The Assumption of Jurisdiction: Parliament,the King's Council and the College of Justice in Sixteenth-Century Scotland

This article considers how the Scottish Court of Session developed out of the restricted jurisdiction of the medieval King's Council, and achieved recognition as a supreme civil court during the sixteenth century, thereby assimilating the main judicial role of the medieval Scottish Parliament. It argues that the change resulted not from any particular legislative or judicial decision but from a gradual assumption of jurisdiction concealed within an expansion of the scope of traditional remedies. It is argued that the most decisive step occurred when the pleading of actions on heritable title to land began to be seen as within the ambit of those remedies. It is argued that this assumption of jurisdiction had occurred by the time of the foundation of the College of Justice in 1532, precluding any development along English lines of equitable remedies outside the procedures of the common law in Scotland.     

Blurred vision: How supreme court FOIA opinions on invasion of privacy have missed the target of legislative intent

The framers of the Freedom of Information Act believed that in order to make informed decisions concerning self‐rule in the democracy, citizens needed access to government information. However, the law also acknowledges the importance of protecting privacy—two of the FOIA's exemptions allow federal agencies to withhold information that would invade the privacy of individuals. The purpose of this article is to explore the legal conflict between an individual's right to privacy and the public interest in disclosure of government information. In an examination of seven United States Supreme Court decisions on this subject, this article questions whether the Court has fairly balanced the conflicting values of access and privacy within the guidelines established by Congress in the FOIA.     

Las restricciones a la libertad de reunión en relación con las elecciones en españa y méxico

This article compares and contrasts the laws that restrict freedom of assembly in Mexico and Spain during elections and electoral campaigns. It analyzes the key decisions and precedents of the Constitutional Court of Spain, the Supreme Court of Justice of Mexico and the Electoral Tribunal of Mexico. It also examines the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights with regard to the freedom of assembly, noting that this Court typically defends citizens freedom of assembly in political contexts although it tends to favor States in contexts of extreme violence such as terrorism. The present article argues that electoral authorities are mistaken if they prohibit meetings out of the mere suspicion that during the event, public support may be expressed for or against a candidate. Electoral authorities should enforce the principle of “favor libertatis” when deciding on limitations on freedom of assembly in electoral contexts.     

Walter Scott and the Reform of the Scottish Judicature 1806–10

The significance of the effort to reform the Court of Session in the early nineteenth century lies in the fact that it represented the first time Westminster had proposed to alter a key Scottish institution protected by the articles of the 1707 Act of Union. Scott as a Clerk of Session played a crucial role in the process, initially resisting reform and then undertaking to shape it. At the same time, his literary patriotism as Britain's best-selling poet was criticized by Britain's most famous cultural critic, Francis Jeffrey, a fellow member of the Faculty of Advocates. Jeffrey as editor of the Edinburgh Review wrote a controversial review of Scott's best-selling poem about the Battle of Flodden, Marmion, which accused Scott of being too ‘English’ in his treatment of this Scottish tragedy. And yet, more than Jeffrey, Scott was opposed to the Whig project of reforming Scottish law to make it more ‘constitutional’ or ‘English’. Using original documents held by the National Archives of Scotland, the Advocates Library, and the National Library of Scotland, this article examines Scott's role in making this controversy a matter of interest for both British literature and legal history.     

Judicial Review of Politics: The Israeli Case

In the tradition of studies questioning the impact of celebrated court rulings, this article discusses the effectiveness of the judicial review of politics conducted by the Israeli Supreme Court. The Israeli Supreme Court is generally viewed as a highly influential, almost omnipotent body. During the last two decades, the Court has intervened repeatedly in the so–called political domain, thereby progressively eroding the scope of realms considered non–justiciable. It has ventured to enter domains of 'pure' political power to review the legality of political agreements, political appointments (appointments of political allies to public positions), and political allocations (government funding to organizations affiliated with its political supporters). The prevalent perception is that these developments had a significant impact on Israeli political life. The present article challenges this view and argues that, on closer scrutiny, the influence of the Court on many of the issues reviewed here is negligible. First, many of the doctrines developed by the Court in order to review political measures proved ineffective. Usually, when the Supreme Court (acting as a High Court of Justice) engages in judicial review, it lacks the evidence needed in order to decide that administrative decisions on public appointments or public funding should be abolished because they were based on political or self–serving considerations. Second, the norms mandated by the Court hardly influence politicians' decisions in everyday life, and are applied only in contested cases. The reasons for this situation are not only legal but also socio–political. Large sections of current Israeli society support interest–group politics and do not accept the values that inspire the Court.     

