The legal profession's beautiful myth: surveying the justifications for the lawyer's obligation to perform pro bono work

This article considers some of the substantive and normative claims underlying the performance of pro bono work by lawyers – that lawyers have always done pro bono work and that it is an essential element of what it means to be a lawyer. Following a brief survey of global pro bono activity, the article considers some of the drivers for pro bono work. It identifies three main streams of thought regarding the obligation to perform pro bono work, characterised as the historical arguments, the public service argument, and the ‘lawyer as gatekeeper’ or monopoly argument. Following an analysis of each position, the article concludes that while the historical evidence for a pro bono tradition is not strong, and that the public service and monopoly arguments are open to dispute, there is nonetheless a very strong ‘mythical’ force associated with pro bono work. Its power may thus lie as much in its ability to motivate altruism among lawyers, as it does in any historical or theoretical basis.     

Symbolism of the Spirit of the Laws: A Genealogical Excursus to Legal and Political Semiotics

The spirit of the laws is a symbol reflecting the ontological status and transcendental ideals of the system of positive law. The article analyses historical links between the romantic philosophy of the spirit of the nation (Volksgeist), which subsumed Montesquieu’s general spirit of the laws under the concept of ethnic culture, and recent politics of cultural and ethnic identity. Although criticising attempts at legalising ethnic collective identities, the article does not simply highlight the virtues of demos and the superiority of civic culture against the vices of ethnos and the regressive nature of ethnic politics of identity. Instead, the author argues that the civil democratic concept of political identity is part of the more general process of social differentiation: unlike the pre-political ethnic concept of identity, it can be converted to generalised democratic procedures and thus dismantle the totalitarian claims of cultural identity politics.

---

Exclusionary Reasons and the Explanation of Behaviour

Abstract .
Legal philosophy must consider the way in which laws function as reasons for action. "Simple positivism" considers laws as merely reasons in the balance of reasons. Joseph Raz, as a representative of "sophisticated positivism," argues that laws are exclusionary reasons for action, not merely reasons in the balance of reasons. This paper discusses Raz's arguments for his view. The Functional Argument provides no more reason for positivism than against it. The Phenomenological Argument is best supported by an account of how character traits function in explaining behaviour. But then the distinction between exclusionary reasons and expressive reasons is obliterated. Legal positivism cannot absorb laws as expressive reasons for action. Raz's positivism implies the correctness of an anti-positivistic legal theory.     

Judicial Evaluation of Religious Belief and the Accessibility Requirement in Public Reason

Many theories of liberal public reason exclude claims derived from religion on grounds that religious beliefs are not publicly ‘accessible’, because they are not amenable to meaningful evaluation by outsiders to the faith. Some authors, though, have argued that at least some religious beliefs are, in fact, publicly accessible. This paper examines the consequences of these arguments by exploring the accessibility requirement in relation to U.S. judicial precedent concerning religious accommodation. I first show that precedent accords de facto with the accessibility requirement by precluding judicial evaluation of the content of religious beliefs. I then show that this norm is independent of the status of religious claims vis-à-vis accessibility: even granting the accessibility of religious beliefs, other important political ends weigh against judicial evaluation of the content of those beliefs. I then generalize this conclusion to the broader enterprise of public reason, suggesting the general inadequacy of the accessibility requirement.     

Anonymous Speakers and Confidential Sources: Using Shield Laws When They Overlap Online

The development of the Internet as a mass medium has created new tensions between the rights to speak anonymously and to be protected against defamation. Some courts have developed balancing tests to determine when anonymous speakers should be unmasked, the most popular of which generally require some initial showing of prima facie evidence. Other times, shield laws have been used to protect the anonymous when comments have been posted on news organization Web sites. However, news organizations should be cautious when using shield laws to protect anonymity, and judges should evaluate privilege claims as they always have. In other instances, anonymity appears to be adequately protected by summary judgment balancing tests. An approach in which news organizations focus on the type of comment and its potential journalistic contribution in deciding how to protect commenters’ identities could help ensure that anonymous speech is properly protected without harming shield laws.     

公法上不当得利研究

公法上不当得利是指在公法范围内,欠缺法律上的原因而发生的财产变动,致一方受有利益,他方受有损害,受损的一方有请求返还所受利益的权利,其判别标准为:公法关系、财产变动与欠缺法律上原因。在我国,宪法上的财产权、行政法上的依法行政原理与财产法上的衡平原理均为公法上不当得利存在的法学基础。公法上不当得利按不同标准可分为多类,但按请求权分类已成为习惯,可将其分为相对人向国家或其他行政主体请求、国家或其他行政主体向相对人请求与机关间相互请求等,这些在我国现存的公法规范中均有所体现。     

Laws that are Made to be Broken

Criminal laws are created to achieve various ends. These include (1) reducing the incidence of wrongdoing, and (2) holding wrongdoers responsible for their wrongs. Some criminal laws are created to further the first of these ends by means of compliance. The second end is to be furthered only if, regrettably, some fail to comply. These criminal laws are made to be followed. Other criminal laws are not created with compliance in mind. Conviction, in these cases, is no regrettable fallback. It is the primary means by which the law is to contribute to ends (1) and (2). Laws of this second kind are made to be broken. My concern in this paper is with the creation of such laws. Section 1 sharpens the contrast drawn above, and considers some arguments for enacting laws that are made to be broken. The following sections develop an argument against. Section 2 introduces what I call the identification principle. It argues that the principle is an implication of the ideal of the rule of law, and that it binds state officials who make, apply and enforce criminal laws. Section 3 argues that when laws are made to be broken, the identification principle is violated. Section 4 concludes.     

