Search results

The fact that an integrated dominant firm deals on more favourable conditions with its affiliated divisions may be abusive within the meaning of Article 102 TFEU. It is not clear when and why this is the case. It has sometimes been suggested that, as a rule, dominant firms are not entitled to favour their own activities over those of rivals. This piece shows that there is no such thing as a non-discrimination rule applying across the board, which, if anything, would run counter to the logic and purpose of competition law. A case-by-case assessment is thus justified. There are compelling reasons to expand to exclusionary discrimination the principles set out in the Guidance Paper 2008 for the assessment of refusals to deal and "margin squeeze" abuses.

This book takes up a central question in jurisprudence: What difference can law make to normative reasons relevant to our actions? Following a critical examination of two competing models, an exclusionary model and a weighing model, Gur proposes a third way that aims to capture the strengths of both of these models while avoiding their pitfalls.

Cicero's famous words Omnes Legum servi sumus ut liberi esse possimus have stood the test of time. Jean-Jacques Rousseau however writes that Man is born free but everywhere he is in chains, implying that man is constrained both by legal and social forces. This paradox is reflected in the balance between criminal substantive and procedural law on the one hand and the rights of the citizen, including human rights, on the other. The latter can indeed only be enforced and ensured by a derogation therefrom in certain circumstances. The right to liberty, for instance, can only be ensured by restricting the liberty of others, whether in ordinary behaviour or as a punishment for previous conduct. This paradoxical situation is also reflected in rules governing illegally obtained evidence. Should the accused be convicted on the grounds of evidence obtained illegally, against his rights or should his rights be given precedence, excluding the evidence, and in so doing detract from the protection of the rights of others in general? The examples drawn from various jurisdictions vary greatly owing to historical, social and political reasons. ; peer-reviewed

The extent to which a free society seeks to regulate sexual expression is problematic. What was defined as immoral or contra bonos mores in the 20th century, has become less of an issue in today's liberal society. Freedom of sexual intimacy and expression are, to be sure, 1st Amendment and 14th Amendment rights. But, with every assertion of a fundamental right or liberty must come a concomitant understanding that there is a co-ordinate responsibility to exercise that right reasonably. Determining the reasonableness of any conduct grounded in these two amendments must be fact sensitive and guided by community standards. Broad, open-ended moral judgments should be eschewed as foundational bases for legal judgments. Indeed, advancing moral grounds as justification for regulating personal liberties of sexual expression and association are being seen by some as invalid reasons for enacting exclusionary land use regulations - here, for the containment of activities connected with sexually oriented businesses [SOBs]. No unequivocal standard of dispositive clarity will ever be formulated which determines when conduct is unreasonable in that it is lewd and obscene or when written, electronic and photographic material pornographic in content rises to the level of obscenity and thereby subject to strict regulation. The most logical and common sense approach to this quandary is for legislators, land use planners, zoning commissioners and courts, in trying to either eliminate or contain the operation of SOBs, is to rely upon and use several tools: common law nuisance fortified by either moral, anticipatory or aesthetic iterations or models, and exclusionary zoning techniques. Difficult though determining when, under nuisance law, conduct is so unreasonable as to warrant its cessation, the Restatement of Torts Second provides a workable construct for making that determination. Both strengthened and guided by the doctrine of secondary effects, nuisance actions of all types have a clear placement in the arsenal of legal weapons which may be used to regulate effectively SOBs. The implementation of a community-based standard of morality for proper regulatory control of SOBs will always present an issue of unpredictability inherent in its underlying flexibility. For the content-neutral regulation of sexually oriented businesses, the only limiting requirement analyzed, aside from ensuring adequate alternative channels of communication, is determining if the regulation serves a significant government interest. Further, while the Supreme Court has held repeatedly that preventing a multitude of secondary effects is a significant government interest, the manner in which that goal could be served has not been meaningfully defined or limited. The secondary effects doctrine places great power, and corresponding responsibility, in the hands of each local community - but it does so at the peril of uniformity. While uniformity is not an absolute necessity in the Federalist system, the type and severity of secondary effect that can be a justification for regulating the location of a sexually oriented business should be clarified. The time, place, or manner restrictions imposed can be left up to each locality to tailor to their needs, but the triggering events for those restrictions must be more clearly defined.

Although Chinese exclusionary rule reform made significant progress in technology, China does not fundamentally change the operating environment of exclusionary rule. With respect to the function of criminal court hearing, it is difficult for us to find ample scope for the exclusionary rule. On the one hand, the particular mutual coordination among investigators, procuratorates and courts in China, and the criminal procedure structure centered on the pretrial procedure basically determine that it is difficult for the defense party to completely overthrow the procuratorate's prosecution through applying for excluding illegally obtained evidence. Even if the defense party can occasionally impel the court to exclude illegally obtained evidence by forceful evidence, the defendant fails to change the result of being convicted. On the other hand, in the case of a formalistic court investigation and the phase separation between hearing and adjudicating, coupled with excessive emphasis on the truth of a case fact, the exclusionary rule with the high expectations of the whole society still exists in name only as before.

