This chapter discusses balancing the prerogative to manifest identity-based beliefs such as the support for same-sex marriage and the prerogative to refuse the transmission of such a message by a service provider. We argue that both prerogatives are manifestations of human dignity that have normative and pragmatic implications that should be assessed within a deliberative arena such a parliament and regional assemblies. The argument is supported by a comparative analysis of recent UK jurisprudence and the evaluations of the statutory measures that inform Italian and European law.

The first manifestation of human dignity in the case is a prerogative granted to a historically discriminated-against identity to access publicly offered services. The second manifestation of human dignity is the prerogative of individuals who are managing a business to refuse to provide a service on the basis that what is asked of them is perceived as contravening their religious beliefs. In this chapter we provide a review of the Northern Irish, British and Italian systems of rules that inform the accommodation of this dilemma. These three systems are, albeit differently, committed to protecting human dignity and they comply, again distinctively, with the set of international obligations that are derived from membership in the Council of Europe and the European Union.

The analysis shows that while there are strong indications that international jurisdictions are dynamically changing the balance between the prerogative to manifest and the prerogative to refuse identity-based claims, the process of accommodating competing manifestations is still better left to the national and regional deliberative arenas. This chapter is divided into three sections. The first part discusses the process of balancing competing dignity claims. The second analyses the Lee v. Ashers Baking Company case. The third section discusses the statutory measures that inform Italian law on cases in which there might be an allegation of discrimination. The comparison shows that even in a legal system such as the Italian one where there is generally entrenched constitutional protection against discrimination, it is not guaranteed that the courts will consider the refusal to reproduce identity-based beliefs as discriminatory without a specific statutory intervention by the Italian Parliament.

This chapter will consider a legal transplant that is potentially still occurring – the broad recognition of notions of ‘good faith’ in relation to contracts. Whilst notions of good faith surround early conceptions of contractual relations, as will be seen, the common law, whilst initially apparently accepting good faith as part of the law of contract, set its face against such a doctrine, except in relation to insurance contracts. That resistance had been stoic for many years, until finally in recent years, the United Kingdom Supreme Court accepted the doctrine as a principle applicable to contracts, at least to some extent. In so doing, it followed in the footsteps of the Canadian Supreme Court, which finally recognized a general doctrine of good faith earlier in the same year. The doctrine is broadly recognized in the United States.

Environmental law is of relatively recent origin having emerged as a genuine sub-field of law in the 1970s. Its evolution is top down, bottom up and transnational International environmental law developed rapidly in the wake of the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, leading to a proliferation of treaties that set standards and new frameworks for environmental legal protection and biodiversity conservation. There is little doubt that this international environmental law has played a significant role in addressing global environmental problems by setting standards, assisting with capacity building, and providing a forum for discussion and sharing of ideas. Nevertheless, national and sub-national legal responses to local environmental impacts and problems pre-existed international environmental law, but the environmental movement and public demand for action fuelled their expansion. Transboundary environmental concerns have also led governments to adopt regional and transnational environmental law to achieve common goals.

This collection of essays has provided an overview of a series of Legal Transplants in East Asia and Oceania. The transplants of foreign law into these regions has been directly linked to a modernization process aimed at improving national economic efficiency and, albeit to a lesser extent, increasing political and administrative accountability. A series of brief summaries of each of the collection’s contributions and an analysis of the relation between each of the chapters, which I hope I delivered with equanimity, is in the introduction of this book and does not need to be reproduced here. What is worth mentioning in this final essay is, perhaps, that Legal Transplants in East Asia and Oceania intended to show the distinctive connection between multi-faced policies aimed at stimulating national economies and the East Asian conception of a transparent and efficient market economy.

The debate about legal transplants is very well knownUnfortunately that debate, while familiar, or at least familiarly confusing to many, has become trapped in a number of rather fixed binaries. It appears to have failed to achieve either resolution or forward movement. And this is in spite of a number of laudable attempts to untie the knot.

This collection of essays discusses the processes and the effects of legal transplants in a sample of legal systems located in the East Asian and Oceania regions. In particular, this book reports on a selection of the latest legal reforms that are currently reshaping institutional relations, individual rights and the protection of the environment in, among others, China, Singapore, Japan, Hong Kong, Thailand, Myanmar, Australia, and a series of Pacific nations. Most of these reforms were inspired by European and North American institutional experiences; others were derived from recent economic developments imposed by international obligations, or by an increased awareness of global environmental implications of unbridled industrial policies.

Three decades ago, a series of legal reforms in the People’s Republic of China prepared the conditions for formidable East Asian economic growth. The development has not been without costs. The unbridled development has proceeded, sometimes, without considering safeguards for investors, workers, the environment, or individual rights.