Shooting Down a Hijacked Plane—The German Discussion and Beyond

The article examines whether state officials may shoot down a hijacked airplane which carries uninvolved passengers, if it is known that the plane will be used against the lives of other human beings. In its first sections, it explains the German Federal Constitutional Court’s verdict against such a permission, and it scrutinizes the crucial arguments in this ruling (restrictions on the use of military weapons; human dignity arguments). The author then extends the discussion beyond the path taken by the court. She examines the defensive claims of passengers aboard the plane and the protective claims of potential victims who are present at the hijackers’ target zone. In contrast to the German Federal Constitutional Court, she concludes that state officials must take the claims of both groups of potential victims equally serious, and that such conditions allow applying a consequentialist calculus (“save the greater number”) because it is the only way out of a genuine dilemma.     

Please Don't Use Science or Mathematics in Arguing for Human Rights or Natural Law

In the vast literature on human rights and natural law one finds arguments that draw on science or mathematics to support claims to universality and objectivity. Here are two such arguments: 1) Human rights are as universal (i.e., valid independently of their specific historical and cultural Western origin) as the laws and theories of science; and 2) principles of natural law have the same objective (metahistorical) validity as mathematical principles. In what follows I will examine these arguments in some detail and argue that both are misplaced. A section of the paper will be devoted to a discussion of arguments relying on the historical and cultural specificity (and intrinsic superiority) of Western science. The conclusion is that both science and mathematics offer little help to anyone wanting to make use of them as paradigms of universality, objectivity, and rationality. Finally, I will draw some consequences for the idea of human rights.     

Beyond the European void? Reflections on Peter Mair's legacy

Peter Mair was one of the world's leading scholars of party politics. Though he wrote at some length about the European Union, there has been no systematic exploration of the implications of his comparative work on political parties for European integration. His writings on the EU have generally been studied in isolation from his wider oeuvre, with the result that we have missed the important analytical and logical connections between Mair's work on parties and his writings on the EU. This article argues that Mair's path‐breaking middle‐range theoretical and empirical work on the decline of party democracy can form the basis of a radical reappraisal of the project of ‘ever closer union’. The article studies Mair's arguments against the backdrop of more recent empirical evidence and evaluates the normative implications of his work for the future of the European project.     

Rape,Defendant Anonymity and Evidence‐Based Policy Making

In 2010, the Coalition government announced in its Programme for Government, that: ‘We will extend anonymity in rape cases to defendants.’ The question of anonymity for defendants accused of rape and other sexual offences, has been repeatedly raised in parliamentary debates over several decades, and has also received frequent attention in newspapers and, to a lesser extent, in academic and professional literature. The debate includes an array of factual claims and arguments that rest on weak empirical foundations. In November 2010, the Ministry of Justice published a report entitled: Providing Anonymity to those Accused of Rape: An Assessment of Evidence, which was intended to provide an evaluation of evidence that would inform the debate over defendant anonymity. This article critically examines this report and its discussion of key issues such as false rape allegations, and considers whether its conclusions can be relied upon by policy makers.     

影响环境资源法实施的障碍研究

“十五规划”期间的环境资源状况说明,我国的环境资源法没有得到有效实施。当前环境法律法规实施不力的深层原因,在于开展环境资源保护工作在短期内既不符合地方政府的经济利益,也不符合地方政府的政治利益,还在于立法工作中的部门利益问题严重影响国家层面环境资源立法的质量。为了有效实施环境资源法,应当建立有利于环境资源法全面实施的机制,加强民主立法和科学立法,并强化环境资源法律和有关法律的执法、司法和监督。     

The Making and Unmaking of Feminicidio/Femicidio Laws in Mexico and Nicaragua

This article examines the contested process of law‐making related to the killing of women which resulted in the criminalization of feminicide (feminicidio) and femicide (femicidio) in Mexico and Nicaragua, two countries in which feminists engaged in legal activism to increase state accountability for gendered violence. Through comparative analysis, we demonstrate the importance of (1) the interaction between shifting local political conditions and supranational opportunities and (2) the position of feminist actors vis‐à‐vis the state and its gender regime in shaping regional variation in the making of laws concerning gendered violence. In Mexico, the criminalization of feminicidio resulted from a successful naming and shaming campaign by local feminist actors linked to litigation in various supranational arenas, and the intervention of feminist federal legislators. In Nicaragua, the codification of femicidio resulted from the state's selective responsiveness to feminist demands in a moment of narrow political opportunity within an otherwise highly consolidated regime. We also examine the unmaking of these laws through their perversion in practice (Mexico) and their intentional undermining (Nicaragua) at the hands of the state. Our analysis demonstrates how states' decisions to enact legislation against gendered violence does not occur solely because they are invested in international legitimacy, but also in response to states' shifting acceptance of the legitimacy of supranational authority itself.     

