This chapter addresses the question of how the International Seabed Authority (ISA) discharges its environmental mandate in DSM. First, answer to this question hinges largely upon the composition, powers and functions and decision-making procedures of its organs and subsidiary bodies, in terms of both law and practice. Then, it identifies six categories of powers and obligations of the ISA relating to its environmental function. Namely, the powers to adopt rules, regulations and procedures, issue technical and administrative guidance to contractors, ensure compliance of the contractor while administering activities, issue environmental emergency order to the contractor for preventing (risk of) serious environmental damage, as well as the obligations to apply the precautionary approach, and encourage and promote marine scientific research. It argues that the ISA has changed to results-based environmental regulation. Finally, this chapter comments on the drafting work of Exploitation Regulations by the ISA and suggests ways for the LTC to assess the current state of marine scientific knowledge on a continuing basis.

The final chapter evaluates the social costs and benefits of the private criminal justice system. It first addresses the question of if and how a private criminal justice system can represent the interests of society as a whole. The chapter argues that a robust private criminal justice system can actually make the public criminal justice system more responsive to societal preferences, but only if it is open and transparent. A completely open private criminal justice system could be lightly monitored by actors in the public criminal justice system, who could intervene if necessary. Meanwhile, the private criminal justice system could blunt the politicization of the public criminal justice system and craft more flexible and creative responses to criminal conduct. The chapter also discusses the different levels of procedural protections for defendants, and the differences in the ways that private police are accountable in comparison with their public counterparts. It ends by exploring the ways in which a private criminal justice system could actually decrease the inequalities of the system and widen the net of social control, leading to more efficient detection and enforcement of criminal activity.

This chapter compares the government powers in the 1986 and 2006 EBLs and explores the reasons that have led to government intervention in enterprise bankruptcies. The government intervention in the 1986 EBL can be attributed to its inappropriate goals (the mixture of administrative goals with bankruptcy goals) and Chinese lawmakers’ misunderstanding of its nature and goals as is discussed in Chapter 2. The 2006 EBL, however, successfully detaches the bankruptcy goals from the administrative goals because of the change of economic strategy, construction of supporting institutions, and the legal and institutional development concerning listed companies. The 2006 EBL becomes a bankruptcy law in a real sense, addressing the debt problems between the debtor and its creditors. The role of the government has been greatly constrained in the legal text of the 2006 EBL. The government, however, may not give up its powers easily. The governments try all means to avoid delisting and liquidating listed companies, in order to maintain a strong public sector and protect local interests associated with the listed companies. It is still necessary to examine the administrative goals of the government and its means of intervening in the bankruptcy process of listed companies.

This chapter analyses the contribution of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to interpreting and developing rules and principles of international human rights law aimed at ensuring basic protection of individuals. First, the chapter puts into perspective the place of the ICJ within the larger framework of international adjudication and enforcement of human rights norms. Then, the chapter turns to the institutional possibilities and limitations of the Court in engaging in the process of interpreting and developing human rights norms, discussing both advisory proceedings and contentious cases. The analysis addresses all three procedural stages in contentious cases, namely preliminary objections, merits and reparations. Third, the chapter analyses the contribution of the Court to clarifying procedural, substantive and institutional issues concerning the understanding and implementation of key human rights norms. In analysing the case law of the Court, it is important to distinguish between cases involving bilateral disputes with human rights aspects and cases involving matters of general concern for the international community as a whole.