The applicability of Western socio-legal frameworks to the study of negotiation in Chinese society

Theoretical frameworks for the examination of negotiation generated by Western academics do not easily translate to Chinese society because of fundamental differences between Western and Chinese society. Attempts to study negotiation in Chinese society and to improve negotiation between Chinese and Western business people are themselves constrained by cross-cultural differences. Extended immersion of Western academics in Chinese settings and the involvement of cross-cultural specialists is required to advance understanding of cross-cultural negotiation. There is enormous potential for improved understanding of cross-cultural dynamics and development of innovative teaching methodologies if institutional and personal cooperation can be secured. Cross-cultural negotiation as a useful tool in socio-legal framework and/or higher education administration is important especially in the current environment for the Australian education export market.<br /

Indirect discrimination, justification and proportionality: are UK claimants at a disadvantage?

The minimum standard of scrutiny for the justification defence in the context of indirect discrimination was first set out by the European Court of Justice (CJEU) in Bilka-Kaufhaus GmbH v Weber von Hartz (1986). This established that an indirectly discriminatory measure is justified if it meets a real need and is appropriate and necessary for meeting that need. The UK courts’ approach to the concept of proportionality within the context of this justification defence may nevertheless have distinct disadvantages for claimants in comparison with their EU counterparts. The approach of the UK courts is assessed here by considering the development of case law in this area, both in the Employment Appeal Tribunal and in the higher courts. When compared to the approach taken by the CJEU, it becomes apparent that there is a significant difference between the ways in which UK courts and the CJEU interpret the justification defence. Findings show that the approach of the UK courts significantly disadvantages claimants, leading to the conclusion that the UK may not be fully compliant with EU law. To remedy this defect, it is suggested that there are at least two practical alternative solutions. The first is that Parliament could incorporate a strict necessity test into the Equality Act. Alternatively, the courts could develop a ‘robust approach’ to proportionality. The outcomes of a large number of employment law cases are examined here, appearing to suggest that the latter approach may have greater benefits for claimants than those associated with adopting a strict necessity test, although it is unlikely that either will find favour with Parliament or the courts

Genotype-by-environment interactions for female mate choice of male cuticular hydrocarbons in Drosophila simulans

This is the final version of the article. Available from Public Library of Science via the DOI in this record.Recent research has highlighted the potential importance of environmental and genotype-by-environment (G×E) variation in sexual selection, but most studies have focussed on the expression of male sexual traits. Consequently, our understanding of genetic variation for plasticity in female mate choice is extremely poor. In this study we examine the genetics of female mate choice in Drosophila simulans using isolines reared across two post-eclosion temperatures. There was evidence for G×Es in female choosiness and preference, which suggests that the evolution of female mate choice behaviour could differ across environments. However, the ranked order of preferred males was consistent across females and environments, so the same males are favoured by mate choice in spite of G×Es. Our study highlights the importance of taking cross-environment perspectives in order to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the operation of sexual selection.This work was funded by the Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour (DJH), the ESF and NERC (DJH and JH), and a Royal Society Fellowship and Equipment grant (JH). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript