The summer 2017 issue of the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies Student Law Review (ISLRev) is now available on the SAS Open Journals system: http://journals.sas.ac.uk/lawreview/issue/view/350/showToc
In this issue:
- Aurélie Duchesne explores the perceived failure of international refugee law to respond to the refugee crisis resulting from the ongoing situation in the Middle East and increasing numbers of asylum seeker in Europe - critically analysing one of the UNHCR’s artistic project, “Exile Voices”, implemented in a refugee camp and subsequently as a photo exhibition held in Paris in 2015 and drawing on the work done by scholars in the fields of legal aesthetic and legal iconology to explain how visual arts are being enrolled successfully by international law.
- Wael Saghir examines the priority in the business and financial worlds for companies to pursue reduced transaction costs, creating a trend towards demobilization or dematerialization of securities. His paper explains the nature of securities and the governing laws needed to resolve problems of conflict of law rules related to securities.
- Christopher Monaghan offers an objective view of the law in relation to informed consent in medical care and the right of patient autonomy - outlining its accolades and highlighting remaining ambiguities, to suggest that the right of patient autonomy in informed consent is unassailable and the law will only further develop along this line of patient-centred thinking.
- Glen Mola Pumuye analyses the effectiveness of transplant legislation in the state of Papua New Guinea, looking in detail at the Mining Act 1992 and Oil and Gas Act 1998 which vest ownership of minerals and petroleum in the State although these resources are located on customary land. He suggests that the rush to transplant legislation has led to provisions that fail the functionality test and are not effective in Papua New Guinea, pointing out the effects and identifying solutions to redress this situation.
- Jacob M. Nolan gives a timely examination of the case of R (on the application of Miller and Dos Santos) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union – arguably amongst the most important cases on constitutional law decided by the UK Supreme Court. In this landmark case the Supreme Court was required to rule on whether the UK Government (the executive) could trigger Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union without the authorisation of an Act of Parliament, through the use of the Crown’s prerogative. On an 8 – 3 majority, with Lords Reed, Carnwath, and Hughes dissenting, the Supreme Court upheld the previous High Court ruling that an Act of Parliament was first required.