Golden Accumulator Limited and Coral House Limited v Cayman Islands Monetary Authority

This article undertakes a comparative analysis of the approach in the UK with the Commonwealth Caribbean jurisprudence concerning the doctrine of legitimate expectation. It argues that there is an ad hoc approach of the courts the Commonwealth Caribbean towards their application of the doctrine of legitimate expectation and highlights the need to clearly define the reach of this doctrine.     

Can the Public Trust Doctrine Save the High Seas?

Abstract

The high seas is one of the last remaining commons on the planet, but comprehensive efforts to save this area beyond national jurisdiction have not been successful. This article examines the feasibility of applying the public trust doctrine to the high seas by first evaluating tools that are currently in place to protect biodiversity then analyzing the public trust doctrine in its traditional application in the United States and other countries. With this foundation, the article examines the possibility and methodology of applying the public trust concept to protect the high seas.     

The prosecutor and human rights – from the general to the particular

It is not unusual that one or all parties commit a genuine mistake when making contracts. While there is the strict general duty under the law to respect agreements, there equally exists the duty for courts and tribunals to be fair and to render commercial justice in the factual matrix of cases before them. In national legal systems and transnational law regimes, rescission for mistake on economically efficient and just terms is embedded in contractual obligations. The Solle v Butcher (1950) doctrine, which represented the English law approach, was rejected in The Great Peace (2002). Potential conflicts and crises now exist in commercial relations and international dispute resolution when ‘English law’ is the applicable law. This extends to jurisdictions where English decisions are highly persuasive. This article examines the correctness and effect of The Great Peace decision on the doctrine of equitable rescission for genuine mistake as propounded in Solle v Butcher, and possible clarifications needed after the complications brought by The Great Peace. It analyses the conceptual importance of the remedy of equitable rescission for mistake in commercial transactions, and identifies serious substantive errors of law by The Great Peace court. Finally, it provides other effective, fair and efficient legal methods that remain available to avoid the weaknesses of the decisions.     

论公司人格否认制度适用情形标准化及路径选择

公司人格否认制度适用情形是人民法院审理人格否认案件并做出最终裁决所依据的法律标准,而我国目前立法、司法解释和《九民纪要》所确认的适用情形较为原则和片面,缺乏系统性、规范性与逻辑性,引发司法适用难题。适用情形标准化是解决上述问题并实现"同案同判"的关键。本文对主要适用情形进行梳理和分析,试图厘清其逻辑关系,细化适用条件,并建议通过立法、修法或出台司法解释等途径,围绕人格否认制度核心价值,构建适用情形标准化体系,为人民法院审理人格否认案件提供统一法律适用标准。     

The Responsibility of the Police Command for Street-Level Actions

This article examines federal judicial doctrine concerning the responsibility of police officials for patrol misconduct. The current standard requiring a showing by plaintiffs of an "affirmative link" between street-level action and the intention of commanders is challenged in two ways. First, through the application of organizational analysis to the premises of leading cases in the doctrine, and, second, by considering three suits alleging patterns of patrol misconduct, in which the elements of a new standard of command responsibility can be discerned. The authors argue that a standard based on a strengthened doctrine of respondeat superior will help insure the preservation of due process rights in citizen encounters with the police. The article recommends the imposition of departmental record keeping requirements for personnel evaluations and for allegations and investigations of patrol misconduct. A further recommendation would require departmental regulations on the use of force.     

Licensee estoppel: an overview of the position under English and European law

Legal content: This article intends to raise awareness of the English law doctrineof licensee estoppel and how it may be relevant in practice.The relevant English case law and its relationship with Englishstatute and European legislation are discussed. Key points: Many practitioners are unaware of the nature and significanceof licensee estoppel under English law. The doctrine of licenseeestoppel seems at first sight to run contrary to European competitionlaw: this situation is made more complicated by the fact thatEuropean legislation and case law seems to presume that sucha doctrine does not exist. Once the doctrine itself and itsrelationship with European competition law have been explained,the remedies that are available and commercially relevant tolicensees become clearer. Practical significance: These considerations are relevant to practitioners draftingand negotiating technology transfer agreements under Englishlaw, as well as to those advising licensors and licensees ontheir rights and available remedies.     

The greater good?: issues of proportionality and democracy in the doctrine of necessity as applied in Re A

This article examines the criminal law doctrine of necessity as applied in the conjoined twins case (Re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation) [2000] 4 All ER 961). It determines that the public law principle of proportionality underlies the doctrine, but identifies the preservation of life as the guiding principle behind the Court of Appeal's use of necessity in Re A. The article is critical of this elevation of the preservation of life under the doctrine of necessity and argues for an alternative conception of necessity based upon fundamental constitutional principles such as human rights and democracy. The principle of democracy has particular pertinence to the issue of necessity because it may be endangered by this common law justificatory defence. This conflict between democracy and necessity, it is argued, further supports the need for the constitutional value of democracy to play a key role in any application of necessity in future cases.     

