International and Comparative Law Quarterly [VOL. 41 latter, while eagerly awaited by the shipping community, contained no great legal surprises; the former, however, has proved a fertile source of debate, as the author amply demonstrates. At a time when the full implications of The "Laura Prima" have yet to be established. The "Kyzikos" now shows that a distinction must be firmly drawn between "availability" for the purposes of a WIBON (whether in berth or not) clause on the one hand and a "reachable on arrival" provision on the other. The section on transfer of title (considered in the context of the liability of parties other than the charterer for demurrage) is perhaps the weakest; the comments on the Gardano case are questionable in the light of The "Albazero" and the whole section needs revision following the recent trio of Court of Appeal decisions in The "Delfini", The "Aramis", and The "Filioira Legacy". Nonetheless, this is a very minor niggle about an otherwise first-class and authoritative textbook on a specialist area of shipping law. It is undoubtedly essential reading for anyone in the shipping field. In a different style altogether is The Guide to the "Boxlime" Charter Party. This is the first coherent attempt to grapple with the impact of containerisation on traditional allocations of responsibilities between owner and charterer in a time charter context; no longer is it sufficient merely to rely on wholesale amendments to the New York Produce Exchange form. Nominally the fruits of a BIMCO working party, the Boxtime charter is, however, inspired by and very largely based on the work of the author. The purpose-built form comes in three parts: Part I is in box format familiar from other BIMCO forms; Part II contains detailed standard provisions; Part HI presents technical data in a standard format. The bulk of the Guide comprises a commentary on each of the standard clauses. Their rationale and wordings are explained, together with how they are intended to work in practice. Equally illuminating is the discussion-of the provisions excluded from the final version. Helpful practical hints on the use of the form are included, as well as suggestions for additional clauses and modifications. The primary aim of the author was to achieve clarity, simplicity and consistency of language, while maintaining an adequate balance between the interests of owner and charterer. Unnecessary duplication has been eliminated and explicit provision made for most of the situations which have proved troublesome in the past, such as responsibility for stowing and securing. A novel feature is the introduction of a time limit for claims against the charterer, and not even the broken are forgotten: the form contains an indemnity against loss of commission due to cancellation or breach. Although speculation as to its future is premature, the form is unlikely to need extensive judicial consideration. If so, its author's efforts will have been well rewarded. This is an excellent practical guide to a very worthwhile undertaking. I...

The article reviews recent developments in England in the law of necessity as a defence to crime and calls for its further extension. It argues that the defence of necessity presents the criminal law with difficult questions of competing values and the ordering of harms. English law has taken a nuanced position on the respective roles of the courts and the legislature in the ordering of harms, although the development of the law has been pragmatic rather than coherently theorised. The law has granted necessity some scope as an exculpatory principle in the law of general defences, but it has also respected the primacy of the legislature as the legitimate arbiter of many of the competitions of value that necessity throws up. The recognition of necessity has not been in the form of a single unified defence of that name. Rather it has taken the form of a number of defences, based on a principle of necessity, but with different nomenclature and different rationales. This approach to necessity is defended as right in terms of principle and policy. Any further development of necessity as a general defence should be restricted to two contexts, namely those of emergencies, and of conflicts of duty, where a danger of death or serious injury is present.

THE privilege against self-incrimination has always attracted controversy. Legal historians continue to disagree over its origins,1 and its justification has been keenly debated ever since Bentham's famous attack on it as a misguided concession to the guilty.2 This debate has recently entered a new and critical phase as the result of diametrically opposed developments by, on the one hand, the courts and legislature in England and, on the other, by the institutions of the European Convention of Human Rights.

No abstract

No abstract