The nature of the Australian government's proposed legislative response to terrorism is discussed in this article. The authors highlight the stifling impact of the proposed legislation on rights of peaceful protest and civil liberties in Australia. The proposed legislation creates a wide range of new offences with draconian penalties, despite the adequacy of existing criminal law. It also raises a number of significant constitutional issues.

In response to the events of September 11, Singapore is in the midst of enacting legislation to address the problem of terrorist financing. This article examines the practical application of the initial Singaporean response to address the specific concerns raised by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001). In particular, it addresses whether the initial provisions enacted by Singapore to immobilize terrorist access to property and funding have a suspensory or extinctive effect, and the extent to which such provisions are consistent with a regime where terrorist-owned or -controlled property is confiscated by the state.

Electronic surveillance by the US Government and the corresponding implications for privacy protection have come under increased public scrutiny after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The USA PATRIOT Act, passed in response to the attacks and containing sweeping changes in this area, has alarmed many civil liberties groups. This article examines the nature of these changes in light of increased concerns over national security, and attempts to articulate the arguments advanced by both the US Government and privacy advocates with respect to the need and appropriateness of the legal response to the growing threat of terrorism.

The article deals with English fixed and floating charges and their recognition under the new European Insolvency Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings 2002. With the EU-Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings coming into force on 31 May 2002 one has to be aware of even more diversified international cross-border insolvency rules. Its aim is to secure the simplification of formalities governing the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments of courts and tribunals in insolvency proceedings, which have an intra-Community dimension. The Regulation is, therefore, only applicable for insolvency proceedings where the centre of the debtor's main interest, ie in the absence of proof to the contrary the place of the registered office, was situated within the European Union (intra-Community insolvencies). The EU-Regulation does not solve the problems of English security rights in other European jurisdictions. The article analyses to what extent English security rights are enforceable in Germany. English security rights are in various aspects not in compliance with the German public policy rule which has to be applied according to Article 26 of the EU-Regulation. Despite the fact English security rights can qualify as a right in rem under Article 5 of the EU-Regulation the public policy rule prevents their enforceability in German insolvency proceedings. As a result, English security rights, as they exist today, cannot secure English creditor interest effectively as regards assets situated in Germany.

The ignorance of law rule, embodied in the maxim ignorantia juris non excusat, occasionally conflicts with the fundamental tenet of the criminal law that the morally innocent should not be penalised. It is argued that this rule needs to be reformulated so that reasonable ignorance of law is not excluded as a relevant consideration in criminal matters. A comparative approach is adopted and the discussion is primarily based on the laws of Australia and England with some reference to Canadian and United States jurisprudence. The Penal Code's apparent unequivocal rejection of ignorance of law as a defence has the consequence that local courts have had almost no opportunity to consider the ignorance of law rule and possible exceptions thereto, apart from merely reaffirming that mistake of law is not a defence. The comparative analysis suggests that the ignorance of law rule, while still applicable, has been whittled by several exceptions, the broad thrust of which is that a person who is reasonably ignorant of the law is in fact morally innocent and not deserving of criminal punishment.

This article seeks to draw out the constitutional significance of recent events and developments in Singapore government and politics and to provide a provisional orientation for evaluating the legal issues raised. These developments illumine the nature of local constitutional culture as well as issues of identity, rights discourse and modalities of accountability, as an aspect of Singapore constitutionalism. Topics examined include the issue of minority rights and state interests in the light of the tudung controversy, developments towards a "self-regulatory" model of parliamentary democracy and the issue of unenumerated constitutional liberties as a possible line of development in Singapore constitutional jurisprudence.