The other two respondents have carefully articulated many objections to David Imbroscio's essay, responding to its arguments on its own terms. Rather than another point-by-point response, I offer a counternarrative that looks toward the future. In my view, ending exclusionary zoning (EZ) is an important element in a campaign to avoid some of the suffering low-income people in the United States will experience as the global climate emergency becomes increasingly acute, the national population ages, and the entrenched power of right-wing libertarians sustains inequality. Parochial actions like EZ will further complicate responses to these challenges. My response argues that for these reasons, Imbroscio's essay is neither ethical nor logical.

Is capitalism inherently predatory? Must there be winners and losers? Is public interest outdated and free-riding rational? Is consumer choice the same as self-determination? Must bargainers abandon the no-harm principle? Prisoners of Reason recalls that classical liberal capitalism exalted the no-harm principle. Although imperfect and exclusionary, modern liberalism recognized individual human dignity alongside individuals' responsibility to respect others. Neoliberalism, by contrast, views life as ceaseless struggle. Agents vie for scarce resources in antagonistic competition in which every individual seeks dominance. This political theory is codified in non-cooperative game theory; the neoliberal citizen and consumer is the strategic rational actor. Rational choice justifies ends irrespective of means. Money becomes the medium of all value. Solidarity and good will are invalidated. Relationships are conducted on a quid pro quo basis. However, agents can freely opt out of this cynical race to the bottom by embracing a more expansive range of coherent action

El propósito de este trabajo es esbozar brevemente la Teoría del Derecho de Raz como una versión más débil que la versión positivista clásica del punto de vista interno expuesta por H.L.A. Hart. Esto es así, porque la noción de Raz de aceptación o punto de vista interno está caracterizada por la creencia en la legitimidad política de la legislatura, concluyendo en una teoría del derecho explicativo-justificatoria. Además, su noción de punto de vista interno o del participante considera las normas como razones excluyentes para la acción. Esta concepción de las normas será motivo de algunas observaciones críticas provenientes de la identificación de dichas razones con hechos, lo que permite concluir que, o bien no son razones, o bien son razones objetivas, pues se identifican con hechos que existen con independencia de los procedimientos acordados para llegar a conocerlos, esto es, con independencia de sujetos que razonen. ; The purpose of this paper is rough draft briefly the Raz's theory of law as one version more weaker than the internal point of view at the classical positivist version of H. L. A. Hart. That is so, because the Raz's notion of acceptation or internal point of view, is characterized for the belief in the political legitimity of legislature, coming to a conclusion in one explicative-justificatory theory of law. Moreover, his notion of internal point of view of the participant characterizes the norms like exclusionary reasons for the action. We shall expounds, furthermore, any critical remarks which arises of the identification of these reasons with facts, that which allow concluding that either aren't reasons or are objetive reasons, because these are identify with facts that exists independently of the procedures accords for arrive to it knowledge, that is to say, with independence of individuals that reasons.

Cover; Half Title; Series Page; Title; Copyright; Contents; Preface; PART I The Value View; 1 The Value View-the Basics; 2 The Components of a Claim; 3 In Defense of the Value View; PART II The Agency View; 4 The Agency View-the Basics; 5 The Components of Owing: Exclusionary Reasons and Relationality; 6 How Agency Generates Rights; 7 The Strength of Claims (and Rights); 8 The Moral Significance of Rights; 9 Losing Rights; PART III Exercise-Based Rights; 10 Exercise-Based Rights-the Very Idea; 11 Exercise-Based Rights-Why Accept Them?; Bibliography; Index

AbstractPopulist right‐wing politicians and voters tend to dismiss climate change. To investigate possible reasons for this, we tested correlations between climate change denial and variables linked to right‐wing populism (Study 1: N = 1,587; Study 2: N = 909). The strongest predictor of climate change denial was an index capturing exclusionary and anti‐egalitarian preferences (opposition to, e.g., multiculturalism and feminism), followed by traditional values (Study 1) and Social Dominance Orientation (Study 2). Populist antiestablishment attitudes correlated only weakly with climate change denial, and this correlation vanished when exclusionary and anti‐egalitarian preferences were controlled for. Also, the effects of authoritarianism (Study 2) and (low) openness vanished in the full models. Climate change denial did not correlate with (low) agreeableness, which is a personality trait linked to populism. However, both antiestablishment attitudes and climate change denial correlated with pseudoscientific beliefs (e.g., anti‐vaccination attitudes) (Study 1). To conclude, we did not find support for a notable linkage between climate change denial and populist antiestablishment attitudes. Thus, when addressing climate change denial, it could be more beneficial to focus on the ideological worldviews that are being protected by denial, such as endorsement of the existing societal power relations, than on the antiestablishment arguments used by some who deny.

