Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. www.econstor.eu 'Quantifying antitrust damages-Towards non-binding guidance for courts' ('the Quantification Study'), available at http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/actionsdamages/quantification_study.pdf., 91; and J.M. Connor and R.H. Lande 'Cartel Overcharges and Optimal Cartel Fines', in S.W. Waller (ed.), Issues in Competition Law and Policy, volume 3, ABA Section of Antitrust Law. 2 Hence, for price overcharge, we mean the difference between the supra-competitive price fixed by the antitrust infringer and the market price of the same goods or services.

In this paper we analyse the role of superior bargaining power in competition law and policy in the agri-food value chain. Conventional approaches to competition law based on a neoclassical price theory perspective tend to neglect or to stay opaque on the role of bargaining power in competition law. However, national competition authorities and national legislators seem to be less biased by specific theoretical approaches and have increasingly engaged with the application of the concept of bargaining power in competition law. In this paper we discuss both positions and set a general theoretical framework, the global value chain approach, to better understand the interactions between suppliers and retailers in the food sector. Finally, we observe the framing of new tools of competition law intervention at national level, in order to deal with situations of superior bargaining power in specific settings related to the food value chain.

❒ 7 The Irish sugar tax and its compatibility with EU State Aid law 4.5 Concentration in the Seeds and Fertiliser Sector: Unsustainability of Mergers Regulation 4.6 Horizontal Agreements, Prices and Standards in the Food Sector ❒ 8 The Bayer-Monsanto Merger ❒ 9 Vertical Agreements in the EU Potato and Onion Market 5 The Unsustainability of Competition Law: Problems, Challenges and Solutions 5.1 Public Interest Considerations ❒ 10 Public interest concerns are already part of the EU framework 5.2 Integrating Socio-Environmental Sustainability but Beyond Monetary Representations of Society and Nature ❒ 11 The history of Article 11 TFEU ❒ 12 Case C-343/95 Diego Cali & Figli v Servizi Ecologici Porti do Genova [1997] ECR I-1547 5.3 The Exception for Public Undertakings 5.4 Art. 101 and Standard Setting-Quality, Price and the Excuse of Competition Law ❒ 13 The Chicken of (which?) Tomorrow ❒ 14 Standards as limits to competition-The case of the Beef Industry Development Society 5.5 Fairness in Competition Law 5.6 The Right to Food as an External Limit to Competition Law 5.7 Exemptions for the Implementation of the Common Agricultural Policy 5.8 Public Interest in the Exceptional Case of Mergers 6 Conclusions and Practical Solutions 6.a Interpretative Changes 6.b Institutional Changes 6.

Since the United States and The United Kingdom embarked on their war on terror, pressurising the United Nations to lend them credibility, the balance between what is legal and what is
legitimate has been affected. This article analyses the juridical line of argument which has led to the erosion of International Law since the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

Feminismo y Derecho Internacional conforman un par relativamente reciente.A las mujeres que trabajamos en Derecho Internacional cuando hablamos de feminismo nos suelen remitir al apartado relativo a derechos de las mujeres.
Sin embargo a estas alturas es fácil entender que se pueden defender los derechos de las mujeres y no ser feminista en absoluto. Una de las perspectivas que se puede adoptar respecto a los derechos de las mujeres es la de buscar proteger a este colectivo y equiparlo en derechos y oportunidades con los varones, al mismo tiempo que reconocerlo como víctima cuando sus derechos y libertades
han sido vulnerados mientras se contextualiza como «un grupo vulnerable».

Si bien es cierto que en los últimos años en Derecho Internacional ha existido un avance en lo relativo al reconocimiento de los derechos de las mujeres desde
la perspectiva del empoderamiento, que aboga por maximizar la participación política de las mujeres en los espacios públicos, y en general por aumentar su participación en las esferas en las que las que se toman las decisiones, lo cierto es que estos derechos se han mostrado un tanto «líquidos» en lo que se refierea su capacidad de reformar estructuras de forma permanente.

The idea that violence and the use of force are linked to democracy has been very influential in international law in the last few decades. The United Nations has taken some of these ideas on board, advocating that democracy is able to combat violence. This architecture is maintained by a delicate balance between a liberal idealisation of democracy that portrays democracies as systems that do not fight each other, and a realist perspective that believes that states always try to maximise their power and their own interests. As a result, what seems to be a lack of political will to act in cases in which violence is used, turns to be a much more complex issue embedded in the current international structures and theories.

Some offenders appear to have an impaired capacity to appreciate the moral significance of their acts and a limited ability to engage in effective practical reasoning. These deficits may interfere with the communicative aspects of punishment and with rehabilitation. This chapter will discuss whether it could ever be morally permissible to employ certain types of cognitive enhancements to enhance offend-ers' capacities for practical reasoning and moral communication as part of their rehabilitation. The text sets out the considerations that need to be balanced when deciding which types of techniques should be permissible and under what circumstances they may be used. It argues that offenders have three main interests that should be taken into account here: 1) being treated as a member of the moral community; 2) being treated as a rational human being; and 3) being spared unnecessary suffering.