Legal Intermediaries: How Insurance Companies Construct the Meaning of Compliance with Antidiscrimination Laws

Existing empirical research suggests that human resource officials, managers, and in‐house counsel influence the meaning of antidiscrimination law by communicating an altered ideology of what civil rights laws mean that is colored with managerial values. This article explores how insurance companies play a critical and, as yet, unrecognized role in mediating the meaning of antidiscrimination law through Employment Practice Liability Insurance (EPLI). My analysis draws from, links, and contributes to two literatures that examine organizational behavior in different ways: new institutional organizational sociology studies of how organizations respond to legal regulation and sociolegal insurance scholars' research on how institutions govern through risk. Through participant observation at EPLI conferences, interviews, and content analysis of insurance loss prevention manuals, my study bridges these two literatures and highlights how the insurance field uses a risk‐based logic to construct the threat of employment law and influence the form of compliance from employers. Faced with uncertain legal risk concerning potential discrimination violations, insurance institutions elevate the risk and threat in the legal environment and offer EPLI and a series of risk‐management services that build discretion into legal rules and mediate the nature of civil rights compliance. My data suggest that insurance risk‐management services may sometimes be compatible with civil rights goals of improving equality, due process, and fair governance in workplace settings, but at other times may simply make discrimination claims against employers more defensible.     

Real Property, Spontaneous Order, and Norms in the Gold Mines

This article contributes to the current debate about why people follow the law even when they are not subject to legal sanctions, as when there are no police and little danger of a lawsuit. Most recent scholarship in this area takes the form of norms theories, suggesting that social norms rather than laws shape behavior and that deviations from the norm are punished by either social or internal sanctions. Robert Sugden, however, proposes that order may develop "spontaneously" in the many areas of life where abiding by the rules minimizes the risk of costly confrontations with others and is thus in the interest of all parties. When this is true, the threat of little or no sanctions plays no role in regulating behavior. This article tests Sugden's theory against a simple property system, that of the California gold mines, in which individual miners held small claims subject to strict work requirements. The evidence of eyewitnesses shows that the stability of the regime did not depend on norms, but on the reasonable prediction that other claim holders would themselves stand up for their rights under the local mining code. Disputes about the rules and their application were submitted to arbitrators, whose decisions were accepted by the parties and did not need to be enforced. The California experience thus provides an example of a stable property regime for which game theory has a more satisfying explanation than do any of the norms theories.     

Separate versus Equal Treatment Approaches to Parental Leave: Theoretical Issues and Empirical Evidence*

This article examines the legal and economic arguments behind the separate versus equal treatment approaches to maternity/parental leave. Three sets of legal arguments that were advanced in the U. S. Supreme Court case California Federal Savings and Loan Association v. Guerra, 1987 are examined. The economic arguments that correspond to each of these legal arguments are then developed, including the arguments of groups who (1) oppose all versions of mandated leave, (2) support mandated parental leave without qualification (the Separate Treatment Approach), and (3) support some, but not all formulations (the Equal Treatment Approach). Each of these theoretical perspectives generate specific hypotheses regarding the potential compensation and employment effects for women of childbear-ing age. These hypotheses are tested with data from the Current Population Survey, May 1979 and May 1983. Overall the empirical findings suggest that parental leave legislation can significantly improve the labor market position of women of childbearing age, but all approaches are not equal and some methods may undermine, rather than improve their position.     

The Date and Authorship of Bracton: a Response

This paper is a response to John Barton's posthumous paper on the date and authorship of the English thirteenth-century legal treatise Bracton. That paper was an extended critique of sections of a much shorter paper I had published in 1996 on these and related topics. It responds to the main criticisms Barton makes of my paper. It accepts a few of these but not others, and does not accept his main arguments against assigning a date prior to 1240 for significant parts of the treatise nor his renewed assertion of the claims of Henry de Bracton to be the sole author of the treatise.     

Coping with Conway v. Rimmer [1968] AC 910: How Civil Servants Control Access to Justice

The article, based on a review of files in the National Archives, examines the role of civil servants in claims for the suppression of state documents at trial on grounds of public interest immunity (PII). Government lawyers solicited responses from other ministries to the landmark Lords decision in Conway v. Rimmer and coordinated the civil service campaign against this unwelcome judicial intrusion into their professional domain. The decision was seen as a threat to confidentiality and the secret cultivation of administrative expertise. Academic debate on the evolution of the PII doctrine has centred on the allocation of responsibility between an overly deferential judiciary and ministerial concern to avoid political embarrassment. The role of civil servants may have been more coherent and ideologically motivated than previously appreciated. As the courts increasingly challenge government claims for suppression of material at trial, the article highlights the historical factors determining the executive's innate instinct for secrecy.