Four questions are answered as to emergence of a dominant system used for transnational commerce (1) What are the key strengths of English commercial that meet the needs of transnational commerce? The benefits of English commercial law to the UK are explained. (2) Are the profound and fast-moving changes to global trade and commerce that commercial law faces ( such as digitalisation, AI, climate change, sustainability, and international labour standards) of a different order of magnitude to that seen hitherto? (3) What was it that enabled English commercial law to develop and adapt so successfully to become the dominant national system used in transnational commerce? These include the dominance of the UK in entrepreneurial activity and trading, the significant role of the commercial courts and their relationship to the markets, the use of procedure, the use by the judges of foreign law, and systematisation through legal text books (4) How did English commercial law successfully engage with the moves beginning in the 1870s towards creating transnational law for some aspects of commerce – the York Antwerp Rules, the Hague Rules, the ICC UCP, UNIDROIT, CHHC and UNCITRAL?

This chapter describes the daily functioning of the Desolate Boedelskamer. It examines the Amsterdam insolvency procedure through the eyes of the actors involved. How did the court evolve over time, and where is it possible to discern the influence of its staff on such changes? Social and cultural attitudes towards overindebtedness and the insolvents themselves softened during the seventeenth century. While one might expect that such developments were detrimental to the position of creditors, they actually went hand in hand with important changes to Amsterdam’s legal institutions that also sought to protect the creditors’ interests. This chapter discusses to what extent the introduction of the Desolate Boedelskamer had an impact on the management of the insolvent estates that were placed in its care. Through a careful combination of formal work instructions and archival evidence from the daily practice, it analyzes the functioning of the court as part of its broader legal and institutional context.

This chapter discusses the background and characteristics of the Desolate Boedelskamer’s staff, in order to analyze how they contributed to the professionalization of insolvency procedures in seventeenth-century Amsterdam. Through a closer examination of the ways in which the institution dealt with fraud or mistakes, it will become clear how it helped to create a more professional and trustworthy insolvency procedure. Ultimately, it was the daily labor of commissioners and subordinate officials that constituted the foundation of the systemic trust generated by the Desolate Boedelskamer as a crucial means to repair broken relations between insolvents and their creditors.

Tracheotomy is inevitable in long-term critical illness. Similarly, tracheotomy is warranted in neurocritically ill patients with anticipated long recovery trajectories. Using tracheal cannulas for patients with neurogenic diseases is a common method to facilitate weaning from mechanical ventilation, endotracheal suctioning and/or reduce aspiration. Tracheal cannulas can also be used outside the hospital for the long-term care of patients, when mechanical ventilation and or when endotracheal suctioning is needed, due to tracheobronchial secretions and insufficient cough. This chapter presents in detail the different procedures of tracheotomy and associated complications. Different types of tracheal cannulas are introduced and the management of tracheostomy and tracheal cannulas is outlined. The use of a tracheal cannula entails selecting the right cannula for the patient’s needs and rehabilitation goals. Handling a tracheal cannula also consists of changing the cannula and cannula care. The aim of speech and language therapy along with dysphagia therapy is to enable the patient to participate in society.

This brief chapter, closing Part I, concludes that the individual is procedurally involved in such contexts to a minor extent and offers reflections on the reasons for this. It discusses the culture of state-centrism at the Court, its passive approach to procedural mechanisms, and certain fears it likely has. The reasons are challenged in this chapter, which ends with a brief word on how transparency practices can also contribute to the further integration of individuals in the procedural law of the World Court.

It may be useful at this point to recapitulate and/or clarify the precise scope of the two chief factors in the discussions that follow, the Greek corpus and the concept of interaction. First, the corpus. The poetry in my period extends from Archilochus at one end to Aeschylus, Pindar and Bacchylides at the other. It comprises, that is, the whole of archaic and early classical verse with the exception of the two hexametric traditions: Homer with the later hymns and epic fragments, and the Hesiodic corpus together with its distant Presocratic relatives, notably Parmenides and Empedocles. In the case of Homer, the main reason for exclusion is the peculiar difficulty of establishing standard usage for the period (’ which period?’), and the situation of the other early hexametrists is comparably problematic. Their successors are omitted only for the sake of genre consistency.

This chapter investigates (1) whether there is a convincing justification for the All-Affected Principle, (2) whether it is best understood as substantive or procedural principle, and (3) whether it provides a useful way to approach boundary questions. Though the All-Affected Principle is often justified as realizing self-determination in political decision-making, I argue that the AAP does not do so. Instead, the ideal of self-determination, properly understood, supports individual and collective autonomy rights, and institutional arrangements that are at odds with a global democracy of the all-affected.

