Liability for Environmental Harm to the Global Commons

Environmental Law, International Law

On 10 November 1988, the oil tanker Odyssey broke apart in the North Atlantic 700 miles off the Canadian coast. With 132,000 tons of crude oil released into the marine environment, it was one of the largest oil spills to have ever occurred. However, because it occurred in the high seas and did not reach the shores of any state, no response actions were taken, even though marine environmental harm almost certainly occurred. The pollution did not trigger the same sort of response as an oil spill in maritime areas under sovereignty (such as territorial waters) or under national jurisdiction (such as Exclusive Economic Zones) because the harm itself was to the environment per se as opposed to impacting the economic interests of a particular state or private actor. Even if the consequent environmental harm was quantifiable and compensable, it is not clear what legal entities would have the right to recover for the loss suffered. This is a function of the nature of the high seas as a “global commons” area or an area beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ), where no state has jurisdiction and where harm is suffered by all states and arguably by all humankind, given the interconnected nature of the oceans and the variety of ecosystem services it provides.

Corporate Governance in Singapore – The Road Thus Far

Corporate Governance

The first Code of Corporate Governance was adopted in Singapore 21 years ago in 2001. Since then, the Code has been re-issued three times, the last being in 2018. There has also been a shift in approach taken by the Singapore regulators with regards to how corporate governance should be enforced among companies, especially those listed on the Singapore Exchange. From a voluntary “comply-or-explain” approach to partially mandatory, instilling the right degree of corporate governance in Singapore companies has been a balancing act for the regulators throughout these years.

Schrödinger’s Lawful Act Duress: Dead or Alive?

Contract Law

Can you set aside a contract if you were induced to enter it by my application of lawful pressure that may threaten your economic interests, reputation, or your concern to protect a loved one? This raises difficult policies since the only viable basis for discriminating between acceptable and unacceptable pressures is not positive law but social morality. On the other hand, if lawful pressures are always exempt, those who devise outrageous but technically lawful means of compulsion must always escape. The courts have accepted that the categories of duress are not closed and that an illegitimate threat can include one which is lawful, although it must ‘at least be immoral or unconscionable’. What then falls within this category of lawful act duress?

Sentencing Offenders for Driving Dangerously or Carelessly While Under Influence: Resolving the Double-counting Quandary

Criminal Law, Sentencing Law and Policy

The Singapore legislature introduced a set of refined and interlinked provisions in the Road Traffic Act 1961 (RTA), which came into force on 1 November 2019. These provisions were intended to deal better with cases in Singapore where motorists drove dangerously or carelessly while under influence of drink or drugs. However, these provisions when applied may give rise to an issue of double-counting in punishment, and the way in which the courts have applied these provisions is such that in some cases this double-counting is fully ameliorated while in other cases it is not.

A New Fashion Vocabulary and its Implications for Trademark Law

Intellectual Property

The whimsical and ephemeral trends of the fashion world can be confounding and yet rewarding at the same time. As luxury fashion brands such as Gucci, Louis Vuitton, Versace, Balenciaga and Vetements capitalise on ironic cultural references to rejuvenate sales and capture new customer segments, their actions have resulted in unanticipated implications for trademark law. Simultaneously, countercultural commentary is also taking the form of subversive parodic and satirical fashion merchandise which audaciously play with the semiotic signs of these famous trademarks.

Good Models Borrow, Great Models Steal: Intellectual Property Rights and Generative AI

Intellectual Property, Law & Technology

Two critical policy questions will determine the impact of generative artificial intelligence (AI) on the knowledge economy and the creative sector. The first concerns how we think about the training of such models — in particular, whether the creators or owners of the data that are ‘scraped’ (lawfully or unlawfully, with or without permission) should be compensated for that use.

Why Singapore Needs a Digital Dollar

Banking and Finance

The increasing popularity of digital tokens has raised concerns among central banks worldwide, leading them to explore the concept of a digital version of central bank money. The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) is no exception, and it has been actively studying the potential benefits and risks associated with a digital version of the Singapore dollar (digital SGD). My article published in the Banking and Finance Law Review (volume 39, page 381) delves into the potential impact of a digital SGD on the public’s choices for store of value and conducting payment transactions, the funding model of the banking industry, and the monetary policy operations of MAS. It revisits fundamental topics such as the existing types of official money, bank funding models, central banks’ authority to issue banknotes, and the concept of legal tender while discussing the changes that a digital SGD would bring. The conclusion is that introducing a digital SGD would yield net positive effects, encouraging MAS to modernize its currency system to align with the evolving digital landscape in financial markets.

Consent in Modern Criminal Law

Criminal Law

Our Festschrift essay, published in the Victoria University of Wellington Law Review to honour Professor ATH Smith, addresses the current law and practice in England and Wales and in New Zealand relating to findings of consent or non-consent by P to interactions between D and P. Publication constraints required confining attention to interactions between competent adults. Neither could we discuss which activities are permissible on a menu of choices that any competent adult might make. Contested and divisive issues relating to radical choices such as the consensual infliction of serious bodily harm or ministering death to the terminally ill are not considered. Rather, our concern is with interactions between D and P, in circumstances where what D does is uncontestably lawful if done with P’s consent, yet otherwise unlawful. The cases and statutory rules discussed relate predominantly to criminal law but there is also discussion of the civil law of consent, especially in the context of crimes relating to financial and propriety wrongs.