Attorney and Client. Corporate Liquidation. Fees of Counsel for Individual Contests Not a Charge on the Common Fund

1942 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 406
Keyword(s):  
Common Fund ◽  
The Common ◽  
A Charge

Policy coordination by major Western powers in bargaining with the Third World: debt relief and the Common Fund

1984 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 399-428 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara B. Crane
Keyword(s):  
Attitude Change ◽  
National Policy ◽  
International Economic Order ◽  
The United States ◽  
Policy Coordination ◽  
Debt Relief ◽  
West Germany ◽  
External Support ◽  
Common Fund ◽  
The Common

The governments of the five major Western powers—the United States, the United Kingdom, France, West Germany, and Japan—coordinated policy on two key North-South issues from 1974 to 1979: relieving the external debts of developing nations and establishing the Common Fund to help finance international commodity agreements. A prominent feature of the coordination process was the emergence of transgovernmental coalitions among like-minded bureaucrats. Previous studies have suggested that such coalitions may affect national policies by promoting learning and attitude change in their members and by legitimizing the policy changes sought by their members. But these suggestions do not account for the ability of coalitions to translate their policy preferences into national policy commitments, particularly where one or more of their members are relatively weak in their national policy-making systems. On the Common Fund and debt relief, some coalition members held positions in their national systems strong enough to induce their governments as a whole to commit themselves to certain concessions. Weaker members of these coalitions then gained the external support they needed to lead their own governments to make similar commitments, thus preparing the way for agreements with the developing countries and some incremental changes in the international economic order.

The Common Fund

1986 ◽  
Vol 63 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edmund Dell
Keyword(s):  
Common Fund ◽  
The Common

Child Protection through the Criminal Law

2020 ◽  
pp. 85-114
Author(s):  
Kenneth McK. Norrie
Keyword(s):  
Corporal Punishment ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Child Protection ◽  
Adult Population ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Sexual Offences ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law ◽  
A Charge

The earliest criminal law dealing with children differently from the adult population was that concerned with sexual offences. This chapter explores the changing policies of the law, from the late 19th century fear of girls being exposed to immorality and boys being exposed to homosexuality, through the more protective 20th century legislation which nevertheless hung on to old ideas of immorality and criminality, until the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 focused almost (but not quite) exclusively on protection from harm and from exploitation. The chapter then turns to the crime of child cruelty or neglect from its earliest manifestation in the common law to its statutory formulation in Prevention of Cruelty to, and Protection of, Children Act 1889, which, re-enacted in 1937, took on a form that, for all intents and purposes, remains to this day. The last part of the chapter explores the legal basis for the power of corporal punishment – the defence previously available to parents, teachers and some others to a charge of assault of a child, known as “reasonable” chastisement. Its gradual abolition from the 1980s to 2019 is described.

Modalities and Operational Elements of the Common Fund

1977 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 318-360
Author(s):  
D.N. Saxena
Keyword(s):  
Common Fund ◽  
The Common

Is the Prisoner's Character Indivisible?

1953 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 377-394 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. N. Gooderson
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
Sexual Morality ◽  
The Common ◽  
The One ◽  
A Charge

“There is no such thing known to our procedure as putting half a prisoner's character in issue and leaving out the other half.” This observation fell from Humphreys J. in delivering the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal in R. v. Winfield (1939). The purpose of this article is to suggest that at common law this statement is not borne out by principle or by authority. The effect on the common law where the prisoner elects to go into the witness-box in exercise of the statutory opportunity created by the Criminal Evidence Act, 1898, will also be considered. The type of situation that arises is illustrated by Winfield's Case, where the facts, in brief, were that on a charge of indecent assault, W. put in issue his good character for sexual morality, and the prosecution in cross-examination proved his previous convictions for offences involving dishonesty. The court held that such cross-examination was proper. The question is whether the evidence of the good or bad character of the prisoner must be confined to the trait or traits relevant to the type of crime charged. It will be submitted that the evidence must be so confined. On an indictment for murder, evidence of the good or bad character of the prisoner for honesty will be inadmissible. Not only the crime charged but also the circumstances in which it is alleged to have been committed must be considered. If the murder is committed with a hammer, character for peace and quiet on the one hand and for violence on the other will be admissible, but not if it is a case of slow poisoning.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document