Imagine that a criminal offender were provided with a " reform pill " , which significantly weakened his desire to reoffend. After consuming the pill, he obeys the law. Is the offender's subsequent, apparently " good " behaviour genuinely good? Various theorists have intuited that biomedical " moral enhancement " techniques used for the purposes of reducing reoffending could somehow undermine the moral worth of the recipient's future actions. This article draws on the communication theory of punishment in order to shed new light on a potential source of this intuition in relation to the moral bioenhancement of those who have committed serious criminal wrongs. In doing so, it will consider the contention that the ultimate source of this intuition can be attributed to the intrinsically valuable freedom to do wrong before rejecting this account. The article then proceeds to explore the implications of the communication theory of punishment for the question of whether biomedical moral enhancements would undermine the moral worth of offenders' future law-abiding behaviour and highlights the need for the proponents of such interventions to address these issues. The arguments presented in this article have potential implications for biomedical interventions that are currently being used in the criminal justice system.

This paper explores some of the founding principles of the African Union (AU) and the frameworks devised to implement them. It looks at various doctrinal and practical issues pertaining to either the continent's progress towards an effective and strong continental integration or a repeat of the failings of its predecessor Organisation, the Organization of African Unity. The interlinked principles relating to democracy and the rule of law and human rights and sustainable development have been the main issues of inquiry rather than economic (and monetary), collective security or the African human rights considerations. The inquiry will offer an interdisciplinary and theoretical insight onto the normative and practical dimensions of the integration debate in Africa. By highlighting the tension between liberal and constructivist theories of institutions and various integration strategies as applied to Africa, the paper purports to identify and to critique the achievements made so far and the serious challenges ahead of the AU. It is argued that whilst the progress made thus far is significant, it would be premature to talk of the huge success or complete failure of the decade-old AU.

The unequal bargaining power of the parties in the oil and gas industry has lead to the imbalanced contractual risk allocation in oilfield contracts in Malaysia. In this regard, there is a prospect that the operators pass an unfair share of the risks on to the contractors. However, the contractors might still enter into such imbalanced agreement to secure a job and thereby assume these risks. In this paper, it is argued that a statutory controlling mechanism, such as Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA) in the UK, should be adopted to protect the liability of the contractor in relation to the risk allocation provisions of oilfield contracts in Malaysia. This paper seeks to analyse the deficiencies of the risk allocation provisions of oilfield contracts in Malaysia and to consider whether the principle of reasonableness test as provided in UCTA could provide a potential solution. It will employ a combination of case study and analysis.

Oil and gas projects are risky undertakings, which may cause severe damage to property and the environment, not to mention, personal injury and death to personnel. Contractual provision such as an indemnity and mutual hold harmless clause is used as a tool in allocating the risks. Most oil companies, in their task to manage the risks, seek to depart from the traditional form of risk allocation e.g. knock-for-knock indemnity regime. In this respect, there is a tendency that the oil companies will pass a greater share of the risks on to contractors. This problem could lead to financial impairment and unfairness to the contractors. An empirical study was conducted to investigate the issues and problems with regard to risk allocation provisions and indemnity and hold harmless clauses of oilfield service contracts in Malaysia. The data for the empirical study was drawn from the intensive semi-structured interviews of ten respondents from oil companies, contractors and one legal practitioner. The finding of this empirical study indicates that contractors are concerned about the one-way adversarial style of operator-contractor relationship and also that they are being allocated more contractual risks. The methodology employed in this paper will essentially be a combination of literature review and semi-structured interview, which will be carried out in a prescriptive and analytic manner.

Key words: contract law, oil and gas, Malaysia.

This research addresses the issue of enforceability of mutual indemnity and hold harmless clauses (MIHH) pertaining to bodily injury and death in oilfield service contracts in Thailand. Thai Unfair Contract Terms Act B.E. 2540 (A.D. 1997) (“TUCTA”) prohibits a contracting party to restrict or exclude liabilities pertaining to bodily injury and death arising from his negligence. This restriction might be thought to have an effect of hampering the risk allocation. Similar restriction contains under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (“UCTA”). However, by virtue of the Supreme Court decision in Farstad Supply A/S VS Enviroco Ltd [2011] UKSC 16, the MIHH could be enforceable despite the
restriction. Nevertheless, the IMHH will be subject to the reasonableness test under UCTA. Thus, it could be argued that in spite of the restriction under TUCTA, the IMHH in standard form oilfield service contracts e.g., LOGIC could still be enforceable in Thailand, subject to certain limitations.