Populist right-wing politicians and voters tend to dismiss climate change. To investigate possible reasons for this, we tested correlations between climate change denial and variables linked to right-wing populism (Study 1: N = 1,587; Study 2: N = 909). The strongest predictor of climate change denial was an index capturing exclusionary and anti-egalitarian preferences (opposition to, e.g., multiculturalism and feminism), followed by traditional values (Study 1) and Social Dominance Orientation (Study 2). Populist antiestablishment attitudes correlated only weakly with climate change denial, and this correlation vanished when exclusionary and anti-egalitarian preferences were controlled for. Also, the effects of authoritarianism (Study 2) and (low) openness vanished in the full models. Climate change denial did not correlate with (low) agreeableness, which is a personality trait linked to populism. However, both antiestablishment attitudes and climate change denial correlated with pseudoscientific beliefs (e.g., anti-vaccination attitudes) (Study 1). To conclude, we did not find support for a notable linkage between climate change denial and populist antiestablishment attitudes. Thus, when addressing climate change denial, it could be more beneficial to focus on the ideological worldviews that are being protected by denial, such as endorsement of the existing societal power relations, than on the antiestablishment arguments used by some who deny.

This thesis addresses the human and sovereign rights of plane arrival asylum seekers in Australia. Since its inception, the Australian Federal Parliament has exercised its power to create exceptions to the law that exclude some people from gaining permanent residency and citizenship. This discriminatory practice undermines the power of Australian courts to protect the inalienable human rights of all sovereign human beings, regardless of their country of citizenship. Some of the tensions between the Federal Parliament and the Court regarding protection of asylum seekers are analysed. The basis for analysis is an in-depth and robust qualitative study of 20 plane arrival asylum seeker cases. All of the arrivals failed to gain asylum in the first stage of the process. The main focus is to examine the problem of achieving fair assessments of this cohort s protection claims and the human rights abuses suffered during this process. The reasons as to why they were not granted protection is assessed and interpreted in the context of international and domestic law. Particular refugee determination decisions are analysed in detail. This is followed by a forensic qualitative examination of tribunal review decisions and an examination of the way Ministerial requests for humanitarian consideration were declined. Legislation affecting court outcomes is also examined. Immigration department correspondence with asylum seekers and their advocates was included in the analysis where appropriate. The findings of this study demonstrate the systemic administrative practice of exclusion of some plane arrival asylum seekers from 1997 to 2009 regardless of the merits of their protection needs. Ways in which the assessment process could be made more just are presented. The thesis concludes that Australia s Federal Parliament is failing in its duty to work co-operatively, but at arms-length with independent bodies, to establish appropriately fair policies for determining refugee status. Prior to and since the Parliamentary Human Rights ...

