The development of public law is seldom regarded as a sine qua non for development. This is especially so in Asia where power and authority are viewed with respect rather than with suspicion, unlike in the west. This is ironic since Asian states have traditionally been very strong, and their roles have expanded greatly over the last forty years. Government intervention in the economy is now a given, and in many states, large bureaucracies, government agencies and government-linked companies have emerged. The expansion of the public sector calls for a legal framework of controls. If public law is to fulfill its function to check on the abuse or arbitrary exercise of executive power, it must grapple with three challenges: (a) Asian legal culture; (b) the need for governments to govern, seek legitimacy and maintain stability; and (c) extensive state intervention in the economy.

Since the United States Supreme Court's 1994 adoption of “transformative use" as a criterion for evaluating the first statutory fair use factor, “transformative use" analysis has engulfed all of fair use, becoming transformed, and perhaps deformed, in the process.Afinding of “transformativeness" often foreordained the ultimate outcome, as the remaining factors, especially the fourth, withered into restatements of the first._x000D_
Lately, however, courts are expressing greater scepticism concerning what uses actually “transform" the original content. As a result, courts may be reforming “transformative use" to reinvigorate the other statutory factors, particularly the inquiry into the impact of the use on the potential markets for or value of the copied work. The article concludes with some suggestions for rebalancing the factors.

This article examines whether it is possible to qualify a tortfeasor’s duty of care in negligence by the terms of a contract to which he is not a party.

The right of an arrested person to consult a lawyer has long been in contention. An especially_x000D_ contested issue is the point of time from which such access is constitutionally mandated. Part II contains an analysis of the recent judgments of the High Court and Court of Appeal on this topic. It examines the soundness of legal reasoning and interpretation at both levels. Part III enters into broader discussion. It explores alternative interpretations of the relevant constitutional provision, considers the fairness of the way in which the law has been applied, makes comparisons with the legal positions taken elsewhere, and reflects on principles in the administration of criminal justice that ought to shape our attitude towards this basic right.

At a time when “stateless income” is the main tax imperative, this article analyses the challenges of internationalising taxation of multinational enterprises in the digital economy and traversing the normative solutions provided so far (and still to be provided) by both coordinated and unilateral rules and policies. In such a way, this article is therefore firmly entrenched at an important intersection of comparative and business law. Considering that the main problem for tax authorities might be that they have remained national—and landlocked—whereas multinational enterprises operate globally—and virtually, this article also brings into the analysis the connected issues of free trade, globalization, and State sovereignty. The article demonstrates the necessity for international and multilateral solutions such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s Base Erosion and Profit Shifting project’s “Two-Pillar” solution and explains how this solution can be supplemented by other multilateral reforms.