The ‘Reasonable Man’, his Nineteenth‐century ‘Siblings’, and their Legacy

The reasonable man is the best known, but not the only, legal construct to be born into the nineteenth‐century common law. This article introduces the man's siblings – including those from the areas of trust law, criminal law, contract law, and intellectual property law (both patents and trademarks). The fact that some of these ‘men’ changed the law is not controversial; this research further highlights that while several of these came to life in that century, only some had a significant role into the twentieth century. Those that did are tied to the foundations of our society through their role in facilitating innovation and consumer protection. The argument is that it was the constructs’ nature and their capacity to accommodate public policy issues that enabled the vitality of the ‘reasonable person ‘ (negligence) and the ‘person skilled in the art’ (patents).     

‘Consumer’ versus ‘Customer’: The Devil in the Detail

According to the European Commission, the objective of EU competition rules is enhancing ‘consumer welfare’. In EU competition law, however, ‘consumer’ means ‘customer’ and encompasses intermediate customers as well as final consumers. Under Article 102TFEU, harming intermediate ‘customers’ is generally presumed to harm ‘consumers’ and where intermediate customers are not competitors of the dominant undertaking, there is no requisite to assess the effects of conduct on users further downstream. Using advances in economics of vertical restraints and, in particular, non‐linear pricing, this article shows that there are instances where the effect on ‘customer welfare’ does not coincide with the effect on ‘consumer welfare’ and the presumption can potentially lead to decisional errors. Thus, if the law is to serve the interests of ‘consumers’, the Commission should reconsider this presumption and its interpretation of the ‘consumer’ in ‘consumer welfare’; otherwise, it remains questionable whose interests EU competition law serves.     

Legal ‘Elasticity’ and ‘Sidestepping’ in European Crisis Management of Financial Markets

This paper explores the roles played by law in crisis management of financial markets and some possible consequences. Three questions are raised ‐‐about the ‘elastic’ use of law, about ‘sidestepping’ existing legal order by invention of new structures and about redistributive consequences. These questions are appraised empirically in relation to three areas of financial market law: public support given to banking from 2008 onwards; English case law concerning derivatives contracts when confronted with Lehman‐style insolvencies; and the European Stability Mechanism, which during summer 2015 was being primed in relation to Greece. On the first two case studies, law, having been mightily stretched, did not break. Likewise, legal sidestepping, as epitomised by the European Stability Mechanism, may result in a less coherent legal structure; however such incoherence may be not be fatal to the ensemble. On all three fronts, redistributive questions remain controversial, but controversy in itself does not undermine legal structures. A particular form of theory, the Legal Theory of Finance, is discussed in light of the case studies. Such theory may have an unfulfilled longing to discern law‐like regularities (ironically chasing economics).     

‘Accountable Independence’ of the European Central Bank: Seeing the Logics of Transparency

The European Central Bank (ECB) emerged from the financial crisis not only as the institutional ‘winner’ but also as the most central—and powerful—supranational institution of our times. This article challenges the so‐called ‘accountable independence’ of the ECB across the range of tasks it carries out. Citizens ‘see’ the ECB today especially for its role in promoting austerity and its involvement as part of the troika and otherwise in the economic decision making of troubled Member States. Far from ECB monetary policy heralding a ‘new democratic model’, the ECB today suffers from a clear deficit in democracy. In between the grandiose concept of ECB ‘independence’ and the more performative ECB ‘accountability’ lies ‘transparency’. Across the range of ECB practices there is a need to take the related concepts of ‘transparency’ and of (democratic) ‘accountability’ more seriously, both in conceptual terms and in their relationship to one another.     

Sporting Justifications under EU Free Movement and Competition Law: The Case of the Football ‘Transfer System’

Governing bodies have significant autonomy in the organisation of professional sport in the EU, a situation now supported by Article 165 TFEU. However the post‐Lisbon competence for sport does not grant any exemption for practices that infringe fundamental freedoms or competition law; such infringements can only be justified where they are a proportionate response to an inherent need in that sport. The football ‘transfer system’ has been the subject of a series of EU law challenges, but continues to place obstacles in the way of the free movement of players between Member States and may restrict the ability of most clubs to compete for the elite players. Court of Arbitration for Sport decisions in transfer dispute cases have entrenched this situation, and recent evidence casts doubt on both the ability of the authorities to justify the current system and the 2001 decision by the European Commission to sign it off as being an acceptable balance between the rights of the stakeholders.     

