The following sections are included: introduction; key characteristics of transformative mediation; limitations: consideration of the Asian context; conclusion

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0276124

“Developed” states tend to reflect their own development experience in their dealings with “less developed” states, encouraging replication of their own solutions and processes. This is “recursive” law and development (LAD). This article examines the role of Singapore in LAD processes in the ASEAN region. It finds that Singapore’s LAD efforts are recursive and focused on rule-of-law and governance training, including especially anti-corruption methods. These are conducted not via a special agency, but via co-operation that is multilevel, multidimensional, and untrumpeted. LAD can learn lessons from this approach.

This article will shed light on efforts to deal with the growing issue of fake news in Australia and Singapore. First, this article will attempt to define “fake news” in the context of its spread on social media. Then, it will outline how the inadequacy of social media companies' efforts and high levels of social diversity incentivised both countries to clamp down on fake news. This will be followed by a comparative analysis and evaluation of Australia and Singapore's measures. From this analysis, it is evident that Singapore's approach is more cautious and paternalistic, while Australia's is more focused on engaging with and involving industry players in solving the problem of fake news.

Party autonomy is the defining principle of private international law today. Notwithstanding its broad acceptance, what does party autonomy mean in the context of jurisdiction agreements? The lack of commercial certainty in how the agreement to “submit” to the jurisdiction of the courts in the chosen forum will be interpreted and enforced by the courts defeats the very purpose of party autonomy itself, which is the management of venue risk by commercial parties in entering into cross-border transactions. In light of recent developments, the Singapore court has blurred the distinction between exclusive and non-exclusive jurisdiction agreements by holding that the same requirement of “strong cause” applies if a party reneges on its agreement to “submit”. This is premised on the same strict contractual analysis and enforcement of both types of agreements. It is against this background that the approach of the Singapore courts in determining the exercise of their own jurisdiction under the common law will be reappraised, along with a comparison with the practice of the English courts.