The Figuring of Morality in Adjudication: Not so Special?*

Jurisprudential debate about the grounds of law often focuses on the status of morality. Given the undoubted fact of judicial engagement with morality in legal reasoning, the key question is whether morality legitimately counts as a ground of law. This article seeks to challenge the special status accorded to morality in debates about the grounds of law. The claim I seek to advance is that very often judicial engagement with morality is not different in kind to judicial engagement with other diverse objects of legal reasoning. What the comparison tends to show is that instances of “moral reasoning” in law do not obviously challenge our account of the grounds of law. Rather these instances can be viewed as central case examples of legal reasoning. Conventional grounds of law are left untouched.     

Specters of Indigeneity in British‐Indian Migration, 1914

Colonial legal histories of indigeneity and British‐Indian migration have not often been placed in conversation with one another. This article pursues such a project by tracing indigeneity as a spectral presence that emerged with uneven regularity in juridico‐political conflicts over British‐Indian migration. Specifically, I focus on the 1914 journey of the Komagata Maru, a Japanese steamship carrying 376 Punjabi migrants that sailed from Hong Kong to Shanghai, Moji to Yokohama, and across the Pacific, eventually arriving in Vancouver, Canada. Crisscrossing continents and approaching law in its broadest sense, I explore three struggles over the ship and its passengers: a satirical cartoon published in the Hindi Punch (Bombay), a legal test case heard by the British Columbia Court of Appeal (Vancouver), and a public debate on the racial meanings of Imperial subjecthood that ensued among Indian middle‐class supporters of the ship and unfolded in English newspapers in various Indian cities. In each moment of struggle, I examine the changing conceptions of indigeneity that were strategically appropriated, never by indigenous peoples themselves or on their own terms, but by the Dominion of Canada and by British Indians, each deploying indigeneity to its own advantage and to achieve particular effects. Ultimately, this article considers the political and legal work that the spectral figure of indigeneity performed, the conceptions of time that underwrote its recurrence, and the temporalities that it sustained and called into question.     

The Good,the Bad,and the Klutzy: Criminal Negligence and Moral Concern

One proposed way of preserving the link between criminal negligence and blameworthiness is to define criminal negligence in moral terms. On this view, a person can be held criminally responsible for a negligent act if her negligence reflects a deficit of moral concern. Some theorists are convinced that this definition restores the link between negligence and blameworthiness, while others insist that criminal negligence remains suspect. This article contributes to the discussion by applying the work of ethicist Nomy Arpaly to criminal negligence. Although not interested in legal issues herself, Arpaly has a well-developed theory of moral agency that explains moral concern in terms of responsiveness to moral reasons. Introducing her work to the ongoing scholarly debate will be helpful for two reasons. First, while a definition of negligence in terms of moral concern is recognized as one proposed solution to the negligence–blameworthiness problem, authors promoting it have yet to give a systematic account of moral concern and its relation to blame. Borrowing Arpaly's account will help clarify the idea of moral concern so that both proponents and critics of a concern approach to negligence can have a better-defined debate. Second, her theory of blameworthiness is especially suited to defending the blameworthiness of negligent actions, because it does not have recourse to a special quality of choice or self-control that must be active to render conduct blameworthy. To make this second advantage clear, the article argues that reliance on choice or self-control problematizes blameworthiness for negligence. Those who wish to defend blameworthiness for negligent acts should base their work on an account of moral agency that does not rely on either choice or self-control to explain when an action is blameworthy.     

'Immunity', 'Privilege', and 'Right': British Trade Unions and the Language of Labour Law Reform

A continuing debate exists among labour lawyers in the United Kingdom as to the most appropriate legal framework for the regulation of collective industrial action. Many have argued that a change in legal form will not in itself afford greater protection to union activity. Through an analysis of the changing approach of the trade union movement to the issue of 'immunities' and 'rights' during the Thatcher period, this article seeks to demonstrate that adoption of the 'rights' discourse in fact offered considerable strategic advantages. In consequence, any analysis of this question should not overlook the significant political role played by language.     

Regulating developments in embryonic stem cell research in Africa: a third person's perspective

Among the many advances in modern biotechnology, embryonic stem (ES) cell research has raised perhaps the most intense debate over the ethical, legal and policy issues involved. This debate has centred inter alia on the lives and well-being of the donors or participants in clinical trials, the presumed lives of embryos, the possibility of reproductive cloning, and government funding, among others. These ethical, legal and policy issues tend to overlap and cut across all strata of society, with opponents of the research calling for prohibition and proponents calling for promotion. One important question is whether African countries should regulate to limit or promote developments in ES cell research. This article argues that, in view of the dynamism of modern biotechnology, African countries should regulate in such a way as to maximise the benefits while minimising the disadvantages associated with the research.     