移送审查起诉的证明标准探析──以证伪思维为视角

证伪思维具有科学性和批判性。我国现行的移送审查起诉的证明标准,即"案件事实清楚,证据确实充分"是运用证实思维,忽视了排除案件疑点,应予以完善。移送审查起诉应确立"排除合理怀疑"的证明标准,该标准符合证伪思维的要求以及认识的模糊性原理和证明标准的层次性。为了保障"排除合理怀疑"证明标准的实施,在贯彻全面取证原则的前提下,应实行侦查部门与预审部门分立,在一定条件下,在侦查阶段扩大律师提前介入的范围。     

Gender ‘Hostility’, Rape,and the Hate Crime Paradigm

This article examines whether crimes motivated by, or which demonstrate, gender ‘hostility’ should be included within the current framework of hate crime legislation in England and Wales. The article uses the example of rape to explore the parallels (both conceptual and evidential) between gender‐motivated violence and other ‘archetypal’ forms of hate crime. It is asserted that where there is clear evidence of gender hostility during the commission of an offence, a defendant should be pursued in law additionally as a hate crime offender. In particular it is argued that by focusing on the hate‐motivation of many sexual violence offenders, the criminal justice system can begin to move away from its current focus on the ‘sexual’ motivations of offenders and begin to more effectively challenge the gendered prejudices that are frequently causal to such crimes.     

Of ‘Landmark’ or ‘Leading’ Cases: Salomon's Challenge

This article seeks to question the two dominant conceptions of ‘landmark’ or ‘leading’ cases in English legal scholarship, using the House of Lords decision in Salomon v. Salomon Co Ltd. – the most famous case in corporate law – as a case study. It argues that neither the first dominant conception of ‘leading’ or ‘landmark’ cases, characterized by the analysis of the intrinsic merits of a case, nor the second, which looks at the historical contexts in which cases were decided, appears sufficient by itself to determine whether a case is landmark or canonical. Rather, we have to look at how the canonicity of a case is constructed by subsequent courts. The article seeks to advance the debate concerning the formation of landmark cases and aims to challenge certain prevailing views on the canonicity of corporate law's arguably most significant case.     

On The Reasonable in Law

Abstract. In practical reasoning, reasonableness - as opposed to rationality - is an important concept. This paper explores the notion of reasonableness as applied exclusively to legal decisions. Conflicting values or legal requirements can make rationally deduced solutions unattainable, and may call for criteria of reasonableness, Conflicting values must be weighed, and weighed against each other, in search of a point of equilibrium between them. Legal cases are more or less difficult to solve, depending on the difficulty of finding a unique optimal equilibrium. The relevance of factual and ideal consensus for the determination of a reasonable legal decision is underlined. Finally, a definition of "reasonable legal decision" is proposed.     

The Origins of the ‘Nonmarket Economy’: Ideas,Pluralism & Power in EC Anti‐dumping Law about China

‘Market’ and ‘market economy’ exercise a powerful, even magnetic grip on our collective imagination. But what do we mean by ‘market economy’? Does it make sense to speak of a ‘nonmarket economy’, and if so, what does it mean? How are the ideas of ‘market economy’ and ‘nonmarket economy’ related? Focusing on EC anti‐dumping law, this article seeks to answer these questions. It argues that the legal concept of ‘nonmarket economy’ in EC anti‐dumping law has been socially constructed, by means of relations among a plurality of institutional and normative sites, as part of a changing configuration of legal ideas in specific historical circumstances, and in contexts of political, economic, social, and symbolic power. This argument is articulated in three parts. First, the concept of ‘nonmarket economy’ in EC anti‐dumping law, though drawing on earlier elements, had its main roots in the early Cold War. Second, starting in the 1960s, the GATT multilateral negotiating rounds began to define more specific international rules of the game, but a variety of more localised processes played essential roles as forces of change. Of special importance were, first, the tension between legislative rules and administrative discretion in the United States, and, second, the Europeanisation of foreign trade law in the course of European integration. Third, the EC law concept of ‘nonmarket economy’ was born in the late 1970s. The main reasons were changes in the international anti‐dumping law repertoire, specific ideas in Europe about comparative economic systems, and the perceived emergence of new economic threats, including exports from China.     

