A rule of English law is that, where a contract comprises promises that are independent of each other, neither party is entitled to rescind the contract for failure by the other to perform. This paper illuminates the rule by examining various versions of the independent/dependent distinction. On one account, it concerns the reason why someone gives a promise; on others, it concerns the conditionality of a promise. The account in terms of reasons conflicts with the doctrines of offer and acceptance and of consideration. All the conditional accounts provide a justification for the rule, but certain of them — in terms of external conditionality — unduly limit the availability of rescission. The others — in terms of internal conditionality — are therefore proposed. Assuming that an agreement is likewise modelled in terms of internal conditionality, one promise's being independent of another, where ‘independent’ is defined as proposed, is inconsistent with their constituting an agreement. The rule on rescission presupposes, however, that some independent promises constitute a contract. So this is a new reason to hold that, just as not all agreements are contracts, so not all contracts are agreements.

Both the Family Division of the High Court and the Chancery Division of the High Court exercise jurisdiction over the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975, with the applicant being able to elect the Division that they wish to proceed in. Many practitioners believe that the two Divisions have different attitudes towards the Act. This paper argues the structure of the 1975 Act makes it highly likely that the two Divisions will approach in different ways and that a close analysis of judgments shows that there is a discernible difference in the rhetoric that is used in judgments in the two Divisions, that this difference in rhetoric affects the way in which applicants are viewed and that thus sometimes it affects the outcome of cases. Since there is no advantage in practice to having the two jurisdictions and since the difference between the jurisprudences in the two Divisions can result in like cases not being treated alike, an elementary form of injustice. The paper concludes that it would be better if one Division exercised sole jurisdiction over the Act.

This paper re-examines the Orientalist view that Islamic criminal justice operates without any constitutional protections for the individual. It takes the works of Noel Coulson as representative of the canon and subjects them to critical scrutiny. Rather than mimic Orientalist methods of analysis, the author integrates the views of a contemporary, but traditional Islamic scholar, and demonstrates that an accused receives similar, if not more, protection than in a secular, Western tradition.

This paper examines the role of retributivism as a principled justification for punishment in the context of the judicial tariff judgments on Myra Hindley and Thompson and Venables. The paper examines the development of retributivist theory from the foundational premise of liberal individualism to its contemporary understanding as a communication of public censure. It is argued that, against the background of legal judgment on tariff issues, retributivism cannot be meaningful in itself. Determining the retributive requirements of justice necessarily involves the construction of a moral narrative made up of both retributivist (retrospective) and consequentialist (prospective) elements.

This paper compares ‘property law’ and ‘family law’ approaches to the problems associated with people who share homes, and examines some of the reform suggestions recently made in this field. The differences between property and family approaches are highlighted by recent endeavours of the Law Commission of England and Wales to devise a specifically ‘property law’ response to home-sharing, and those differences lie at the root of many of the difficulties that the Law Commission encountered in developing its abandoned scheme. It is worthwhile identifying and reflecting on those differences in order to ascertain the sort of home-sharers' problems with which each legal regime can cope, and the sort of solution that each is able to offer.

It has become commonplace to argue that foreign direct investment (FDI) flows are to some extent determined by the effectiveness of host state legal systems – the institutions and officials involved in the creation and implementation of law, including courts and judges, bureaucrats, and politicians, in their capacity as makers and implementers of law. The primary concern of the paper is how this dominant theory can be tested – that is, what methods can we use to test the extent to which the effectiveness of legal systems affects success in attracting FDI? The analysis focuses in particular on South Asia, the US and the UK, The paper considers what data on FDI and legal systems are necessary and available for conducting a statistical regression test of the theory. It establishes that the data available until recently were inadequate. The paper then considers the extent to which recent empirical studies, conducted under the auspices of the World Bank, produce useful facts for the purpose of testing the relationship between FDI and legal systems. These new data sets are recommended by the World Bank Group's Foreign Investment Advisory Service (FIAS), and thus provide a useful insight into the type of information assumed by theorists to be available, and useful, to investors. The paper therefore also considers how the theory that legal systems are determinants of FDI can be implemented by investors – that is, what information exists upon which they can base their location decisions? It is concluded that many points, fundamental and finer, about the relationship between legal systems and FDI remain to be explored. We have a neat, intellectually appealing theory. Sadly, we still do not have the facts to test it, nor for investors to implement it.

The Statement of Standards for University Law Library Provision is a comprehensive and flexible set of Standards providing authoritative guidance, representing a broad consensus of views, for Law Schools and law librarians. The Standards were drawn up by a consultative group established by the Libraries Committee of the Society, and approved by the Society after extensive consultation with academic, professional and governmental bodies. The Standards cover the whole range of issues relating to the operation of a Law Library including its relationship with the Law School, its management, collections, space, and equipment. It is supported by an annual survey of university Law Library provision conducted in collaboration with the British and Irish Association of Law Librarians. The accumulated research data from these surveys provides the basis not only for realistic benchmarks and targets in the Statement but also for a series of analytical research reports which monitor trends in university Law Library provision. (The published Statements and research reports are listed below.)