Naming Names: The Impact of Supreme Court Opinion Attribution on Citizen Assessment of Policy Outcomes

The manner in which political institutions convey their policy outcomes can have important implications for how the public views institutions' policy decisions. This paper explores whether the way in which the U.S. Supreme Court communicates its policy decrees affects how favorably members of the public assess its decisions. Specifically, we investigate whether attributing a decision to the nation's High Court or to an individual justice influences the public's agreement with the Court's rulings. Using an experimental design, we find that when a Supreme Court outcome is ascribed to the institution as a whole, rather than to a particular justice, people are more apt to agree with the policy decision. We also find that identifying the gender of the opinion author affects public agreement under certain conditions. Our findings have important implications for how public support for institutional policymaking operates, as well as the dynamics of how the Supreme Court manages to accumulate and maintain public goodwill.     

A contractual model of the voting behavior of the supreme court: The role of the chief justice

Political scientists have long debated the role of the Supreme Court in public policymaking. Much of the debate has centered around the issue of judicial independence from political factors. Despite a rather extensive debate in the literature, the question of independence has rarely been subjected to systematic testing. This paper examines the role of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in linking decisions of the Court to the desires of Congress. Specifically, the paper focuses on the role of the Supreme Court Chief Justice as an agent of Congress that reacts to budgetary signals sent by the Congress. The resulting relationship between budgets allocated to the Court and decisions reached by the Court are analyzed from 1946 to 1988.     

Justices,Political Actors,or Both: An Exploration of the Brandenburg Line Through the Regime Theory Lens

Regime theory seeks to explain decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States by noting that justices tend to decide cases in ways that align with the prevailing political ideology. The theory emerged from political science literature and has not been explored regarding communication law. This article tests regime theory against the progression of seven Supreme Court precedents that led to the threatening speech test established in Brandenburg v. Ohio. The test is traditionally viewed as the fruit of about a half-century of deliberate judicial evolution. The analysis found regime theory helped explain the Court's progression and decisions in this line of cases, but contained some notable weaknesses.     

The Irish Court of Appeal in Chancery, 1857–77

The Irish Court of Appeal in Chancery was established in 1856 and began work in 1857. From then until the end of 1877 when the Courts of Common Law and Equity were replaced by the new Supreme Court established under the Judicature (Ir) Act of that year the Court sat to hear appeals against decrees made by the Lord Chancellor, Master of the Rolls or Vice-Chancellor in the Court of Chancery, against decisions of the Incumbered Estates Court or its successor the Landed Estates Court, and against decisions of the Courts of Probate, Bankruptcy and Insolvency, Admiralty, and Matrimonial Causes and Matters. The ourt was the counterpart of the Court of Appeal in Chancery established a few years earlier in England, but the chain of events by which the Irish Court came into existence, along with the membership of the Court and its consequences, make the history of the Irish Court unique. The purpose of this article is to explore those issues.     

Access to medicine and the dangers of patent linkage: lessons from Bayer Corp v. Union of India

In February 2010, the Delhi High Court delivered its decision in Bayer Corp v Union of India in which Bayer had appealed against an August 2009 decision of the same court. Both decisions prevented Bayer from introducing the concept of patent linkage into India's drug regulatory regime. Bayer appealed to the Indian Supreme Court, the highest court in India, which agreed on 2 March 2010 to hear the appeal. Given that India is regarded as a global pharmaceutical manufacturer of generic medications, how its judiciary and government perceive their international obligations has a significant impact on the global access to medicines regime. In rejecting the application of patent linkage, the case provides an opportunity for India to further acknowledge its international human rights obligations.     

