Ah yes I fully understand that, and in posting this I was anticipating that somebody would raise this.
However, if you take the time to carefully research legal literature on the origins of this common law doctrine of "Natural Justice", you will find that it has great relevance in the realm of international administrative law (the very thing that ETM's case falls under). One might say infact that this very ancient principle is indeed the very cornerstone of international law, regardless the jurisdiction or choice legal system (link).
Origins & Universality of principle of "Natural Justice"The article I originally posted does indeed relate to Australia. However, the reasoning of the honorable justices was in fact not based on written Australian law, but rather on a broad principle that is the foundation of jurisprudence in all jurisdiction having the rule of law, of which Denmark is one.
Now, the exact reasoning set out by the justices of the High Court of Australia is very interesting and pertinent as it explains pretty clearly how statute laws must always be assumed to be in conformity to the general principles of "Natural Justice" & "Administrative Fairness" by default ----
unless the legislative passing the law specifically states within their statute the contrary intention.Thus if the new Mining Act that the Government of Greenland passed had specifically stated that the express purpose of the new act was to deprive entities like ETM of their contractual rights under "Natural Justice", the government of Greenland would have been within their legislative rights (albeit probably pretty ill advised to do so given the obvious likely reaction from the mining community).
From what I read in ETM's pleadings, in fact the
exact opposite is true as their new mining act in fact makes reference to NOT depriving entities of their existing rights, thus preserving those lofty and universal legal principles "Natural Justice" & "Administrative Fairness".
"Q.E.D." as a mathematician might say, no?
