Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has today become the rhetoric of every Business Enterprise, especially those engaged in Natural Resource Development. This is in recognition of its intrinsic value to the business bottom line and its ability to stave off social and reputation risks that may not only affect a project's rate of return, but also subject to questioning, its ‘social licence’ to operate. But the ‘free rider’, ‘green wash’ and ‘blue wash’ problems that result from self-regulation inherent in the practical implementation of CSR initiatives, has led to questions as to whether self regulation as exemplified in the ‘soft law’ approach to CSR and transparency, is really the answer to the problem of using CSR and Transparency initiatives, to ensure that Mineral Resource Development benefits all parties on the Mineral Development Triangle. Is government regulation a better option or should industry driven self-regulation be allowed to continue? This paper reviews the above issues using examples from a few countries to show the way forward.

Estimates of the number of Muslims in EU Member States vary widely, depending on the methodology and definitions used and the geographical limits imposed. Excluding Turkey and the Balkan-regions, researchers estimate that as many as 13 to 20 million Muslims live in the EU: That is about 3.5 - 4% of the total EU population. Muslims are the largest religious minority in Europe, and Islam is the continent's fastest growing religion. Substantial Muslim populations exist especially in Western European countries, including France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and the Scandinavian Countries. Europe's Muslim populations are ethnically diverse and Muslim immigrants in Europe hail from a variety of Middle Eastern, African, and Asian countries, as well as Turkey. Most Muslim communities have their roots in Western Europe's colonial heritage and immigration policies of the 1950s and 1960s used to counter labor shortages during the period of reconstruction after World War II. These policies attracted large numbers of North Africans, Turks, and Pakistanis. Furthermore, in recent years, there have been influxes of Muslim migrants and political refugees from other regions and countries, including the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, and the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

As the Action Plan on Modernising Company Law and Enhancing Corporate Governance in the European Union (2003) makes clear, the EU has sought to develop company and securities law as vital pillars of an overall attempt to improve Europe's international competitiveness. An important part of this is the creation of an integrated capital market in the EU. The regulation of takeover bids was deemed to be a key element of such an integrated market. This paper will focus on Directive 2004/25/EC on Takeover Bids and will seek to examine it under the regulatory microscope. It is too early to make a complete judgment about the Directive's effectiveness as a regulatory mechanism as this would involve determining whether it achieves its goals, secures high levels of compliance from Member States and market participants and is democratically accountable to the extent that its provisions affect the public interest. It is however possible to reflect upon some of its potential strengths and failings in respect of these criteria.

This article introduces Turkey's Law on Utilization of Renewable Energy Sources for the Purpose of Generating Electrical Energy (hereinafter “Law”) which, almost unnoticed abroad, was adopted on 18 May 2005. It provides an overview of the general provisions of the Law, as well as other supporting legislation regarding renewable energy sources (“RES”). However, the legislation on bio-fuel will not be taken into account.

On 15 February 2007, the European Court of Justice delivered its judgment in the case Lechouritou and others v. the State of the Federal Republic of Germany. The case concerned the question whether compensation for acts perpetrated by armed forces in the course of warfare can be asserted on the basis of the jurisdictional rules provided for by the Brussels Convention. The Court held that such an action did not fall within the scope of the Convention since it could, due to its origin in sovereign acts, not be regarded as a civil matter in terms of Art. 1 Brussels Convention. Thus, jurisdiction for claims directed at the compensation for damages resulting from the exercise of public power cannot be based on the Brussels Convention. The analysis of the Court's ruling will proceed as follows: First, the history of the case as well as the essence of the judgment will be presented (infra B) before giving a review on the Court's previous case law on the concept of “civil matters” (infra C). This outline will be followed by an analysis and a classification of the ruling in the Court's jurisprudence (infra D), before eventually the results will be summarized (infra E).

Within less than two months, three court decisions were rendered that seem to be the last step in the seemingly never-ending story of Mounir El Motassadeq before German criminal courts. First, on 16 November 2006, the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof - hereinafter BGH) found Motassadeq guilty for being a member of a terrorist organisation and for abetting the murder of 246 people, according to sections 129 and 211 (27) of the German Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch - hereinafter StGB). The court sent the case back to the Higher Regional Court of Hamburg (hereinafter OLG Hamburg), which sentenced Motassadeq to 15 years imprisonment on 8 January 2007. Following the decision of 16 November 2006, Motassadeq lodged a constitutional complaint to the German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht - hereinafter BVerfG), which declined to hear Motassadeq's case on the grounds that the complaint was both inadmissible and unsubstantiated.