It is one of the paradoxes of international law that the multinational corporations which conquered states, ruled over people, engaged in extensive international trade, founded colonies, pillaged vast riches from other peoples, committed many genocides and controlled armed forces was never subjected to international law. It is a phenomenon that international lawyers must explain. The explanation that international law was law between states and that therefore multinational corporations did not have personality to be made subject to international law, though still repeated, is a shibboleth that hardly hides the fact that this fiction enabled the hiding of colossal misconduct on the part of the powerful classes that ruled the states of Europe. There is agreement in the recent studies made of the British East India Company that it was indistinct from the ruling class of the United Kingdom. The same could be said of the Dutch East India Company, whose employee, Hugo Grotius, is celebrated as the founder of international law. Theories created by international lawyers ensured that the identities of those who profited from the misfeasances of these early multinational corporations were never revealed.

Contracts are the legal bases for the making of foreign investments. They will routinely contain arbitration clauses. Prior to ICSID, the dedicated arbitral institution for foreign investment disputes, arbitration was the frequent method of dispute settlement. Prior to 1991, ICSID dealt only with contract-based disputes. It was only after 1991, when arbitration was recognised as being possible on the basis of the dispute settlement provisions of investment treaties, that the number of treaty-based cases really increased. Still, there were contract-based cases. In some disputes, there were parallel proceedings, under the contract for breaches, and under treaties for violation of the treaty provisions. There continue to be disputes brought only on the basis of contracts

If states were in agreement as to the norms that constitute the international law of foreign investment, it would have been possible to agree on a multilateral agreement on foreign investment stating the substantive rules which apply in the area. The fact that no such multilateral agreements exist is due to the existence of conflicting approaches to the problem of foreign investment protection and the existence of contending systems relating to the treatment of foreign investment. Several attempts have been made at bringing about a comprehensive code on foreign investment,1 but they have resulted in failure simply because of the ideological rifts and clashes of interests that attend this branch of international law. Most drafts have been made with the objective of providing as much protection as is possible to foreign investment. These have been rejected by capital-importing states. The entry into the picture of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) further complicates the picture. They object to multilateral agreements which concentrate on investment protection exclusively without addressing issues relating to environmental degradation or the human rights violations associated with foreign investment.

The right of a state to control the entry, the subsequent operation and termination of foreign investment is unlimited, as it is a right that flows from sovereignty. The entry of any foreign investment can be excluded by a state. Entry can also be subjected to conditions as to how a foreign investor should conduct his investment after entry. The process of foreign investment is entirely internal and hence subject to the sovereign control of the host state. But, a sovereign entity can surrender its rights even over a purely internal matter by treaty. Some regional and bilateral investment treaties now provide for the right of entry and establishment of investments to the nationals of contracting states. Where such pre-establishment rights are created by treaty, the denial of a right of entry to any investor from one of the contracting states would amount to a violation of the treaty, unless it can be shown that his investment is not covered by the treaty.

While many children are born into families where parents generally care for their health and education and strive to provide them with safe and happy home lives, other children are not as fortunate and are subject to maltreatment such as abuse or neglect (Australian Government, Department of Social Services, ). Most parents have the capacity to provide love, care and support for their children while others need extra help along the way. There are parents who may appear to neglect their child; however, they may be struggling with a disability and poverty through a work or health situation (Australian Institute of Family Studies, ). Responding to the children in such vulnerable families is an integral focus of Australia’s welfare system (Fernandez, ).

The previous chapter dealt with the general disciplinary issues that can arise in government and non-government schools. The most extreme aspects of a student’s conduct might well amount to criminal behaviour. This chapter focuses on the criminal and potentially criminal conduct that can arise in a school, and various responses that can be made by principals and teachers.

Disciplinary proceedings may be brought against a teacher in many forms and for many reasons. If a teacher in Australia is perceived to be doing the wrong thing or involved in some form of misconduct, proceedings against that teacher may be brought both in civil and criminal jurisdictions. Just recently in a major metropolitan weekend newspaper (Dibben, ), it was highlighted that 50 teachers in one year in that particular state had external proceedings brought against them for a variety of sexual and misconduct matters. This resulted in them being prohibited from teaching for a period of time or ever joining the teaching profession again. In this chapter we explore what disciplinary proceedings mean and how they may come about. A number of common and lesser known actions by teachers that may lead to such proceedings are examined. The process for dealing with allegations followed by the external agencies that regulate the behaviour and actions of registered teachers is also discussed. The chapter concludes with some general comments about how teachers can protect themselves, in terms of understanding their obligations in the first place and ensuring that natural justice has been followed in reaching a fair outcome in any action that they are the subject of.