EMU and the Shift in the European Labour Law Agenda: From ‘Social Policy’ to ‘Employment Policy’

This article examines the interaction between EMU and the European Union (EU) employment strategy and its implications for law. It focuses on the importance of EMU as a catalyst in the development of the EU's social and employment policy in the years following the Treaty on European Union in 1992, up to the inauguration of a new employment policy in the Treaty of Amsterdam. In analysing the EU's discourse on labour market regulation, it is arguable that a shift has occurred in the EU's position on the ‘labour market flexibility’ debate: that the EU institutions are more readily accepting of the orthodoxy that labour market regulation and labour market institutions are a major cause of unemployment within EU countries and that a deregulatory approach, which emphasises greater ‘flexibility’ in labour markets, is the key to solving Europe's unemployment ills, along with macroeconomic stability, restrictive fiscal policy and wage restraint. As the EU's employment strategy has matured, this increased emphasis on employment policy has come to displace discourses around social policy. This change in emphasis has important implications for EMU since it signals a re‐orientation from an approach to labour market regulation which had as its core a strong concept of employment protection and high labour standards, to an approach which prioritises employment creation, and minimises the role of social policy, since social policy is seen as potentially increasing the regulatory burden.     

A Riddle Whose Answer is ‘Tort’: A Reassessment of International News Service v Associated Press

The decision of the US Supreme Court in International News Service v Associated Press (1918) has variously been interpreted as recognising a ‘quasi‐property’ right in ‘valuable intangibles’, such as hot news; as turning on unjust enrichment; or as creating a novel tort of unfair competition by misappropriation. It is suggested that the case is more authentically understood as an incidental result of a process by which the Supreme Court extended the boundaries of tort liability, and the corresponding scope of property protection, in a series of decisions against organised labour. The argument is pursued with reference to the prima facie tort theory of Oliver Wendell Holmes, the American ‘labour injunction’, and the labour law record of the author of the majority opinion in International News, Justice Mahlon Pitney.     

‘Citizens’ and ‘Foreigners’ in EU Law. Migration Law and its Cosmopolitan Outlook

Migration has become a controversial subject across Europe and beyond. At the same time, the EU has built up an impressive set of rules for third‐country nationals over the past two decades, which—unlike the mobility of EU citizens—received comparatively little attention apart from immigration and asylum specialists. This contribution presents the constitutional framework for ‘migration law’ towards third‐country nationals and shows in how far they depart from the paradigm of intra‐European mobility. It will be argued that differences can be rationalised by divergent objectives and do, nonetheless, not present a move towards ‘fortress Europe’. EU migration law maintains the distinction between citizens and foreigners at the same time as it protects migrants, including refugees. By accommodating migrants' rights and self‐government, EU migration law can be construed as an endeavour to replace traditional notions of alienage with constitutional rules with a cosmopolitan outlook.     

Plays,Performances and Power Struggles – Examining Copyright's ‘Integrity’ in the Field of Theatre

This article explores the notion of ‘integrity’ under copyright law by analysing examples of 'integrity‐based objections' in the field of theatre. These objections typically involve playwrights objecting to changes being made to their copyright works by other parties, such as directors and actors. This analysis is deepened by the use of two concepts from the field of art theory – ‘aura’, as put forward by Walter Benjamin, and ‘trajectory’, as outlined by Bruno Latour and Adam Lowe. Finally, to shed further light on the issues raised, the work of Pierre Bourdieu is used to present new empirical research recently undertaken by the author in the field of UK theatre. This research demonstrates that ‘power struggles’ are a common feature of theatrical collaboration; that copyright is deeply implicated in the way such power struggles are conceived; and moreover, that resolving these power struggles successfully – including taking account of ‘integrity‐based objections’ – is crucial to theatrical practice.     