Covenanting for Nature: A Comparative Study of the Utility and Potential of Conservation Covenants

Conservation covenants over private land are extensively used in some jurisdictions to secure a wide range of public benefits: in some cases primarily to promote nature conservation, while elsewhere to foster conservation alongside greater public access to ‘green’ space. This article considers the use of conservation covenants in New Zealand, Scotland, and England and Wales. It argues that they can play a unique role in balancing nature conservation, property rights and increased public access to private land. It reviews proposals for new legislation in England and Wales and argues that, if it is to be successful, the potential of conservation covenants to secure greater public access to private land should be more strongly emphasised. Their successful use in New Zealand shows that, while recognising the important balancing function that they can perform, this emphasis is critically important if covenants are to fulfil their potential to ‘reconnect’ people and nature.     

DO LOWER COURTS ANTICIPATE CHANGES IN SUPREME COURT POLICIES?: A Few Empirical Notes

This paper takes advantage of the change from the Warren Supreme Court to the Burger Supreme Court to investigate a phenomenon not usually examined in judicial impact research—anticipatory reactions. The research question is whether and under what circumstances federal courts of appeals anticipate changes in policy by the Supreme Court. Changes in the citation of Warren Court civil liberties decisions from the Warren Court era to the early Burger Court era are used to evaluate this question. It is hypothesized that moves away from Warren Court decisions would be greatest for decisions which received minimal support on the Warren Court and for important or salient policies. Contrary to these expectations it was found that during the Burger Court era the number of citations of Warren Court decisions actually increased, the percentage of positive citations increased, and the increases were greatest for decisions receiving minimal voting support on the Warren Court and for decisions classified as important.     

The ex turpi causa principle in Hounga and Servier

In Hounga v Allen the majority of the Supreme Court employed a test for the application of the ex turpi causa defence involving the balancing of public policy arguments for and against allowing the defence. Although this has attracted some early academic support, this note will argue it is inconsistent with authority and principle. The later decision in Servier v Apotex does not address the Hounga decision directly but strongly endorses a more conservative approach to the ex turpi causa principle. The resulting tension between these two Supreme Court decisions is likely further to destabilise the law in this area. This note advances arguments in favour of the Servier approach, summarises both decisions in terms of their consistency with authority and considers the ways in which Servier may have limited the effects of Hounga.     

Dissent,Legitimacy, and Public Support for Court Decisions: Evidence from a Survey‐Based Experiment

Scholars often argue that whereas unanimous rulings should boost public support for court decisions, dissents should fuel public opposition. Previous studies on public responses to U.S. Supreme Court decisions suggest that unanimity does in fact bolster support. However, a recent study has also found that dissents may increase support among opponents of a court decision by suggesting evidence of procedural justice. By examining how individuals react to dissents from the Supreme Court of Norway, this article is the first study outside the U.S. context of the public's reaction to unanimity and dissent. Breaking with the common notion of the negative effects of dissent on public support, the article shows that when the Supreme Court handles cases of higher political salience, the formulation of dissenting opinions can be a meaningful way of securing greater support for its policy outputs by suggesting evidence of procedural justice. Contrary to recent studies, however, this positive influence of dissent is irrespective of individuals' ex ante policy views.     

Judicial Independence, Judicial Promotion and the Enforcement of Legislative Wealth Transfers—An Empirical Study of the New Zealand High Court

This paper investigates the Landes-Posner thesis on judicial independence using data on public law decisions in which the government was the defendant decided in the New Zealand High Court over the period 1958–2001. We use survival analysis to examine whether successive New Zealand governments have promoted judges from the High Court to the Court of Appeal (which stands above the High Court) on the basis of political considerations, the quality of the judge's decision-making or both. Our findings suggest that the quality of decision-making has generally been important. Consistent with the weak form of the Landes-Posner hypothesis we find no evidence that governments have used their powers to punish judges who decided cases against them. On the contrary, we find some support for the strong form of the Landes-Posner thesis that governments positively use their powers to secure judicial independence.     