This chapter lays the necessary conceptual foundation for the book’s proposed trust-based framework. It draws on theoretical and empirical scholarship on trust to offer a conceptualisation of trust in the social rights context. It first envisages trust as relational, meaning that trust may only arise in a relationship that contains three elements: control, discretion/uncertainty and vulnerability (a ‘trust relationship’). Secondly, it defines trust in a trust relationship as a set of three expectations held by a truster about a trustee: an expectation that the trustee will exercise goodwill towards the truster (‘expectation of goodwill’); an expectation that the trustee will exercise competence towards the truster (‘expectation of competence’); and an expectation that the trustee will fulfil her fiduciary responsibility (if any) to the truster (‘expectation of fiduciary responsibility’). The chapter then applies this conceptualisation to the relationship between citizens and the elected branches of government with respect to social rights (the ‘citizen-government relationship’), characterising it as a trust relationship and defining trust in it.

This chapter provides the volumes general conceptual framework. It begins by addressing why new approaches to accountability are needed, arguing that accountability literature has reached a stalemate as a result of an impasse between deductive and inductive approaches to accountability in the EU. It then argues that overcoming the stalemate requires developing a generalised framework of what accountability is for, deriving four accountability goods to be used in subsequent chapters. The chapter argues that each of the goods can be delivered in procedural or substantive ways, focusing either on the process by which decisions are made or the substantive worth of decisions themselves. The chapter concludes by discussing the strengths and weaknesses of both varieties of accountability before mapping out how the concepts will be applied across policy fields and institutions in subsequent chapters.

Chapter 7 turns to the recipients of petitions for royal justice and their initiation of litigation. The chapter begins by weighing up the evidence for direct royal involvement in these judicial processes, with particular attention paid to a set of documents signed by Henry VII and Henry VIII personally. Otherwise, based on a survey of the signatures and annotations scattered across the Court of Requests’ early Tudor archive, this chapter identifies the men who delivered justice in this tribunal day to day. Mapping onto the evolutionary trajectory set out in Chapter 3, the overall impression is of transition from a diverse and changeable group of bill handlers within the royal household under Henry VII, followed by a spell in which the household clergy oversaw all business in Requests, and culminating in a smaller quorum of legally trained judges and Masters of Requests by the end of the period. The chapter then spells out the procedures followed once a petition was in the hands of this frontline personnel, and the measures they took to preserve the traditional prioritisation of the poor litigant.

The syntax of choreographies is enhanced with the possibility of writing and invoking recursive procedures, yielding the language of Recursive Choreographies. This opens the door to modelling protocols that allow for retries and data streams of unbounded length. The language of process implementations and the notion of EPP are updated accordingly.

This chapter examines specific aspects of the Court’s procedure in contentious cases. The authors focus on the key features of procedure: the institution of proceedings; provisional measures; preliminary objections; intervention; and non-appearance. For each of these aspects of procedure, the authors set out the current rules and practice, commenting on the way in which they have evolved, and making some suggestions for further innovation by the Court. They note that there have been recent calls urging he Court to codify aspects of its practice on procedural issues into generally applicable rules. While this might seem an attractive approach, the authors argue that this has the potential to unduly restrict the way in which the Court addresses cases – each of which may have its own particular procedural needs. They emphasise the need for the Court not to be overly prescriptive, but to ensure that it retains power to ensure a fair and just outcome in each particular case.

This chapter considers the various functions of States in international commercial and investment arbitration, which are essentially twofold.First, States are legislators and the creators of the system, and they also assist its development through their conduct which informs the interpretation of relevant treaties, such as BITs.Secondly, States are also parties to such proceedings, usually as the respondent to a claim, but also possibly also as the claimant, as a counter-claimant, and as a non-party intervener.This chapter then considers issues faced by States when acting as the respondent, and discusses how States might best prepare for and handle such disputes, and it also identifies various procedural issues which are likely to arise in such arbitral proceedings.It concludes that States have a complex combination of roles in international arbitration, and that the challenges in responding to claims can be managed if States are willing to learn from the decades of experience which States now have of participating in international arbitration proceedings.