Reasoned ‘Balance’ in Europe's Area of Freedom,Security and Justice

This article considers how we might understand a constitutional ‘balancing’ of goods. In doing so, the article considers the EU's ‘Area of Freedom, Security and Justice’ (AFSJ) which poses the challenge as to how we balance our desire to feel secure with commitments to freedom and justice. The approach taken will be to argue that a ‘balance’ is a reasoned judgment, which must be understood in both a symbolic sense but, at the same time, also rooted in the practice of our constitutional decision making. This enables a political community to make sense of its value commitments so as to achieve a reflective balance between them. The article concludes that if the EU is to achieve an area of freedom, security and justice then it must be capable of developing a balance that can be a reasoned understanding of this constitutional commitment.     

A Critique of Alexy’s Claim to Correctness

This article offers an overview of the difficulties in Robert Alexy’s idea of law’s “claim to correctness.” The inquiry takes us deep into the nature of simple communication, back out to what it means to have a theory about the nature of law, and also in the direction of wondering about the interaction of legal theory and practical reasoning—reasoning about how we should best act. The article offers reasons to question whether law in fact makes claims, at least in any straightforward sense. Even if one brackets that matter, there are reasons to raise doubts about what is in fact implicit in the act of lawmaking. At one level, an act of lawmaking does implicitly assert the authority to act in that way. Whether it also implies that the content of the action is morally good, or at least not clearly morally bad, is, at a minimum, a harder question.     

Democratic Legitimacy in the Bund or ‘Federation of States’: the Cases of Belgium and the EU

Carl Schmitt developed the concept of the ‘federation of states’ (Bund) in order to characterise intermediate constitutional systems which are integrated beyond the level of a confederation (Staatenbund) without, however, acquiring the level of integration of an actual federal state (Bundesstaat). In this paper we analyse the constitutional specificity of the ‘federation of states’ and present three normative principles for assessing the democratic legitimacy of the decision‐making procedures within such a federation. We argue that both the European Union and Belgium can be analysed as instances of such a federation of states and show how this characterisation improves our understanding of the evolutionary dynamics of both polities and the constitutional and democratic challenges they are facing.     

刑事证据制度与认识论——兼与误区论、法律真实论、相对真实论商榷

辩证唯物主义认识论是我国刑事证据制度的理论基础。文章反驳了否认认识论对证据制度起指导作用的“误区论”。认为刑事诉讼证明的目的是达到诉讼客观真实。客观真实是绝对真实与相对真实的统一。文章不赞同用法律真实或相对真实代替客观真实的观点 ,认为相对真实论的要害是不承认能够证实犯罪人是谁 ,这必然会导致错判。文章坚持我国法定的“犯罪事实清楚 ,证据确实充分”的排他性证明标准 ,不赞成采用英美的“排除合理怀疑”的证明标准 ,指出“排除合理怀疑”的哲学基础是经验主义。文章分析了设立刑事证据规则的目的、功能 ,认为其目的和功能是多元的 ,而发现客观事实是其首要目标 ,并指出 :认为认识论会导致刑讯逼供的观点是错误的。民事诉讼证明、行政诉讼证明不同于刑事诉讼证明 ,但也应当以认识论为指导。     

How Transparent are EU ‘Comitology’ Committees in Practice?

Much of the debate on transparency is normative in nature: more transparency is ‘good’ from the perspective of democratic accountability. After all, without information on what decisions are being taken and by whom, it will not be possible for various accountability forums to hold actors to account. This article goes beyond the rhetoric on the need for more transparency in the political system of the EU and examines, in practice as a matter of empirical research, how much transparency there really is. It also goes beyond a purely legal approach to access to information that depends upon the active participation of citizens and others in challenging refusals by specific institutions to grant access to specific documents. We are interested rather in the question as to what extent the institutions are systematically and pro‐actively providing access to their documents via the internet. We focus on the Register of Comitology of the European Commission as a relatively limited case study and, within this context, limit ourselves further to a study of all the documents published in the latest year for which a benchmark was available—2005. Are all comitology documents that exist in fact made available through this public register?