Suchergebnisse

According to German legal philosopher Gustav Radbruch, laws that are substantively unjust to an intolerable degree should not be regarded as legally valid, even if they were promulgated according to stipulated procedure. Radbruch's Formula (as his position has been termed) contradicts the central tenet of legal positivism, according to which the existence of laws does not necessarily depend on their merit. While some legal positivists suppose that legal invalidity based on the content of particular laws is a central tenet of natural law theory, natural law theorists such as John Finnis opine that the lex injusta non est lex maxim has been no more than a subordinate theorem of classical natural law theory. In Finnis's view, unjust laws give rise to legal obligation "in a legal sense."

Opposition to legalizing surrogacy often involves the argument that it commodifies or objectifies women and children. When surrogacy involves consenting parties claiming to benefit from the transaction, commodification- or objectification-based arguments seem unpersuasive. This article argues that new natural law theory offers an alternative case against legalizing surrogacy based on the violation of basic goods of human flourishing, a notion which unpacks afresh what is really at stake in the commodification/objectification arguments. Exploring the new natural law approach through John Finnis's theory, this article suggests that the new natural law case against surrogacy hinges on the link between childbirth and raising children, which turns out to be the major bone of contention in the surrogacy debate. The establishment of the link turns on answers to empirical questions as to what is in the best interests of the child, as well as on contested notions of motherhood, raising questions of a philosophical or normative nature. This article elucidates for policy makers and legislators the precise issues they must face squarely in order to determine whether to legalize or prohibit surrogacy arrangements.

Twenty years after the Advance Medical DirectiveAct came into force in Singapore, the issue of the legalisation ofphysician-assisted suicide and voluntary active euthanasia remains live. Thisarticle examines the case for legalisation, replying to the points raised inthe article by Toh Puay San and Stanley Yeo, "Decriminalisingphysician-assisted suicide in Singapore" (2010) 22 SAcLJ 379–412, which hadincluded draft legislation in its proposal. It critically discusses thetheoretical underpinnings of such legalisation and argues that the contentionof the authors that the benefits of allowing terminally-ill patients the optionof physician-assisted suicide far outweigh the harms is not supported. Afortiori, voluntary active euthanasia should not be legalised.

This article considers the dilemma that constitutional judicial review presents to the most well-meaning of judges — that of navigating the narrow and difficult road between parliamentary supremacy and judicial oligarchy. It examines the Singapore Court of Appeal's delineation of legal and extra-legal considerations in view of Ronald Dworkin's theory of adjudication in determining the constitutionality of section 377A of the Penal Code in Lim Meng Suang v. Attorney General. It proposes an alternative natural law approach to constitutional judicial review based on Radbruch's formula, which helps courts to avoid the pitfalls of judicial idiosyncrasies and usurpation of legislative mandate while staying true to constitutionalism.

The article discusses the social issue on religion in the abortion discourse in Singapore. It mentions the relevance of religious arguments in law-making in multi-religious democracies. It notes that laws on abortion vary across different jurisdictions, like prohibiting abortion under all circumstances to freely allowing it without restriction as to reason.

The relevance of moral values endorsed by religious persons in public decision-making has often been debated. The issue comes to the fore again in relation to the debate on Section 377A of the Penal Code dealing with acts of gross indecency between males. With the flourishing of diverse viewpoints that is a natural consequence of a liberal democratic society, and with greater participation by an increasingly sophisticated citizenry online and in the media, particularly in a nation in which those without religious affiliations make up only 15 per cent of the population, the ground rules of public discourse must be ironed out.