The Policy Underlying Crimes Against Humanity: Practical Reflections on a Theoretical Debate

This article argues that the debate concerning the theoretical characterization of the policy requirement as either an element of crime or an evidentiary relevant circumstance for crimes against humanity is deficient. Comparative case law analysis illustrates that this characterization does not fundamentally affect the position, meaning and scope of the policy underlying crimes against humanity in judicial practice. This can be explained by the “open texture” of legal rules and the factor-based character of judicial decision-making. This article aims to initiate a practical debate that evaluates the added value of a policy element on the basis of its application in individual cases.     

Property rights in personal data: Learning from the American discourse

This contribution is an attempt to facilitate a meaningful European discussion on propertization of personal data by explaining the idea as it emerged in its ‘mother-jurisdiction’, the United States. The piece starts with an overview of how the current US legal system addresses the data protection problem and whether, according to the US commentators, the law does it effectively. Furthermore, the contribution presents propertization of personal information as an alternative to the existing data protection regime and one of the ways to fill in the alleged gaps in the US data protection system. The article maps the US propertization debate. Pro-propertization arguments are considered from economic perspective as well as from the perspective of the limitations of the US legal and political system. In continuation it analyses proposals on how property rights in personal data would have to be regulated, if at all, in case the idea of propertization is accepted. The main points of criticism of propertization are also sketched. The article concludes with a brief summary of the US propertization discourse and, most importantly, with a list of the lessons Europeans can learn from their American counterparts engaging in the debate in the home jurisdiction. Among the main messages is that the outcome of the debate depends on the definition of the problem propertization is called on to tackle, and that it is the substance of the actual rights with regard to personal data that matters, and not whether we label them as property rights or not.     

The Honourable Society of the Middle Temple

More than 20 years after the establishment of legal aid services in Ghana, many accused persons still go through trials without being represented by a lawyer. Behind the backdrop of international standards on the provision of legal aid, and the constitutional history of legal aid in Ghana, this article looks at challenges facing lawyers in the provision of legal aid services in Ghana. The article is an addition to the global debate on the provision of better legal aid services for the indigent in society.     

Fair and impartial railroad: The jury,the media,and political trials

The clash between social movements and political authority is often played out in the court rooms in criminal cases which are loosely described as “political trials.” While prosecutors, judges, and defendants rarely agree as to the “political” nature of a particular case, all parties usually regard the jury as the pivotal factor. The jury, of course, is enshrined in Anglo-American legal theory as the final check against suppression of liberty by the state. Plea bargaining is out of the question when the very legitimacy of the state is challenged and when dissident defendants are determined to use the trial process as a means of political expression. The crucial question is whether the jury has in fact lived up to its Constitutional role.The article attempts to answer this question at two levels. First, the history of political trials in the United States is reviewed with the general finding that radicals have faced juries which were both grossly unrepresentative of the general population and typically hostile to the ideas, life styles, and social origins of the defendants. Second, the article considers in some detail the impact of media coverage on potential jurors on one particular recent political case, the 1977–1978 trial of accused “guerrilla-bombers” Richard Picariello and Eduard Guilion in the Federal District Court of Southern Maine. The survey opinion data presented for this case strongly indicate that any chance of a fair trial for the defendants was compromised by effects of sustained hostile media coverage before the onset of the trial. Finally, the article considers available remedies in the form of either legislative reforms designed to ensure representative juries, or voir dire procedures aimed at eliminating biased jurors. A review of these remedies offers little hope that future political trials will be substantially fairer than in the past. Moreover, the direction of current criminal justice reforms, as in the proposed S-1722 Federal Criminal Code, promise to criminalize further important forms of political expression.The conclusion is not that jury trials should be avoided or minimized, since judges are apt to be even more predisposed against dissidents. Rather, the point is that the social and ideological biases which intrude especially in political trials are rooted in the political economy of capitalism which underlies the legal system itself. The jury system remains the best available defense against legal repression, but “justice” must ultimately await the outcome of continued social struggle, rather than further refinements of legal process.     

