More Comparative Law Reports From D.C. and Down Under

This is a follow-up to last week’s post Law Library of Congress Report on Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms.

The Law Library of Congress has recently released two other comparative law reports. They are:

  • Child Restraint and Seat Belt Regulations: “This report contains citations to the laws on seat belt use in Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Brazil, Canada, China, Cyprus, Egypt, England and Wales, Fiji, Ghana, Indonesia, Kiribati, Malta, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Oman, Philippines, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, and Vietnam, with information on provisions concerning children where available.”
  • Bond Requirements in Procurement Protest Procedure in Selected Countries: “This report contains information on twenty-one countries on the question of whether a bond is required for a protest procedure in government procurement. In some countries the term “deposit” or “fee” is used instead of “bond.” The majority of countries included in this report require the payment of fees for an administrative review. These fees can be forfeited if the claim is found to be frivolous. In Israel, there were proposals to adopt a bond requirement, most recently in 2007, but they were not enacted. Thirty-seven additional jurisdictions were reviewed and not found to have provisions requiring a bond: Angola, Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, China, Costa Rica, Denmark, El Salvador, the European Union, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Haiti, Honduras, Hong Kong, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Morocco, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Korea, Sweden, and Vietnam.”

The Law Library of Congress is the world’s largest law library, with a collection of over 2.65 million volumes from all ages of history and virtually every jurisdiction in the world. You can check out more of its comparative and foreign law reports on its website.

And from down under, researchers at the University of Melbourne and the NGO Transparency International Australia have released a public consultation document on Whistleblower Protection Rules in G20 Countries: The Next Action Plan. A section of the report is devoted to Canada.

From the Overview:

“The G20 countries declared in 2010 that they would have adequate measures in place by 2012 to protect whistleblowers and provide them with safe, reliable avenues to report fraud, corruption and other wrongdoing. Despite significant advances in some areas, as a whole they have fallen short of meeting this commitment. Many G20 countries’ whistleblower protection laws fail to meet international standards, and fall significantly short of best practices.”

“Serious wrongdoing can lead to wasted taxpayer money, unsafe consumer products, public health threats, financial instability and environmental damage. Lacking strong legal protections, government and corporate employees who report wrongdoing to their managers or to regulators can face dismissal, harassment and other forms of retribution. With employees deterred from coming forward, government and corporate misconduct can be perpetuated. This is the larger importance of whistleblowing protection on the G20 countries’ agendas.”

“Research presented in this report reveals important shortcomings in the whistleblower protection laws of most G20 countries. Whilst many of the criteria for a large number of the countries have not been properly satisfied, specific areas that fall well short and need immediate attention in G20 countries are laws supporting:

  • A three-tiered system of reporting channels, including clear external avenues to third parties such the media, MPs, NGOs and labour unions where necessary
  • Anonymous channels to get those who know about corruption in the door to auditors or regulators, in the first instance.
  • Internal disclosure procedures, the mechanisms by which organisations public or private adapt whistleblower protection principles to their own environment…”

Source: Slaw Legal Information

Show Comments

Comments are closed.