Absurd Asymmetry – a Comment on R v Cottrell and Fletcher1 and BM,KK and DP (Petitioners) v Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission2

This note examines two cases in which English and Scottish courts have insisted that the English and Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commissions adopt the same definition and approach as them to alleged ‘miscarriages of justice’ in order to reduce the number of potential referrals and increase finality, and to reduce the challenge posed by these Commissions to the courts' authority in the legal sphere. The authors consider whether the courts' approach is either necessary or appropriate.     

自冒风险规则研究

自冒风险源自罗马法,无论在普通法系还是大陆法系,都已接受为过失侵权的抗辩事由：尽管我国立法没有相关规定,却已有法官依据自冒风险规则判决的案例,这很危险。因此,深入研究自冒风险理论,阐述其构成要件、适用范围等,为构建我国的自冒风险规则立法、消除既有法律障碍提供理论基础是论文的立意所在。     

Lost in Translation: Corporate Opportunities in Comparative Perspective

The corporate opportunities doctrine in the United States playsa pivotal role in the contemporary debate about whether Englishlaw’s regulation of when a director can personally exploitan opportunity encountered whilst a director should be moreflexible than it is perceived to be. This article argues thatthis comparative encounter has produced partial and misleadingaccounts of US state corporate law and English law. The articlesubmits three reasons for this. First, English scholarship hasnot taken full account of the institutional context of regulatorycompetition for incorporations within which corporate law inthe United States is produced. This institutional context raisesconcerns about the influence of managerial interests on opportunitiesregulation in the US and raises questions about how an opportunitiesdoctrine could evolve differently in the UK absent the pressuresof regulatory competition. Second, scholars who praise US approachesto the corporate opportunities doctrine as a modern model ofreform allow an idea about the American economy in the late20th century to get in the way of a thorough consideration ofthe purported economic benefits of more flexible regulation.Third, the effect of jurisdictional juxtaposition or contrastleaves a strict, certain impression of English law that brushesover its flexible tensions and ambiguities.     

论合宪性解释方法

虽然合宪性解释方法在概念上会存在些许差别,但其所遵循的合宪性推定逻辑是相通的,即都体现了司法权对立法权的谦抑。合宪性解释方法中所含括的单纯解释规则,如果不与冲突规则在学理上加以区分,则很容易对合宪性解释产生认识上的偏差。目前合宪性解释方法所模本的欧陆经验,从源流上来说,最早其实可溯及至早期美国合宪性推定的理论与实践,并与回避宪法方法一脉相承。通过合宪性推定可以发现,合宪性解释方法可以从宪法方法与法律方法两个层面展开。把握其内在理路及权力逻辑,方可使其具有本土可能性。     

不方便法院说比较研究

“不方便法院”说是指一国法院认为某个涉外案件更适合在外国审理或者本国法院不适合审理 ,而拒不行使管辖权的一种自由裁量权。它起源于英格兰 ,后来逐渐发展成为英美国际私法上影响法院行使国际管辖权的一项重要制度。该说缺乏合理性 ,没有统一的适用标准 ,且赋予审理案件的法官过多自由裁量权 ,很容易被当事人或者法院操纵 ,往往导致适用结果的不一致。除一些普通法国家和地区外 ,其他国家都拒绝接受该说。我国法院在审理涉外案件中也不宜适用该说。     

民事诉讼中的诚实信用原则

诚实信用原则系民事诉讼法中的一项补充性原则,该原则的有效实施将有利于实现人们对民事诉讼的公正、迅速、经济价值追求。理论上,诚实信用原则除了适用于当事人之外,也适用于法院,规制法院的审判行为,但学界对此争议较大。从大陆法系各国关于诚实信用原则的实践来看,诚实信用原则主要是通过大量的各种判例予以实现的,这些判例对审判具有指引作用,即使没有英美判例那样强的硬约束,但也会实际发生软约束作用;同时,借助这些判例,实务又与学术界的理论分析、批判形成互动,逐渐形成一种司法共识和司法行为范式。由于我国缺乏这样的司法运作机制以及与理论界的互动机制,诚实信用原则直接适用的空间并没有想像的那样大。     

Learning to love the state action doctrine

The state action doctrine receives relatively little attention in the Federal Trade Commission/Department of Justice 2004 report on competition in the health care sector. Not surprisingly, the report focuses primarily on urging states to reconsider specific laws that tend to restrict competition in health care markets but that are clearly shielded by the state action doctrine. Relatively little attention is given to the interpretation of the doctrine itself. This article employs the twin themes of institutional choice and market failure to evaluate a number of interpretive proposals affecting the state action doctrine that were available to, but not taken up by, the agencies. It also proposes using the state action doctrine to ease the burden on courts in market-failure cases in which there is an obvious threat to competition and the alternative of publicly accountable regulatory action is available.     

