Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU.<\/p>\n
To purchase an article, please email: LTA.Service@thomsonreuters.com\u00c2\u00a0or\u00c2\u00a0contact us on 1300 304 195\u00c2\u00a0(Australian customers) or +61 2 8587 7980\u00c2\u00a0(international customers) during business hours\u00c2\u00a0(Mon-Fri, 8am-6pm AEST).<\/p>\n
The latest issue of the\u00c2\u00a0Australian Law Journal<\/em> (Volume 93 Part 2) contains the following material:<\/p>\n CURRENT ISSUES <\/strong><\/a>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Justice Fran\u00c3\u00a7ois Kunc<\/strong><\/p>\n CONVEYANCING AND PROPERTY <\/strong><\/a>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editors: Robert Angyal SC and Brendan Edgeworth<\/strong><\/p>\n EQUITY AND TRUSTS <\/strong><\/a>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Justice Mark Leeming<\/strong><\/p>\n INTERNATIONAL FOCUS <\/strong><\/a>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Ryszard Piotrowicz<\/strong><\/p>\n RECENT CASES <\/strong><\/a>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Ruth C A Higgins SC<\/strong><\/p>\n A Royal Prerogative to Black Swans?<\/strong><\/em><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c\u00c2\u00a0Kent Blore<\/p>\n The Commonwealth and State governments exercise the royal prerogative all the time. They enter treaties, deal with wastelands and pardon offenders. Usually the prerogative fits with modern constitutional arrangements and is not given a second thought. However, the curious example of the prerogative to swans does give pause for thought. The medieval origins of the prerogative highlight the authoritarian foundation of all prerogatives; it arose as an arbitrary confiscation of valuable property when the King was a despot. That the Queen still asserts a prerogative to swans today, long since swans ceased to be valuable as a commodity, shows that the prerogative can persist on its own steam, even though the original reasons for the prerogative have fallen away. Yet a prerogative to black swans has never been asserted, revealing there is a limit to the prerogative\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s inertia. In the end, the prerogative remains a means to exert power.<\/p>\n Extradition Treaties: The Vagaries of their Status under Australian Law<\/strong><\/em><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c\u00c2\u00a0Shannon Cuthbertson<\/p>\n Australia\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s extradition processes are governed by legislation, a range of treaties and a rich case law. Extradition cases typically cross over administrative law, criminal law, international law and specific principles developed in the field of extradition law itself. This article discusses the legislative regime governing the implementation of extradition treaties under Australian law, and jurisprudence expounding upon the effect of extradition treaties on extradition requests, both by Australia and to Australia. The article focuses in particular upon the context in which extradition treaties fall to be construed by reference to two recent High Court decisions. The article raises the question whether extradition jurisprudence demonstrates due regard to the overarching international crime co-operation regime within which extradition processes are conducted, the circumstances in which extradition treaties are negotiated, and the frame of reference afforded by international law.<\/p>\n Social Entrepreneurs: An Evaluation of the Pty Ltd Company from a Corporation\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Law and Taxation Law Perspective<\/strong><\/em><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c\u00c2\u00a0Dr Marina Nehme and Professor Fiona Martin<\/p>\n There is no legal definition of social enterprise in Australia, nor a specific structure that is designed to distinguish between \u00e2\u20ac\u0153for-profit\u00e2\u20ac\u009d and \u00e2\u20ac\u0153not-for-profit\u00e2\u20ac\u009d social enterprises. In Australia, if for-profit social entrepreneurs do not wish to rely on co-operatives as a business model, they will have to use traditional forms of legal structures such as companies. It is estimated that 18% of social enterprises in Australia use the proprietary limited corporate structure. In view of this, the authors have focused on the use of proprietary companies by for-profit social entrepreneurs to determine whether this traditional business structure can strike a balance between profit generation and the social purpose of the enterprise. The article therefore aims to highlight the advantages and disadvantages of this form of business from two perspectives: a corporate law perspective and a taxation perspective.<\/p>\n BOOK REVIEW <\/strong><\/a>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Angelina Gomez<\/strong><\/p>\n For the PDF\u00c2\u00a0version of the table of contents, click here: ALJ Vol 93 No 2 Contents<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Articles<\/h3>\n
\n