Chapter 5 explores the use of expert and experiential evidence in the CoP, particularly analysing the contribution of the evidence given by the Person, linking with the arguments set out in Chapters 3 and 4. Analysing the empirical data, the chapter argues that the current hierarchy of evidence in the CoP undermines access to justice for the Person at the centre of proceedings and that changes are required to rebalance the evidential practices to achieve a more just process. The chapter starts with an overview of the use of evidence in proceedings, before turning to the hierarchies of knowledge, exploring the underpinning evidential justifications for both expert and experiential knowledge claims and the differing value attributed to each. Following analysis of the hierarchy of evidence, it is explained how this impacts upon access to justice and how this shows that the CoP has failed to secure procedural justice in this regard. The final section includes some examples of possible reforms to CoP evidential practices to address the procedural justice problem identified.

This chapter is the first of two chapters that uses the theory of the reasoning state to harmonize our understanding of other debates. There are two main existing theories of administrative procedure and law. An older, normative theory from the legal tradition argues that administrative law exists to promote values of fairness, transparency, and deliberation. A more recent theory, advocated by Mat McCubbins, Roger Noll, and Barry Weingast, is that administrative law exists to promote political control over administrative bodies. The theory of the reasoning state suggests another view. It indicates the positive value of fairness, transparency, and deliberation in administrative law. Those features, long thought central by legal scholars, lacked a positive foundation. Yet they all serve to promote the publicly credible reasoning of administrative bodies, core to the political value of delegated authority.

Much of this book has mapped the principles underpinning the UK Constitution. Judicial review provides an outlet by which those affected by government actions (including individuals, companies, pressure groups, and even other public bodies) can approach the courts to examine the lawfulness of such actions. It is the jurisdiction through which many of the most celebrated cases relating to the rule of law and separation of powers have been decided. The exercise of this jurisdiction therefore defines the courts’ relationship with other branches of government. This chapter assesses the basis for, and boundaries of, judicial review. It also examines the procedure by which judicial review is initiated and the remedies available for successful claimants.

Trials, legal systems, governments, and market economies are all complex adaptive systems. Viewing them in that light opens up new avenues for research, and leads to a possibly unprovable supposition that human flourishing well be enhanced at the intersection of societies with a commitment to the rule of law that embrace free elections, market economies and responsive legal systems of which the common law is the paradigmatic example. These complex adaptive systems have the advantage of feedback mechanisms that may facilitate the intelligent exploitation of the vast amount of information contained in each of the systems.

No governing international text or generally accepted doctrine defines the procedure to be applied by international courts and tribunals. Yet these institutions’ tasks pose common challenges: providing notice of a dispute, defining its nature and scope, determining the legal rules, marshalling and assessing evidence, finding facts and applying legal rules to them, and then recording and communicating the result. There often is substantial similarity – indeed, convergence – in how courts and tribunals go about these tasks. This chapter examines some of the factors and institutions that contribute to this procedural harmonization among institutions dealing with disputes between parties from different countries and legal cultures. It looks at the shared historical foundations of important procedural practices, the influence of intergovernmental and nongovernmental organizations, the roles individuals sometimes play in transmitting “legal technology” between institutions, and the effect of competition among institutions seeking to meet the needs of their “customers.” It also notes areas where procedure can diverge, as users look for new ways to address procedural problems.

GAL is one of the most ambitious projects to capture the role of procedure in global governance. Other concepts are briefly introduced and compared. The idea of procedural justice as akin to GAL in scope but focusing on perceptions of fairness and legitimacy rather than normativity emerges.

The main strands of international relations theory regarding institutions are briefly introduced. The work focuses on rational choice, notably Rational Institutional Design theory.

To unite the concept of procedural justice with the perspective and methods of rational institutional design, the factor of state interest is studied. It is shown how state interest can operate even within nominally private institutions and which factors determine whether and how a state is interested in introducing procedural justice.

The codebook variables creating the matrix of sensitivity of state interest - quantitative and qualitative procedural density is introduced. The mode of sample collection is explained.

Challenges to investment arbitrators are increasingly common. Using data from different arbitral institutions up to 2019, this chapter traces a remarkable upsurge in the number of arbitrator challenges from 2010 to the present. On the one hand, many challenges may be of a purely tactical character, designed by the parties – typically the respondent state – to delay proceedings or pressure a party to settle or withdraw a complaint. On the other hand, many arbitrators may be legitimately vulnerable to challenges; and the increase in number may suggest that the system is (or should be) taking more seriously concerns such as repeat appointments by the same party, double hatting, and issue conflicts. The author argues that arbitrator challenges may contribute to the legitimacy of the adjudicative process. They ensure that independence and impartiality is maintained in practice and signal to prospective arbitrators and their appointers the risks of non-disclosure or certain types of appointments.