Comparative vs. Transcendental Approaches to Justice: A Misleading Dichotomy in Sen's The Idea of Justice

This paper examines the distinction drawn by Amartya Sen between transcendental and comparative theories of justice, and its application to Rawls' doctrine. It then puts forward three arguments. First, it is argued that Sen offers a limited portrayal of Rawls' doctrine. This is the result of a rhetorical strategy that depicts Rawlsian doctrine as more “transcendental” than it really is. Although Sen deploys numerous quotations in support of his interpretation, it is possible to offer a less transcendental interpretation of Rawls. Second, the dichotomy between transcendental and comparative approaches to questions of justice is partly misleading, insofar as any plausible moral doctrine has both transcendental and comparative elements. Transcendental elements are necessary to avoid the confusion between the general acceptance of a norm, value or principle and its justification. A comparative view highlights the conditions of application of the doctrine to the real world, taking into account the possibility of moral dilemmas, evaluative disagreements and limited resources, while proposing possible provisos and caveats to the risk of the doctrine being self‐defeating. Third, although the transcendental approach is useful, it is argued that in elaborating this dichotomy Sen overlooks the merits of the third way between comparative and transcendental doctrines, what he calls “conglomerate theory,” and also the possibility that his doctrine (the capability approach) might be considered as an example of such a theory. The paper concludes with the argument that conglomerate theory does not aim to produce complete moral orderings, but rather a comparative approach with transcendental elements, as a form of weak transcendentalism.     

The Justiciability of Resource Allocation

A perennial problem in public law is how courts ought to deal with legal challenges to the allocation of public resources. This article explains and renders more coherent the varied approaches of English courts to the justiciability of resource allocation disputes in administrative and tort law. It draws a distinction between 'discretionary allocative decision-making' and 'allocative impact.' The non-justiciability doctrine in R v Cambridge Health Authority , ex p B is concerned with the former only. By contrast, allocative impact is a justiciable matter, but can still ultimately defeat a claim. This distinction, however, does not guide judicial approaches under the Human Rights Act 1998, where courts have chosen mostly to eschew the non-justiciability doctrine in favour of more flexibly applied notions of judicial deference. Thus while the non-justiciability doctrine has a relatively narrow scope in administrative and tort law, it has nearly disappeared under human rights law.     

A Doctrine at Risk: Content Neutrality in a Post-Reed Landscape

Although the Supreme Court of the United States has deployed the content-neutrality doctrine at least twenty-three times in the last decade, two recent cases — McCullen v. Coakley and Reed v. Town of Gilbert — demonstrate that disagreement among the justices over the meaning of the doctrine is endangering its utility for First Amendment jurisprudence. This article describes the manifestations of this disagreement and suggests that without further clarification about the doctrine's nature, purpose and application, the venerable First Amendment canon may soon either lose practical tenability or disintegrate into constitutional oblivion. Such an outcome, the article suggests, is both ill advised and avoidable. By taking several practical steps, the Supreme Court can go a long way toward preserving the doctrine's usefulness for upholding legitimate government interests and protecting the freedom of expression.     

Magical Thinking in Trademark Law

People in all societies have a tendency toward magical thinking. This human inclination is extensively exploited by modern advertising, which routinely suggests that consuming goods will make us successful, happy, and fulfilled. In this article, I suggest that such advertising creates a system of beliefs resembling a totemic religion. In this religion, brands perform the role of sacred objects. Trademark law initially aims at preventing consumer confusion. Yet, today, famous trademarks are extensively protected against nonconfusing associations. I argue in this article that this broad protection is based on magical thinking. Pointing out the parallels between the laws of magic and trademark doctrines, such as the doctrine of dilution, I suggest that famous marks are legally treated as magical, sacred objects. This legal approach amounts to endorsing the commercial religion of brands.     

Serving the State: Constitutionalism and Social Spending, 1860s-1920s

In the 19th century, courts supervised states' social spending by limiting taxation to public purposes. The focus of this article is the courts' approach to pensions. Under a 19th-century doctrine, states could pay money to those who had served the state or, under the rubric of charity, to those who were the indigent helpless. States first paid pensions to people for military service and for serving as firemen; later in the century, the doctrine from these cases provided a framework for expanding civil service pensions as states expanded their civil service. Courts characterized the earlier pensions as earned because the service had been dangerous, requiring bravery from men and possibly leaving helpless women and children without protection. This characterization later shaped evaluations of civil service pensions. The doctrine persisted as states enacted pensions for widowed mothers; when these pensions were challenged in state courts, the courts approved of them as payments to helpless people, not as rewards to those who had served. This characterization counters recent scholarship that argues that mothers' pensions rewarded service as military pensions did.     

论刑法的公众认同

保持刑法与市民感觉、国民规范意识之间的一致性 ,以保持刑法的亲和力 ,并使之获得公众对刑法的认同感 ,在我国是一个比较突出的问题。刑法理论在因果关系、不作为犯、违法论、故意、共犯、责任论等问题上都充分考虑了公众认同感问题。公众对刑法的认同包括对“生活利益的重要性”和“规范有效性”的认同两个方面。作者进一步指出 ,今后我国刑法理论与实践要更多地考虑公众认同 ,就必须注意三方面的问题 :理论总体思路的调整 ;在具体问题上的理论创新和反思 ;鼓励市民介入刑事司法裁判过程。