Questa tesi si propone di esaminare la rappresentazione di diversità, xenofobia, razzismo e pratiche di esclusione in due serie TV di fantascienza di recente produzione: Humans (Sam Vincent e Jonathan Brackley, Channel 4 e AMC, UK e USA, 3 stagioni, 24 episodi, 2015-2018) e The Aliens (Fintan Ryan, E4, 1 stagione, 6 episodi, 2016). Entrambe le serie sono ambientate nel Regno Unito, in un presente alternativo in cui oltre agli umani è presente un'altra specie umanoide senziente: androidi nel primo caso, alieni nel secondo. In entrambe le serie, il gruppo di non-umani è costretto ad una posizione sociale subalterna e i protagonisti non-umani subiscono discriminazione e razzismo da parte degli umani: in questo modo, si rappresenta metaforicamente la condizione dei migranti e delle minoranze etniche nel Nord Globale di oggi. Partendo da questa simbologia, il mio scopo è di analizzare Humans e The Aliens attraverso un approccio culturalista, per determinare se queste due serie presentino particolari innovazioni nella rappresentazione della diversità all'interno del genere fantascientifico. Nell'introduzione spiego i motivi che mi hanno portata a scegliere questo argomento di studio e fornisco una cornice metodologica per la mia analisi. Traccio poi un quadro generale dei tropi dell'alieno e dell'androide come metafore di alterità, basandomi sull'attuale stato dell'arte nei principali campi di studio coinvolti: fantascienza, cinema e televisione, studi culturali, studi sulle migrazioni. Evidenzio che nel cinema, in particolare, la rappresentazione di alieni e androidi è stata spesso considerata eccessivamente semplificata e binaria, con personaggi non-umani presentati come univocamente positivi o negativi. Ipotizzo, quindi, che le serie TV contemporanee, che sono spesso lodate per la loro capacità di raccontare storie corali e sfaccettate, possano fornire rappresentazioni della diversità più complesse, in cui si dà spazio a molteplici punti di vista e a una pluralità di prospettive. Nel primo capitolo spiego il motivo per cui ho scelto Humans e The Aliens e analizzo la rappresentazione della diversità nelle due serie, concentrandomi sulla costruzione e imposizione dell'alterità, sullo status sociale dei personaggi non-umani, sulle spazialità dell'abiezione, e su come tutti questi aspetti possano essere letti come metafora della condizione dei migranti nel Nord Globale, in particolare nel Regno Unito e negli Stati Uniti. Nel secondo capitolo analizzo la caratterizzazione di androidi e alieni nelle due serie, dimostrando attraverso quali strategie questi personaggi vengano arricchiti di voce e agency, e come la lunghezza e l'organizzazione temporale della narrazione permettano effettivamente di presentare punti di vista diversi e in contrasto tra loro. Esamino poi la narrazione affettiva in Humans e The Aliens, che ritengo innovativa rispetto a casi precedenti nella fantascienza, e traccio una possibile connessione con la recente rilevanza dell'affetto notata già da tempo da studiosi di molte discipline filosofiche, psicologiche e umanistiche e divenuta sempre più importante in tempi recenti nell'ambito degli studi culturali, dell'analisi del discorso, della comunicazione politica e della teoria dei media. Nelle conclusioni confermo che Humans e The Aliens presentano alcune interessanti innovazioni nella rappresentazione della diversità all'interno del genere fantascientifico; queste innovazioni sono rese possibili dalla specificità del mezzo narrativo utilizzato e sono coerenti con tendenze culturali e comunicative recenti. Infine, suggerisco alcune domande e questioni rimaste da esplorare e propongo possibili sviluppi di ricerca futuri. ; This work examines the representation of diversity, xenophobia, racism, and exclusionary practices in two recent science fiction TV series: Humans (Sam Vincent and Jonathan Brackley, Channel 4 and AMC, UK and USA, 3 seasons, 24 episodes, 2015-2018) and The Aliens (Fintan Ryan, E4, 1 season, 6 episodes, 2016). Both series are set in the United Kingdom and represent an alternative present in which another sentient humanoid species exists alongside humans: androids in one case, aliens in the other. In both series, the group of non-humans is confined to a subaltern position in society, and the main non-human characters face discrimination and racism in their everyday life: this makes them clear symbols for migrants and ethnic minorities in countries of the Global North today. Based on this metaphor, my aim is to analyse the two series using a cultural approach, to determine whether they bring any innovation to the representation of difference within the science fiction genre. In the Introduction, I explain the reasons behind my choice of this research topic and provide the theoretical framework for my analysis. I then provide a general overview of the tropes of the alien and the android as symbols of racial difference, based on the current state of the art in science fiction studies, film and television studies, cultural studies, and migration studies. I highlight how the representation of aliens and androids in science fiction cinema, in particular, has often been considered oversimplified, portraying non-humans univocally as either positive or negative characters. I suggest that contemporary TV series might provide more complex representations of diversity, since TV series in the twenty-first century have been praised for their potential to tell multifaceted and multi-perspectival stories. In the first chapter, I explain why Humans and The Aliens were chosen for my analysis, and I explore the portrayal of difference in the two series, focusing on how the creation and enforcement of otherness, the social status of non-humans, and the rendering of spatialities of abjection mirror social issues related to the current condition of migrants in the Global North, specifically in the United Kingdom and in the United States. In the second chapter, I provide an analysis of the characterisation of non-humans in the two series, examining the representational strategies through which they are given voice and agency, and demonstrating how the length and structure of the narrative do indeed allow for the presence of multiple, often contrasting points of view and the creation of intense bonding with the audience. I hence expand on affective narrative in Humans and The Aliens, arguing that it presents some novelties in the science fiction genre and that these novelties are possibly connected to the 'affective turn' noted by philosophers and scholars across the Humanities, which has recently acquired increasing momentum in the fields of cultural studies, political communication, and discourse and media theory. In the Conclusions, I argue that Humans and The Aliens are innovative in their representation of difference within the science fiction genre; this complex and effective representation is allowed by the specificity of the narrative medium and is coherent with recent cultural and communicative trends. Finally, I suggest some questions and issues that might be addressed by future research in this field.