Media freedom is often curtailed in the wake of terrorist attacks. In this chapter, we ask whether constitutional provisions that are intended – directly or indirectly – to protect media freedom affect the degree to which press freedom is curtailed after terrorist incidents. We find that neither provisions explicitly protecting media freedom nor provisions that might protect media freedom indirectly (such as those guaranteeing the independence of the judiciary) mitigate the post-terror curtailment of press freedom.

Most US lawsuits involving Chinese companies are initiated by or against their customers, employees, or business counterparts. However, on occasion, Chinese investors may go to court against a US government entity to resolve a dispute. As US–China relations continue to deteriorate, Chinese companies are increasingly caught in the crossfire of the geopolitical rivalry. Being suspected as agents for the Chinese state, China-headquartered multinational companies, especially those with ties to the Chinese government, have expressed growing frustration over what they perceive as unfair treatment by the US government. This chapter examines the legal reactions of Chinese companies to perceived official bias in the United States in the context of intensifying geopolitical tensions.

The rule of law and judicial independence are a project yet to be achieved in Mozambique. The different attempts made so far to reform the legal system, mainly after the change in political and strategic direction brought about by the Constitution of 1990, were always short-sighted and conjunctural in nature, under domestic and foreign pressure that was not always clear or well-intentioned. Real structural reforms need to be made for the judiciary to be able to affirm itself as a real power and, in this way, favour balanced growth of companies, increased productivity, investment and jobs and, at the same time, the defence of the rights and legitimate interests of individuals and groups with fewer economic resources.

Although Macau became a Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China in 1999, foreign judges from Portugal have continued to be appointed to Macau’s courts. Macau is remarkable for the way that the institution of foreign judges is emblematically inscribed in the Basic Law, and in this context, foreign judges have a dual value, not only bringing their individual expertise and judicial values to the Macau judiciary, but also importing the characteristics and values of the legal system in which they originate. This dual role helps to fulfil the ‘One Country, Two Systems’ policy and uphold its corollaries, including the continuance of a legal system that is different from that in the Mainland, based on the principles of judicial independence and impartiality. The chapter highlights two worrying trends: the declining number and proportion of foreign judges appointed to Macau’s courts, and the exclusion of foreign judges from cases involving ‘national security’ issues.

This chapter outlines the reasons behind the appointment of foreign judges in the Commonwealth. It discusses the ways in which foreign judges are appointed to national courts in overseas dependent territories and in Commonwealth member states. It also discusses how foreign judges are appointed to ad hoc tribunals or on temporary assignments for sensitive political cases or impeachment processes. The chapter draws attention to some of the challenges and pitfalls encountered as well as the advantages in using foreign judges in national courts around the Commonwealth to enrich legal and judicial developments across the Commonwealth.

In the Middle East and North Africa region, laws organising the judiciary and bilateral agreements on judicial cooperation expressly permit the use of foreign judges on domestic courts. Judicial ‘secondments’ of this type allow host courts to deal with increasing caseloads expeditiously, while providing shadow-training for domestic judges in the long term. This chapter outlines the practice of sharing judges in the region and describes how foreign judges serve on domestic courts in Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, in law and practice. Using the lens of political economy, the analysis highlights two trends in the region. The first is the recruitment of foreign judges to fill skills and knowledge-based gaps among domestic judiciaries. The second is the high degree of executive control over the movement of judges, in both sending and receiving states, with implications for the separation of powers, judicial independence and executive accountability.

After 22 years of uninterrupted authoritarian government headed by Yahya Jammeh, The Gambia formally began a transition to democracy after the December 2016 elections. Given the inadequate development of local legal tradition and lack of resources to fully equip the judiciary, The Gambia has a history of having foreign judges on the bench. This chapter provides insights from The Gambia’s distinctive experience in using foreign judges in the contexts of decolonisation, an authoritarian regime, and transition to democracy. The Gambian context raises important questions about the role of foreign judges in a new democracy emerging from colonial and authoritarian rule. Accordingly, through a historical and contemporary critical review, the chapter provides an overview of the rationale for the use of foreign judges and its impact on judicial independence and the rule of law.