All Citizens are Created Equal,but Some are More Equal Than Others

Nationality is the legal bond between a person and a state that connotes full and equal membership of the political community. Yet, in the practice of states, not everyone who is admitted as a national enjoys the full package of rights attached, nor the same security of status. The phenomenon of inequality among citizens is particularly apparent when examining the question of how protected the legal bond itself is: citizenship by birth is more secure than citizenship acquired otherwise—such as by naturalisation—and mono citizens are less prone to withdrawal of nationality than persons with dual or multiple nationality. As nationality revocation gains new attention from states as a tool to counter terrorism, prompting much political, public and academic debate, the reality that this measure often applies only to particular sub-groups of citizens demands closer scrutiny. This article explores how law and practice on citizenship deprivation is to be evaluated against contemporary standards of international law. While states justify unequal application of citizenship deprivation measures by invoking the duty to avoid statelessness, this article shows that the application of other international standards such as non-discrimination and the prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of nationality calls into question the legitimacy of citizenship stripping as a security instrument. Finally, the article reflects on the broader implications of the current trend towards greater inequality of citizenship status as a reaction to the perceived threat that terrorism poses to the integrity of the state, discussing how the creation of different classes of citizen is in fact likely to have a deeper and more lasting impact on the foundations of liberal democracies.

     

Legal aid services in Spain within the migration industry debate. Public policy,business or social compromise?

ABSTRACT

The objective of this article is to examine the unexplored role of public defenders who provide legal aid services to immigrants within the debate on the migration control and rescue industries. Although these services are provided by bar associations, public organizations that group private professionals, they are paid for with government funds due to regulations guaranteeing the right to legal defence. The main argument and conclusion of this article is that although lawyers working in these services receive public compensation for the legal aid they provide, they generally become public defenders due to personal beliefs, such as a commitment to protecting the rights of foreigners.     

Toward an integration of economic and sociological approaches?

This article answers the question whether sociology of law and law and economics can be unificd into one integrated science. First, it is argued that an integration process inside law and economics has taken place, integrating most schools and partial analyses into one mainstream law and economics. Second, it is argued that there are no natural barriers against an integration of sociology and economics. Purely economic theories cannot and do not exist. What is calledeconomic analysis of law is basically a mixture of, for instance, 70 percent economics, 10 percent sociology, 10 percent psychology, and 10 percent other sciences. In addition, there is no such a thing as a purely sociological concept; concepts are sociological only in the sense that they are invented by people who call themselves sociologists.Nevertheless one should not expect that such a richer social science will lead to fundamentally different predictions and policy recommendations than those derived from the current simplistic economic analysis of law. The aspects studied by sociologists but assumed away by legal economists to date have in most cases no influence on the determination of (optimal) legal rules or on the long-run effects of legal rules.     

Patient rights meet managed care: understanding the underlying conflicts

During the past several years, one of the favored areas for legislative (and editorial) debate in our Nation has been the proper level of legal protections that should be accorded to those individuals who have chosen to become members of managed care plans. As examined in the following article, this debate often rages with little notice being paid to the underlying conflicts between managed care and "patient's rights." Indeed, at times, the vociferousness of the debate obscures even those instances in which there is little fundamental conflict.     

The Force of International Law: Lawyers' Diplomacy on the International Scene in the 1920s

Where does international law (IL) draw its authority from a still weakly institutionalized international scene deprived of the warrants of a state? To address this classical debate, the article draws from a case study on the social and professional structure of the “international legal community” as it emerged during the 1920s as part of the rise of multilateralism and international organizations. It focuses on the “situation of the international lawyers” of the time, starting with the multiple and often antagonistic roles they play (as legal advisers, scholars, judges, diplomats, politicians, etc.) and the variety of interests and causes they defend (states, international organizations, professional interests, etc.) in international politics. It argues this heteronomy of international lawyers helps understand the autonomization of international law. Far from being opposed to one another it has often been assumed—realism and idealism, national loyalty and international loyalty, political logic and learned logic—actually gain when analyzed as various modes of affirming a single cause—that of an international rule of law. This attention given to the “situation of international lawyers” and to the way they manage their various allegiances also accounts for the particular vision of the “International” and of “Law and Politics” relationships that are encapsulated in this emerging international corpus juris.     

