limited; and in particular in the international law of armed conflicts which provides for the protection of the environment during hostilities such as Articles 35(3) and 55 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva convention. In addition to this “environmental-armed-conflict-law”, considering the state of the environment as a cause of armed conflict has gathered consensus among policy-makers, diplomats and academics. This was most recently recognised when Al Gore, together wi

In light of Gerd’s excellent post on the Trump saga, today’s news from the Sunday Herald on the number of alleged breaches of European environmental law by the Scottish Government, does perhaps, not appear surprising. The article in the Sunday Herald is unfortunately the only information I have been able to obtain on the matter but here is, nevertheless, a short account of the story. It is alleged that over the last six years the Scottish Government (former Scottish Executive) has been facing infraction proceedings for more than 60 specific breaches of European Community law relating to the environment. This number is in sharp contrast to the 32 breaches that the Scottish Government had admitted to be facing, in 2005, when asked to reveal the figures under then recently passed Freedom of Information legislation. The latest number of breaches only saw light after the Freedom of Information Commissioner (Kevin Dunion, who previously happened to head Friends of the Earth Scotland), ordere

Scotland, the home of golf and an incredible number of golf courses is debating about yet another course. Donald Trump, the American multimillionaire applied for permission to establish a new ‘world class’ golf development complete with two championship golf courses and 1500 homes. Yet, rather than being grateful and hailing the millions of dollars potentially coming into Scotland, the nation is split into two camps. The crux is multi-layered – the golf course itself would impinge on one of the major conservation areas in the Northeast of Scotland; the residential development provides places for 1500 people without providing all the facilities and amenities that one would need in life – no shops, no medical surgery – a small town with just residences. The fear therefore is that it is only for the American super-rich and traffic in the area would significantly improve. Oh, by the way, it appears that one farmer has not agreed to sell his lands right in the middle of the prospective golf

Y esterday the ECJ delivered yet another judgment in one of the most fascinating areas of European law – the intersection and conflict between social policy and European internal market laws. The judgment in the matter C-438/05 The International Transport Workers' Federation and The Finnish Seamen's Union is a preliminary ruling in a reference from the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (England and Wales). The case concerns a Finnish shipping company (Viking Line) that decided to reflag its ship to Estonia in order to benefit from lower wage costs. The International Transport Workers’ Federation took collective action on behalf of the Finnish seamen in order to dissuade Viking Line from effecting the proposed changes. Viking Line felt aggrieved by the action because it was of the view that it breached the company’s freedom of establishment per Article 43 ECT. The EU Observer reports that the case ‘was closely followed across the EU as it appeared to encapsulate mu

In Cervantes’ classic novel from the early 1600’s, Don Quixote de la Mancha bravely, but rather foolishly, sets out to fight windmills, which he mistakes for being the giants that any decent knight must fight. Although the encounter leaves Don Quixote battered, it now looks as if he will have to learn some new skills to keep up the fight. According to today’s New York Times, flying wind turbines might be a thing of the future. Although this might seem a bit far fetched, it has certain advantages. For instance, the wind blows constantly and steadily in the altitude of 10.000 feet and some estimates suggest that the flying turbines at that altitude will be able to generate energy at a very competitive price per kilowatt, compared to conventional methods of on-the-ground production. The NY Times reports that the turbines have the potential to prove particularly useful in rural areas and, so far, interest has been registered from a number of developing countries. However, some problems rem

A report concerning ‘Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses’ concludes that there is no scientific evidence to support a ban on using wild animals in travelling circuses. The Working Group that composed the report was chaired by Aberdeen’s own Mike Radford , who must be a very brave man for having chaired a group that included staunch animal welfare activists, and circus owners whose livelihood depends on the status quo remaining unchanged. The findings of the report go to the very heart of the debate concerning the precautionary principle. The report finds that the role of science (that is so often touted by environmentalists) must be limited in some cases. Indeed, it is right to say that legislative and administrative action is taken within certain bounds of rationality – in other words, there are certain questions where science can provide strong policy guidance, there are questions for which science can give an indication, and then there are questions where science provides

I suppose that everybody takes something different from an academic presentation. A spin-off discussion from yesterday’s lecture and seminar by AG Sharpston concerned the functioning of the EC’s legal system. On this somewhat hazy Saturday morning, I’ve been thinking about how the legal system could be made both efficient and coherent. The following are some Saturday morning thoughts (which means that they might only make as much sense as Friday night was sober – you may be the judge of that). It seems to me that the time has come for the Community to rethink its legal system completely. The legislative process is not entirely fit for purpose. A system of regulations and directives makes sense in the context of a Community whose competences are limited. However, Europe is fast-approaching a time when it will need to think in terms of Codes and Acts. Piecemeal legislation cannot be sustainable in the long-run. To my mind, the debate regarding the possible adoption of a European

DIY sperm donation is a financially risky business. So says the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority after Andy Bathie was ordered to pay £400 per month in child support to his two biological offspring (see news reports here , here and here ). Andy donated sperm to a lesbian couple on the condition that he would not play any part in the parenting of the children. He explained that "These women wanted to be parents and take on the responsibilities that brings. I would never have agreed to this unless they had been a committed family. And now I can't afford to have children with my own wife - it's crippling me financially." The crux of Andy's problem is that he did not donate his sperm through a licensed fertility clinic. He is therefore not exempted from parental responsibility. To add insult to injury, the non-biological mother bears no responsibility for the child’s maintenance. The House of Lords is presently discussing a Child Maintenance and Oth

As many of you know, I was fortunate enough to be able to submit my thesis last week. Hopefully it will produce a good result with the examiners soon. And not a moment too soon as well. As it turns out we may not even be in Aberdeen for much longer, because you really don't know what will happen when you wake up on the morning. I particularly want to thank two of our colleagues whom I've had the great pleasure to meet, Ole and Jernej, who really helped me a great deal through the whole PhD experience. I'm not sure I would have made it through without their support; and I look forward to reading great work from them in the years to come. Both are great colleagues, and I hope lifelong friends. I no longer feel it's appropriate for me to continue posting here. I've enjoyed writing here, and I hope others have enjoyed reading it. Of course I'll be continuing my own blog . I wish everyone the best of luck here; I hope you all can maintain the level of inform

On Friday 07 December Ms Eleanor Sharpston, Advocate General of the European Court of Justice, will return to the University of Aberdeen for the second consecutive year. She will deliver a lecture to LL.B. students in European Union Law (Institutions and Judicial System)’. The lecture will address ‘The role of the Advocate General’. All are welcome to attend. Following her recent opinion delivered in Case C-212/06 Government of the French Community and Walloon Government v Flemish Government (the Belgique Francophone case) , Ms Sharpston will also deliver a seminar to postgraduate students and members of staff to continue last year’s discussion regarding citizenship of the European Union. The title of the seminar is ‘Civis europeus – quo vadis?’ The programme is as follows: 12:00 ‘The role of the Advocate General’ (Regent Building, Lecture Theatre 12) 15:00 ‘Civis europeus – quo vadis?’ (KCF 22) Ms Sharpston comes to the University at the invitation of the School of Law and the Legal