The contribution of EU public procurement law to corporate social responsibility

This article argues that while EU public procurement law increasingly allows public authorities to take environmental and social considerations into account in public purchasing decisions, it does impose limits on the possibility for authorities to incentivise corporate social responsibility (CSR) policies through public procurement. These specific limits are the result of the EU legislator's choice to endorse the Court of Justice's ordoliberal approach to public procurement law. This approach is in tension with EU CSR policy, and more broadly, the EU's non‐economic goals such as environmental protection, the fight against climate change, human rights and social policy. It reflects a normative preference for the right of undertakings to compete for a tender over the freedom of government authorities to choose a supplier on public interest grounds even if these choices are based exclusively on a legitimate public interest and should be reconsidered.     

Progress, Unity, and Democracy: Dissolving Political Parties in Turkey

In this article, I analyze two cases where the Turkish Constitutional Court dissolved political parties during the 1990s. Specifically, I examine the cases against the Islamist Refah (Welfare/Well-Being) Party and the pro-Kurdish Halkin Emek Partisi (People's Labor Party). While the former was charged with threatening the secular basis of the national social order, the charges against the latter were around its allegedly separatist character. I engage in an in-depth analysis of the lines of argument in the indictments, arguments of defense deployed by the parties, and their ultimate contestations as they appeared in the final decisions by the Court. I see the Court as engaging with a medley of themes and tendencies, [trying to resolve them for the case at hand]. I argue that despite the differences in the construction of the alleged threats, in both cases the Court deployed a similar image of the ways in which social, political, and judicial terrains interact. A rather arbitrary boundary between the political and cultural domains informs these decisions. The Court operates with the understanding that once this boundary is transgressed, what may be harmless when an issue is cultural—such as the use of the headscarf or of the Kurdish language—may turn into a political symbol threatening the basis of the united, democratic, and progressive nation-state. In this vision, the concepts of democracy, progress, and unity are intimately tied together such that the threat to one of these concepts almost simultaneously constitutes a threat to the other two. The Court imagines itself as protecting the boundary between the political and cultural domains in an effort to uphold the right of a democracy to protect itself. This line of thought also enables the court's rather routine involvement in the political domain—which has brought about eighteen decisions for political party dissolution since 1980.     

The First Amendment Right to Receive Online Information in Public Libraries

A decade after the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the Children's Internet Protection Act, which mandated Internet filters in public libraries, filtering problems have not been resolved, and the disabling of Internet filters upon the requests of adults does not seem to be as easy or automatic as the justices had presumed. In upholding CIPA, the Supreme Court seemed to misunderstand the parameters of the disabling provision, ignored the right-to-receive doctrine, and missed the opportunity to update public forum doctrine to include the Internet. This article concludes that the Court needs to reevaluate public forum doctrine in the context of twenty-first century technology and designate Internet access in public libraries as a metaphysical public forum.     

Minimum Alcohol Pricing: Balancing the ‘Essentially Incomparable’ in Scotch Whisky

This note contrasts the approaches taken by the Court of Justice of the European Union and the UK Supreme Court in the high‐profile litigation which preceded the introduction of minimum alcohol pricing in Scotland. The case of Scotch Whisky Association and others v The Lord Advocate and another hinged, ultimately, on the necessity of minimum pricing to achieve important public health goals. The notably differing viewpoints adopted by the domestic and Union courts, however, both illustrate the elusiveness of the proportionality criterion, and expose tensions between domestic and supranational control in the context of internal market regulation.     

公众参与理念在美国土地规划票决中的实践及启示

美国的投票式分区管制将票决制度运用于土地规划,是一种最强程度的公众参与。实践表明,土地规划领域有适用票决制度的必要,票决制度体现的公众参与特征包括决策者与参与者之间的双向沟通关系,决策结果对公众参与具有高度的依赖性。在信息公开制度健全、议题限制、平等保护审查等条件下,居民投票不会沦为"愚众政治",与专业机构判断的对立也会缓解,而且也不会"压迫少数人的意见"。我国应在涉及健康、生命安全的公共项目选址决策中引入票决制度,并同时完善信息公开配套机制,以及加强对居民投票决策不违反公益要求的程序管控。