The following is\u00c2\u00a0a brief look at some\u00c2\u00a0forthcoming articles from various Thomson Reuters journals in August:<\/p>\n
Journal of Judicial Administration<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Vol 23, Pt 1<\/b><\/p>\n In this issue of the Journal of Judicial Administration<\/i>, Chief Justice Robert French AC reflects on the task of defining courts and distinguishing them from other decision-making bodies. \u00c2\u00a0In his article \u00e2\u20ac\u201c \u00e2\u20ac\u0153The Essential and Defining Characteristics of Courts in an Age of Institutional Change\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/b> <\/i>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c Chief Justice French outlines the reasons why it is important to identify the defining attributes of courts and discusses the key matters of judicial power, separation of powers and decisional independence.<\/p>\n Also in this issue, the challenges posed to the courts and the judiciary by social media are examined in two articles:<\/p>\n Marilyn Krawitz addresses the use of social media by judges in her article \u00e2\u20ac\u201c \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Can Australian Judges Keep Their \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcFriends\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 Close and Their Ethical Obligations Closer? An Analysis of the Issues Regarding Australian Judges\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 Use of Social Media\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n Lorana Bartels and Jessica Lee consider the use of social media by jurors during the trial and deliberation process in their article \u00e2\u20ac\u201c \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Jurors Using Social Media in Our Courts: Challenges and Responses\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n Rounding out the issue is \u00e2\u20ac\u0153The Constitutionality of Minimum Mandatory Sentencing Regimes \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Part II\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/i><\/b> <\/i>by Anthony Gray and Gerard Elmore. In a 2012 issue of the Journal of Judicial Administration<\/i>, Gray and Elmore argued that there were real constitutional questions surrounding the increased use of minimum mandatory sentencing regimes. In 2013, Andrew Hemming wrote a rejoinder challenging aspects of the authors\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 reasoning in the earlier article. In the interests of public debate on such an important contemporary and contentious public issue, the authors now \u00c2\u00a0respond to Mr Hemming\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s rejoinder.<\/p>\n Company and Securities Law Journal<\/a> – Volume 35, Part 5<\/strong><\/p>\n The forthcoming issue of CSLJ will feature the following articles:<\/p>\n The section notes will include: Current developments \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Legal and administrative: <\/b>The dangers of asking the courts to \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcrubber stamp\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 settlements by ASIC\u00c2\u00a0b<\/span>y<\/em> Robert Baxt AO;\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0<\/i>\u00c2\u00a0<\/b>T<\/b>akeovers and public securities: <\/b>‘Disposal’ standstills: An emerging trend for public M&A transactions?\u00c2\u00a0by <\/em>Alberto Colla; <\/i>and Bid rigging and misleading conduct in M&A: Vendors and purchasers beware\u00c2\u00a0by<\/em> <\/b>Jonathan Farrer and Jackie Mortensen<\/i>; and\u00c2\u00a0<\/i>\u00c2\u00a0<\/b>Directors\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 duties and corporate governance: <\/b>Oppression proceedings and trust remedies: What are the limits?\u00c2\u00a0by<\/em> Braydon Heape.<\/i><\/p>\n Building and Construction Law Journal<\/a> – Volume 29, Part 4<\/strong><\/p>\n Some interesting articles are coming up for August, including:<\/p>\n\n
\n