Search results

This study aims to illustrate the special liability regime applying to a nuclear operator for damage caused to individuals, property and natural resources, after the United Arab Emirates (UAE) implemented the Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage of 1963 through Federal Law No. 4 of 2012. This paper contrasts this special regime with the default regime of civil liability set out in the UAE Civil Code. The comparison helps clarify the legal nature of nuclear operator liability, the extent of protection it affords to the parties injured in a nuclear incident, the conditions under which it obtains, as well as the different damage headings it allows.

This paper is a desk-based legal research.

The main novelties enshrined in the special liability regime for nuclear facility operators are the adoption of an objective approach (strict liability) and the introduction of exceptions different from those contemplated in the default regime spelled out in the UAE Civil Code, thereby affording greater protection to victims of nuclear leakages.

This paper is a first in-depth commentary of UAE Federal Law No. 4 of 2012 Concerning Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage. Considering the UAE’s dualistic approach to the implementation of international obligations, and the present lack of reliable alternative avenues towards compensation beyond private operator liability, the overview provided here will be of value to regional and international practitioners – including from neighbouring countries to the UAE (Oman, Qatar, Bahrain) – that are not currently signatories to any convention on nuclear liability.

This paper aims to focus on the concept of money laundering and explores the evolution and expansion of criminalization of predicate offences to the money laundering within the international anti-money laundering (AML) regime over the time. It proposes how to limit the size and scope of predicate offences in designing a balanced legal definition.

This paper opted a content analysis focussed on the criminalization aspect of offences to money laundering in the international AML regime under the United Nations Conventions (Vienna, Palermo and Corruption Convention) and Financial Action Task Force Standards.

This paper provides how the criminalization of money laundering has evolved and its definition expanded over the time. The international definition is widely drafted with wide range of predicate offences from proceeds of drug money to corruption, including terrorist financing and terrorist acts; however, the two phenomena – money laundering and terrorist financing are quiet distinct apart. This continual expansion of predicate offences quite leads legality issues such as over-criminalization and conflict with principles of criminal law. This paper suggests an approach to limit the size and scope of predicate offences to money laundering.

This paper includes implications for the development of a balanced approach in defining predicate offences through a qualitative limitation approach consistent with the minimalist theory of penalization of criminal law.

This paper attains an identified issue how the legal definition of the money laundering offence can be improved while considering rule of law and principles of criminal law concerns.

In this chapter, the author offers a horizontal comparison of interpretation standards contained in international legal instruments of different origin. These legal instruments range from international treaties to model laws. They also originate from different law makers such as the United Nations or individual states as well as trade or academic organisations, mainly regulating civil and commercial matters. The author argues that this comparison can provide the basis for the development of a uniform standard in the application of such law, which is often referred to as uniform law because it provides a single source of law to regulate a multitude of situations spanning across national boundaries. The main point of reference is the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, also known as the VCLT. This UN treaty specifically provides a general interpretation standard. From there newer standards occurring in subsequent uniform laws can be integrated using the lex specialis doctrine. This, in turn, provides opportunities for comprehensive usable methods to be developed for uniform law both in a public and private law settings. These then facilitate transparency, fairness and reasonableness. The correct identification of object and purposes of any given instrument is crucial for the successful interpretation of its content. It is this point that needs further research, and this chapter offers a starting point by providing some detailed examples from a range of uniform laws of varying nature including international sales laws, arbitration laws and Double Taxation Conventions.

The Council Directive on prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering was passed on 10th June, 1991, and the anti money laundering legislation of the Member States of the European Union (EU) is now largely based on it. It had its origins in the growing awareness from the mid‐1980s onwards that money laundering was an international problem and therefore international action was needed if it was to be combated effectively. This had led to the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, adopted in 1988 and generally referred to as the Vienna Convention, and the Council of Europe Convention on the laundering, tracing, seizure and confiscation of the proceeds of crime, drawn up in 1990 and generally referred to as the Strasbourg Convention. Both the Vienna and the Strasbourg Conventions are explicitly referred to in the Preamble to the Directive. Other activity had included a study by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), which published its report, with recommendations in 1991. That said, certain countries had already taken some action against money laundering: in the UK for example, the laundering of the proceeds of drug trafficking had been a criminal offence, carrying up to 14 years' imprisonment, since 1986.

The purpose of this paper is to provide an assessment of soft law as a technique for repressive and preventive anti-money laundering control (hereinafter AMLC).

This article focuses heavily on understanding the nature of international anti-money laundering (AML) law-making process. The approach towards this question is interdisciplinary and looks at the treaty and non-treaty AML obligations through a prism of two theoretical lenses (legal positivism and liberal/legal process theory) to explain the role of soft law in the area.

Current international effort to combat money laundering (ML) is fragmented (as evident in the enormous variety of law-making processes), despite the role of soft law. Part of the problem is the divergent nature of domestic criminal legislation, which is reflected in the choice of predicate crime and a lack of procedural rule to identify and enforce the law at the state level. To address the limit of current efforts, the paper will propose a uniform codification of AML law directed by a more representative body or commission of experts offering means of restating, clarifying and revising the law authoritatively and systematically.