Realism about the Nature of Law

Legal realism comes in two main versions, namely American legal realism and Scandinavian legal realism. In this article, I shall be concerned with the Scandinavian realists, who were naturalists and non‐cognitivists, and who maintained that conceptual analysis (in a fairly broad sense) is a central task of legal philosophers, and that such analysis must proceed in a naturalist, anti‐metaphysical spirit. Specifically, I want to consider the commitment to ontological naturalism and non‐cognitivism on the part of the Scandinavians and its implications for their view of the nature of law. I argue (i) that the Scandinavians differ from legal positivists in that they reject the idea that there are legal relations, that is, legal entities and properties, and to varying degrees defend the view that law is a matter of human behavior rather than legal norms, and (ii) that they do not and cannot accept the idea that there is a ‘world of the ought’ in Kelsen's sense. I also argue, more specifically, (iii) that the objection to non‐naturalist theories raised by the Scandinavians—that there is and can be no connection between the higher realm of norms and values (the ‘world of the ought’) and the world of time and space—is convincing, and (iv) that Kelsen's introduction of a so‐called modally indifferent substrate does nothing to undermine this objection. In addition, I argue (v) that the Scandinavians can account for the existence of legal relations that do not presuppose the existence of morally binding legal norms by embracing conventionalism about the existence of the sources of law, while pointing out that in doing so they would also be abandoning their legal realism for legal positivism. Finally, I argue (vi) that the implications for legal scholarship of the realist emphasis on human behavior instead of legal norms is not well explained by the realists and appear to amount to little more than a preference for teleological interpretation of legal norms.     

Litigation Dilemmas: Lessons from the Marcos Human Rights Class Action

How do activist plaintiffs experience the process of human rights litigation under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS)? Answering this question is key to understanding the impact on transnational legal mobilization of Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., in which the US Supreme Court sharply limited the scope of the ATS. Yet sociolegal scholars know remarkably little about the experiences of ATS litigants, before or after Kiobel. This article describes how activist litigants in a landmark ATS class action against former Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos faced a series of strategic dilemmas, and how disagreements over how to resolve those dilemmas played into divisions between activists and organizations on the Philippine left. The article develops an analytical framework focused on litigation dilemmas to explain how and why activists who pursue ATS litigation as an opportunity for legal mobilization may also encounter strategic dilemmas that contribute to dissension within a social movement.     

A Leap of Faith? Sanctioning Xenotransplant Clinical Trials

Introducing a new medical technique, procedure or drug to the public via clinical trials is risky at the best of times. When the trial involves a biotechnology which holds out the promise of prolonging, if not saving, life the push to move from the laboratory to clinical trials may be hard to resist. In this article I explore whether the regulatory scheme for clinical trials in the UK is able to accommodate developing technologies by considering how the current legal and ethical frameworks determine when a procedure such as xenotransplantation should proceed to trials. In particular, I discuss whether basing our regulatory schemes on the principles espoused in the Declaration of Helsinki offer sufficient protection to those who may be affected by xenotransplant trials – the recipient, their health-care workers, close contacts and, unusually, the wider public. I question whether it is possible for a technology to be approved for clinical trials when allowing such trials may benefit the individual but ultimately negatively impact on society as a whole.     

Breaking and Entering My Own Computer: The Contest of Copyright Metaphors

In the current debate over copyright law, those who support maximum copyright protections have advanced their agenda largely via the metaphor of ownership in physical property. As part of this metaphorical system, they have successfully argued that digital rights management (DRM) systems deserve legal protections befitting locked doors. This article is a discourse analysis of this related system of metaphors and of opponents' metaphorical and non-metaphorical responses. Scholars who oppose the maximalist vision of copyright have devoted considerable thought to the problem of metaphors, including especially the search for metaphors that can challenge the metaphor of property. The article concludes there is work yet to be done on this count. As an incremental contribution to this conversation, the article suggests additional arguments, including additional metaphors in search of a new means to conceptualize copyright law.     

Becoming a Threat: The Burqa and the Contestation Over Public Morality Law in France

Through an examination of legislative debate and court opinions, this article illustrates that the French understanding of public order policing as a bulwark of freedom and national sovereignty deeply informed the development of (and contestation surrounding) the 2010 ban on all facial coverings in public. This ban notably includes the burqa or niqab, garments worn by a small minority of Muslim women in France. This article has two aims. The first is to expand on the sociolegal argument about the contested nature of rights protections and constitutional constraints on legislative authority by highlighting how a nation's legal culture can profoundly shape that contestation. The second aim of this article is to show, through a technique called legal archaeology, how longstanding French views on rights confront current European‐inspired alternative views that would give more weight to individualistic protections against state action than has traditionally been the case in France.