Search results

Judging the Law of the Sea focusses on the development of law by examining how Judges interpret and apply the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The book analyses the decisions to date, assessing their influence on the law of the sea. It also considers what role Judges play in reaching decisions to resolve international disputes.

The history of the Canadian Association of Law Libraries (C.A.L.L.) has many parallels with the history of the International Association as set out by Dr. Dahlmanns in No. 28 of this Bulletin. The year 1960 seems to have been a turning point in law library development in Canada and the decade following it was a period of rapid and extensive growth both in the number of law libraries and in the size and scope of their collections. Before 1960 the possibility of a law library organization had been discussed, but in 1960 it became a reality. Under the guidance of Eunice Beeson, the newly appointed law librarian at the Dalhousie University Law School in Halifax, C.A.L.L. first came into being as a chapter of the American Association of Law Libraries. Eunice brought with her to Canada valuable experience in the American organization and she lost no time in getting the five or six widely scattered Canadian law librarians into touch with one another in a way in which they could work together on common projects and share similar concerns. She drafted the constitution of the organization, articulated ideas for co-operative ventures, and indicated practical ways of achieving what had to be done. Her death in the spring of 1966 was a great loss, but she had laid a firm foundation for the future development of the Association.

This article examines how subsidiarity can limit the exercise of EU procedural criminal law competence. It argues for a narrow understanding of subsidiarity, suggesting that EU procedural criminal law legislation can only be directed at problems which are of a cross-border nature. By analysing a specific piece of EU legislation, the new Victims Directive, it is shown how the subsidiarity principle can be enforced. The article sustains that the Victims Directive can be criticised on subsidiarity grounds as the directive fails to adequately account for the link between victim rights and the application of the principle of mutual recognition, since the directive fails to explain properly the need to regulate local victim rights. The article also draws some broader reflections on the justifications for EU harmonization. It is argued that EU initiatives in procedural criminal law have not primarily been driven by the need to facilitate mutual recognition and free movement but rather motivated by a general concern to deliver a common European sense of justice. Whilst this approach from the EU legislator can be justified from a moral perspective, it flies in the face of the idea that decisions should be taken as closely as possible in respect of citizens. ; Subsidiarity and EU criminal law

This book elaborates, illuminates, and illustrates a confident and attractive account of social and political liberalism in light of a rich understanding of flourishing and fulfilment rooted in a version of natural law theory. Examining issues in ethics, law, and politics - including consumer responsibility, the assignment of grades by teachers, deception by lawyers, war and empire, and the use of victim-impact statements in parole decisions - Gary Chartier shows how natural law theory can effectively support pluralism, diversity, social equality, integrity, peace, and freedom.

1. Introduction -- 2. Equality and Non-Discrimination Law -- 3. Non-Discrimination Law within the German and Dutch National Systems -- 4. The National Courts' Recognition of the Gender Dimension within Cases on Sex and Sexual Orientation -- 5. The Dutch and German Approaches towards Direct Discrimination -- 6. The German and Dutch Approaches towards Indirect Discrimination -- 7. EU Non-Discrimination Law in the Courts

This paper analyzes the contemporary emergence of neo-formalist and neo-functionalist approaches to law-making at a time when the state is seeking to reassert, reformulate and reconceptualize its regulatory competence, both domestically and transnationally. While the earlier turn to alternative regulation modes, conceptualized under the heading of "legal pluralism,ʺ "responsive law,ʺ or "reflexive lawʺ in the 1970s and 1980s, had aimed at a more socially responsive, contextualized, and ultimately learning mode of legal intervention, the contemporary revival of functionalist jurisprudence and its reliance on "social normsʺ embraces a limitation model of legal regulation. After revisiting the Legal Realist critique of Formalism and the formulation of functionalist regulation as a progressive agenda, this paper reflects on both the American and German justifications of market regulation and the Welfare State in order to trace the different evolution towards "responsive law" and legal pluralism in the U.S. and "post-interventionist" and "reflexive" law in Germany. This comparison allows for an identification of the emerging transnational qualities of legal normativity in the face of a declining welfare state paradigm, which - at the beginning of the 21st century - appears to provide the stage for turning the progressive gains of the former era into a set of market-oriented justifications of private autonomy and de-regulation.

The debate about the economic power of large tech firms has led to the insight that due to the key role of personal data on large digital platforms competition and privacy issues are deeply intertwined. This leads also to a complex relationship between competition law and data protection (or privacy) law, and—also from an economic perspective—the need for policy-makers to take into account the interplay between both legal regimes. This article analyzes current discussions about (1) how to integrate privacy effects into traditional competition law and (2) the far-reaching reform discussions about taming the power of the large tech firms, for example, the Digital Markets Act in the European Union or the new antitrust discussion in the United States, with respect to the question whether and to what extent they take into account this interplay between competition policy and data protection (or privacy) law. It is surprising that also the second reform discussion, which directly intends to target the power of the large tech firms, does not take into account sufficiently this interplay and the ensuing need for a more collaborative approach between these policies. Therefore, the opportunities of developing a more effective joint strategy for achieving better both competition and privacy are still missed.

In modern Constitutional Law, there is a clear tendency to justify almost all legal concepts in terms of values. The foundations of the constitutional order, constitutional principles, human dignity and rights, democracy, and, finally, constitutionalism itself as a whole are recognized as values. This demonstrates the rejection of a purely formal, positivist understanding of the constitution, constitutionality and constitutionalism. At the same time, values, by virtue of their nature, are not the most effective tools for the meaningful interpretation of traditional legal concepts and constructions. Values a priori are not universal, but relative and subjective, they are not proportionate to each other, adherence to them is often irrational and very meaningful to the individual. Because of this, values can provoke conflict, their regulatory potential is not great, and appealing to them generates many problems in the practice of constitutional review, which is the subject of this article.

The ethnography of social media is still a developing field, and the anthropology of online legal topics is even more incipient. This article charts a digital ethnography of the regulation of hate speech online by examining the infrastructure of social media platforms, the content of speech acts (including coded speech) and their offline effects. These three levels can be analysed using an adapted version of Erving Goffman's heuristic model of backstage, onstage and offstage presentations of the self in everyday life. A digital ethnography of law implies both a qualitative and quantitative study of offline effects of online speech, including harmful consequences that are direct as well as indirect. On this basis, the article presents findings that, while it is difficult to identify direct effects of online hate speech on violence, show indirect effects including the silencing of dissent and an undermining of trust and cooperation in wider society.