The research is focused mainly on the theoretical issues relating to the subject of ML and less on any empirical case study.

The paper will focus on the role of soft law as a technique for repressive and preventive AMLC. Based on current analyses of the role of soft law as an alternative to hard law or as a complement to hard law (leading to greater cooperation), it attempts to outline the possible advantages and disadvantages that soft law could have in the context of AMLC. For example, the use of soft law promotes harmonisation of international AML standards through the Financial Action Task Force, while the role of the FATF remains unclear in international law. This is important for the purpose of responsibility, as the law on state responsibility clearly states when a State is responsible, in the event of a breach, and the consequence in international law.

The implication of the paper is that it contributes to the on-going debate about the increasingly role of soft law-making in international law.

The research perspective to the study of ML is theoretical and focuses on the nature of the law.

The purpose of this chapter is to explain the concept of right to participation from the viewpoint of development and tries to establish nexus between participation and right to development in context of human rights-based approach and try to establish the co-existence between the two terminologies. The term participation is closely associated with the traditional democratic system; under this system people are entitled to participate in governance system directly or indirectly, which can be dated back from the ancient Greek civilization (Faruque, 2002a). In a democratic system, participation is people central and can be treated as “an valuable module of any system that considers itself a democracy” (Kweit & Kweit, 1981) “corner stone of democracy” (Sherry, 1969) or “instrument of legitimacy of government” (Falk & Strauss, 2000). Participation means a right by which one can exercise his/her function in the society and express his/her view or behavior toward the political system and governance. So the notion of participation is “effective in mobilizing and natural resources and combating inequalities, discrimination, poverty and exclusion” (UN.DOC, E/CN.4/1990/9/Rev. 1, 1990, Ch. 7). However, the concept of participation “should be viewed both as a means to an end and as an end itself” (UN.DOC, E/CN.4/1990/9/Rev. 1, 1990, Ch. 7, para 150). In environmental level, public participation has played a vital role in decision-making for measuring the protection of environment. Public participation in decision-making that affects the environment is recognized in the Aarhus Convention (Convention on Access to Information, 2001).

To identify the reason of Japan not complying with the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) recommendation 35 and suggesting a strategic solution to overcoming the barrier.

Through contextual, historical, and legal analysis of the anti-money laundering (AML) measures in Japan.

This paper implies that less flexible mindsets in stone of major players in the field of AML measures in Japan are the fundamental barrier for Japan not complying with the FATF Recommendation 35, while this paper suggests better realistic ways to address the barrier.

The novel point of this paper is that this paper illustriously uncovers the mindsets of the major players pertaining to the Japanese AML measures in a very illustrative way, points out the underlying true barrier, and describes a useful strategy desperately needed to address the barrier.

Supporting the international fight against drug trafficking and serious crime is hard to contest; it is like being in favour of family values. Likewise, therefore, the fight against money laundering, ie burying or disguising the financial proceeds of those activities, including helping someone else to do so. The real and potential long‐term damage to societies, honest government, the rule of law and sound economies is now well recognised. But, on closer inspection, the route mapped out by the international community to achieve the laudable goal of putting serious criminals (and those who assist them) out of business by attacking the financial jugular causes a number of political, economic and legal tensions.

This paper aims to explore the underlying problem of tackling money laundering, namely, the difficulty of enforcing international laws and whether this is a problem which is too great to overcome in practice.

A doctrinal approach is used to discuss international anti-money laundering (AML) laws and question whether money laundering can be truly regarded as an international crime. A comparative approach with case studies of corruption in financial institutions illustrates the problems which law enforcement might encounter. The advantages and disadvantages of tackling money laundering will be highlighted to elucidate both the negative impacts of the crime and the reasons why some states may not be tackling money laundering as forcefully as they could.

Uniformity of AML laws among different countries may deter criminals from laundering money. The ratification of the Vienna Convention can help to facilitate uniformity of legal rules. States need robust domestic laws to tackle money laundering. Money laundering is an international crime, although not always a specific crime in international law. Moreover, it is generally advantageous to consider money laundering to be a specific crime under international law.

The article questions the effectiveness of current AML laws by examining the foundations of international law. Suggestions as to how uniformity can be achieved are given. A comparative approach is also used to demonstrate the extent of the crime, weaknesses in companies’ regulatory regimes and how each State responds to money laundering. The comparison also reveals State-specific issues which fuel money laundering. Moreover, the article explores the practical and legal advantages and disadvantages of money laundering being considered a specific crime in international law.

The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview and discuss the development of the UK and international measures against money laundering.

This paper examines the anti‐money laundering measures and the activities of regulatory and professional bodies both domestically and internationally.

Despite the enormous efforts and co‐operation by the governments, law enforcement agencies, professional bodies and private financial institutions, money laundering and terrorist financing remain as threatening issues. There is also the concern that stricter regulation will only add burden on the financial industry.

This paper examines the development of different measures against money laundering and thereby provides assistance to policy makers in the formulation and implementation of effective anti‐money laundering mechanisms.