Foreign judges sit on domestic courts in over 50 jurisdictions across the world. The practice raises underexplored questions about the significance of foreignness and mobility to the judicial role. This chapter draws on the contributions to The Cambridge Handbook of Foreign Judges on Domestic Courts to set out a framework for analysing the phenomenon of foreign judging and its legitimacy and effectiveness. Drawing on various incidents of foreign judging, it disaggregates five rationales for the use of foreign judges on domestic courts: necessity, institution building, distance, expertise and reputation. It identifies size, the domestic legal system, and the degree of international involvement as factors that make some jurisdictions more receptive than others to foreign judges. The chapter canvasses the implications of foreign judging for the identity and role of the judge, judicial independence and accountability, and adjudication and the development of the law. The experiences of jurisdictions across the globe suggest that foreign judging is a diverse phenomenon which will continue to evolve in contemporary conditions of globalisation.

This chapter examines the appointment of foreign judges through the lens of political contestation and potential judicial interference in Botswana, Lesotho and Eswatini. It first interrogates why the appointment of foreign judges continued after domestic pipelines of judges had increased. Adopting a regime-based approach, the chapter first argues that the continued appointment of foreign judges beyond functional necessity is a form of strategic policy drift, because it does not require a new policy and it may be couched in positive or populist terms. Second, this chapter examines the timing of the pivot away from the appointment of foreign judges in Botswana and Eswatini. It shows that judicial leadership combined with local demand plays an important role in the timing of change, but that the localisation of appointments to apex courts of appeal, without reform of the appointment process itself, provides democratic window dressing for hegemonic regimes. The rhetoric around citizen-based localisation (Botswana) or racially-based Africanisation (Eswatini) has a populist flavour which may provide cover for varying degrees of autocratic behaviours.

Foreign judging in the small jurisdictions in the Anglo Caribbean is ubiquitous and diverse. It is evident in extraterritorial and hybrid courts and a diverse group of foreign judicial officers. This chapter defines foreign judging to include intra- and extra-Caribbean personnel and institutions and complicates the image of the foreign judge as entirely an outsider. The chapter traces ways in which foreign judging has refined understandings of judicial independence in the Caribbean. It examines the dynamics of the two apex extraterritorial courts, one a surviving imperial court (the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council) and the other a more modern decolonisation-driven treaty-based court (the Caribbean Court of Justice). The chapter looks at how conceptions of judicial tenure until retirement are upended by mobile judges who serve consecutively or concurrently in more than one jurisdiction. It also explores how the stringent requirements for removal of a judge are recalibrated by the heightened scrutiny of judicial conduct in small jurisdictions.

Since 1906, when the British colonial Residency commenced, Brunei Darussalam has had a dual legal system in which common law courts operated alongside Islamic courts. In keeping with the Sultan’s post-independence ideological policy for Islamisation of law and legal institutions, the jurisdiction and importance of the Islamic courts has increased. However, the higher echelons of common law courts, including the Court of Appeal, remain constituted by non-citizen, foreign judges from the British Commonwealth. This chapter evaluates the current role and purpose of foreign judges in the Sultanate. Whilst these judges cannot engage in constitutional interpretation or in judicial review, their distinguished careers outside Brunei Darussalam enable their presence to bring independence, impartiality, and experience to Brunei Darussalam’s civil courts. The chapter reflects on the impact on the dual system court from creating a zikir (fully-Syariah compliant) nation, and consequences of duplication and jurisdictional uncertainty that have arisen.

Seychelles is a small island state with a hybridity of citizens, language, and culture. Its heritage of double colonisation has resulted in a complex blend of the French civil tradition and English common law. Litigation and adjudication in Seychelles have demanded knowledge of both legal traditions and necessitated the recruitment of judicial officers from outside the jurisdiction to complement the limited pool of locally available judges. This chapter considers the substantive and procedural constitutional provisions for the appointment of both Seychellois and foreign judges to the judiciary of Seychelles, the ratio of foreign judges to Seychellois judges, and how Seychellois view foreign judges and whether their perspectives on the role of foreign judges is substantiated by evidence. Examples of some of the difficulties experienced by the appointment of foreign judges are given, together with a reflection on whether these issues are specific to foreign judges or apply to judges generally. Finally, the continuing role of foreign judges in the Seychellois judiciary is explored together with an assessment of their contribution to, and/or diminution of, the judicial and legal landscape.