This research explores the attitudes towards and the use of positive action aimed at addressing gender inequality in apprenticeships offered in sectors in which women are underrepresented in England. This research has been conducted as a means of following up recommendations made in research undertaken by the Young Women’s Trust (YWT) in 2016. The YWT report recommended that where it can be shown that the number of women undertaking apprenticeships in any given sector is disproportionately low employers should consider whether they can take positive action to increase the participation of women. It was therefore considered that in the context of apprenticeships, the overwhelming gender disparity in certain sectors and in particular the attitudes towards and use of positive action in resolving this gender disparity required further exploration. The engineering, ICT and construction sectors have therefore been chosen by the researcher and the YWT due to the stark underrepresentation of women in these sectors in England. This research concludes with appropriate specific recommendations on positive action in relation to gender segregated apprenticeships in England within the particular sectors explored. However, it is hoped that these may provide a foundation for the development of wider recommendations in relation to the effective use of positive action initiatives more generally across the protected characteristics and beyond apprenticeships in the UK.

Due to the ineffectiveness of the extant regulatory framework (not limited to home country, host country and international law) governing the activities of multinational corporations (MNCs), new regulatory paradigms have been advocated by scholars. Arguably, the African Union (AU) (and its mechanisms) can be the basis of MNC regulation in Africa. However, regulation of the activities of MNCs operating in Africa appears not to be among the major or pressing priorities of the African Union (AU) and its institutions. There is no normative and institutional framework at the AU level regulating the activities of MNCs in Africa. There are, however, moves to design measures to redress this anomaly. This article will focus on the development of recent strategies by the AU and its institutions to “regulate” the activities of MNCs in Africa and its implications in Nigeria.

The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (African Charter) establishes a system or mechanism for the promotion and protection of human rights in Africa within the framework of the African Union (formerly known as the Organisation of African Unity). The African Charter promotes a range of human rights such as civil and political, socio-economic and cultural, individual and collective rights. The African Charter is the first regional mechanism to incorporate the different classes of human rights in a single document. There have been a plethora of academic postulations indicating that the African Charter has impacted Nigerian Law minimally. This article contends that the African Charter has impacted positively on Nigerian law notwithstanding the academic postulations to the contrary.

Nigeria operates a command and control regulatory framework in the oil and gas sector. This type of regulation was prevalent in the United States and Britain during the 1970s and 1980s. Under this regulatory framework, regulators are deemed to be acting in the public interest. This article focuses on the extant public regulatory regime in the oil and gas sector in Nigeria. Generally, factors, such as red-tape, over-regulation and regulatory capture, amongst others, are some reasons militating against a command and control regulatory regime. This article will contend that unless there is a paradigmatic shift in the state-oriented or public regulatory framework in the oil and gas sector in Nigeria, the fundamental ills or malaise afflicting the industry will not abate.

The criminalisation of irregular migrants – in relation to irregular entry, residence, and work – is considered against the 1975 and 1990 ILO Migrant Workers Conventions (MWC); the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 (ICCPR); the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1966 (ICESCR); the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDG); and the Convention against Transnational Organized Crime 2000, including its Protocols to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children (‘the Trafficking Protocol’) and against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air (‘the Smuggling Protocol’). The creation of laws, which are generally applied only to foreigners – concerning irregular entry, residence, and work – increases costs and exposure to adverse labour conditions and social vulnerabilities, and also impedes access to justice. The possibilities of criminal conviction, resulting in fines, imprisonment and expulsion contribute to a precarious class of low-skilled migrant. The chapter argues that the criminalisation of migration exacerbates the migrant premium because it decreases income while increasing dependency on employers, smugglers and traffickers and complicates access to human rights protection. The chapter suggests that one of the policy propositions for the Global Compact should be an understanding of how the emphasis internationally, regionally and nationally on smuggling and trafficking and border control has resulted in the criminalisation of irregular migrants – both potential and actual - for the ways in which they enter, leave, reside and work in a country; and that migrants need to be able to manage their working needs in a flexible manner.

This report is based on research commissioned by the institutional Research and Knowledge Transfer Office between June 2015 and June 2016. This research has focused on generating qualitative and quantitative data as to the potential reasons why there appears to be a gender disparity in research productivity within the commissioning institution. In particular, the number of women self-selecting for representation in the REF2014 was comparatively low. This research was led by Dr Chantal Davies (as part of her broader remit in relation to the Forum for Research into Equality and Diversity) with Dr Ruth Healey as co-researcher and Anthony Cliffe as research assistant. A Steering Group made up of representatives from across the institution oversaw the process.

Editorial for a double edition of the International Journal of Discrimination and the Law based on a conference hosted by the University of Chester in collaboration with the University of Liverpool on the Equality Act 2010.

An overview of company law as it applies to incorporation of the company and the importance of separate corporate personality & the maintenance of the corporate veil.

Crossing the rubicon: an exploration of the use of positive action provisions in Higher Education Institutions in the UK

Despite laws in Britain permitting limited positive action initiatives to combat disadvantage faced by minority groups in employment since the mid-1970s, the subject has notoriously been a neglected and highly controversial area in the UK. Notwithstanding the potential provided by sections 158 and 159 of the Equality Act 2010, it still appears that organizations prefer to steer clear of this opportunity to address disadvantage suffered by protected groups. Whilst there is a body of work considering the theoretical importance of positive action in the UK (see inter alia Barmes, 2011; Burrows & Robison, 2006; Johns et al, 2014; McCrudden 1986; Noon, 2010), there is a lack of empirical exploration of the practical implications of these provisions. Qualitative study to determine the utility of the positive action provisions is considered both timely and necessary as we approach the fifth anniversary of the Equality Act 2010. This paper will explore the theoretical context of the current positive action provisions within England, Scotland and Wales. It will also discuss the early findings of a small-scale qualitative study carried out by the authors looking at the experiences of a purposive sample of public and private organisations in light of the potential for positive action in relation to employment in the UK.