Political blogs and freedom of expression: a comparative study of Malaysia and the United Kingdom

The study is undertaken on the premise that the technological advancement of blogs has not only accorded a novel platform for communication, but has also democratised the right to exercise political expression in Malaysia. Blogs have on numerous occasions outpaced restrictive laws that were enacted to curtail the exercise of this fundamental right and have caused great challenges in applying the existing specific media laws to online content in the blogosphere. The main purpose of the study is to resolve the legal uncertainties faced by bloggers in disseminating political speech under the existing laws of the country and to analyse the legal position in the United Kingdom as a comparative model or reference to the issue. In so doing, the study examines the general principles and restrictive laws to freedom of expression and the application of these rules to political blogs, scrutinises the statutory rules and regulations that are currently being employed to govern the traditional media and the Internet as well as other relevant general legislation, in particular the law of defamation, that has been commonly employed to regulate blog entries and comments by readers in both countries. The study concludes that although offline and online content should not be treated differently and certain regulatory controls are undoubtedly necessary to prevent misuse of political blogs by unscrupulous persons, any legal measures to be adopted by the Malaysian government to govern political blogs should take into account the rapid development of various forms of Internet based communications and be proportionate in light of current needs and the local circumstances of the society

The Brief (The 1999 Alumni Magazine)

• A Global Law School for the Metroplex• With Justice for All - A Profile of SMU Alumni on the Supreme Court of Japan and the Supreme Court of Texas• Reflections on Dean Potts• The East Asian Financial Crisis: The Legal Dimensions• Alumni Barbara Lynn says lawyer jokes aren\u27t funny.https://scholar.smu.edu/brief/1004/thumbnail.jp

International law: state immunity and the controversy of private suits against soverign states in domestic courts

Not availabl

HOW "SUBSIDIARY" IS THE ICJ ARTICLE 38(1)(D) ON THE SOURCES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES?

Ph.DDOCTOR OF PHILOSOPH

Fairness and Equity in Climate Change

Questions of fairness and equity are central to the challenge of tackling global climate change. The complexity of the question arises from the global and long-term nature of the problem. At the same time, the impacts are localized and differentiated, so that states least able to respond are those that will be hardest hit. Policies and measures to abate – mitigate – greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions demand the decision-making under conditions of uncertainty and the commitment of resources beyond the time horizon of politics-as-usual. And while international environmental law has achieved notable successes, it has arguably not confronted a challenge with so many dimensions, including lifestyles, energy policies, and inequality in global community. Some analysts have argued that questions of fairness and equity are of secondary, largely rhetorical significance: willingness to pay is what matters. Such views grow from a realist perspective on the relations between states and skepticism about international law. The argument presented in this thesis is that a fair distribution of benefits and burdens is at the heart of the matter. Individual and collective responses to the climate change problem are shaped and determined by social and political factors, as much as by technical and as scientific ones. Normative analysis has a role to play in analyzing the problem of climate change and identifying solutions. Within two decades emissions from developing countries of carbon dioxide, the most important greenhouse gas, will exceed the share from industrialized countries. The United States and countries argue that reduction measures therefore are only meaningful if developing countries are prepared to trim their emissions. In turn, developing countries look forward, contending that they ought not bear the burden of abatement at this critical stage in their development. They point also to the historical responsibility of the developed countries, invoking the polluter pays principle. Small islands and other particularly vulnerable developing countries seek to emphasize global solidarity and fairness when pressing claims for assistance to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change. These are only some of the issues entwined in the debate on climate change, and which lead directly or indirectly to the question of fairness