Uberrima Fides, Foucault and the Security of Uncertainty

Uberrima Fides is a legal doctrine that governs insurance contracts and expects all parties to the insurance agreement to act in good faith by declaring all material facts relative to a policy. The doctrine originated in England in 1766 with the case Carter v Boehm ruled by Lord Mansfield. Ever since, it has become, with some differences in interpretation, a cornerstone of insurance relationships around the world. The role that trust plays within it, however, is not simple and should not be taken for granted. While it is expected that an idea of trust represents an order of truth, trust in itself is the outcome of a complex negotiation of moral orders. Semiotically, trust operates here not as a Kantian category for the understanding but as a signifier of an order of truth that upholds the possibility for insurance relationships. Trust, as sign, operates as a condition of possibility for the performance of insurance. In this article, a Foucaultian approach is employed to problematise the idea of trust and its role in insurance relationships. The case of mis-selling of insurance policies in the United Kingdom since the 1980s, which has given rise to numerous legal rulings, is used as the empirical site for the problematisation.     

Discourses of Division: Law, Politics and the ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory

This article undertakes a critical reading of the argumentsused at the bench and the bar in the 2004 ICJ Wall advisoryopinion. The Wall case included an unprecedented number of Stateand non-State participants and it is therefore a valuable sitein which to explore the parameters and limits of legal speech.What argumentative strategies were employed at the Peace Palace?How did different participants present the relationship betweenlaw and politics? In particular, because the example of Palestinecan be seen as a challenge to the post-colonial order, how didThird World States employ the language of international lawin support of Palestinian self-determination? It is shown thatalthough international legal speech is highly restrictive, manyThird World States are willing to challenge its boundaries througha deep-set faith in the dividends of legal argumentation.     

Trusts & Trustees, 2009, Vol 15, No 1

From opposite sides of the legal profession, and from oppositesides of the world, we began 2008 as editorial greenhorns. Althoughreasonably long in the tooth as trust lawyers, and as text bookauthors, we have come to understand and appreciate a great dealthat previously we had taken for granted. In "Winston Churchill as Historian", in Louis (ed) Adventureswith Britannia: Personalities, Politics and Culture in Britain(1995), 47, Lord Blake recorded the great man as having describedcultured people as "merely the glittering scum which floatsupon the deep river of production." Most trust lawyers are     

Lewin on Trusts

Lewin on Trusts has long been an important resource for lawyersengaged in advising or litigating about trusts. Having beenresurrected in 2000 after a gap of 36 years by John Mowbrayand his team with the 17th edition, it now emerges in its 18thedition this year in a yet more comprehensive and expanded form.As anyone who has written any part of any legal text will readilybe able to discern, a very great deal of time and attentionhas clearly been devoted to it by its authors for which manyof us with less energy and application can only be grateful. As the authors’ preface to the new edition makes clear,they have not merely brought the new edition up to date withlegal developments over the last 8 years, substantial work thougheven that has     

Genocide, Complicity in Genocide and International v. Domestic Jurisdiction: Reflections on the van Anraat Case

When adjudicating international crimes, domestic courts arefaced with a choice between the application of internationallaw or national law. In the recent van Anraat judgment, a DutchDistrict Court explicitly opted for the former alternative.This approach led to the accused's acquittal of complicity ingenocide. In the Court's opinion, there was no proof beyonda reasonable doubt that van Anraat had actual knowledge of SaddamHussein's special intent to destroy part of the Kurdish population.According to the Court, such proof is required under internationallaw. This article argues that the Court's preference for internationallaw was not prescribed, either by international law or by domesticlaw, although in principle such preference may prove advisable,whenever international rules are clear and exhaustive. Aftertracing the intricate legal discussions on mens rea requirementsfor genocide and complicity in genocide, the author concludesthat the issue has not yet been completely elucidated in internationalcase law and legal literature. In situations of ambiguity whereinternational case law offers insufficient guidance, domesticcourts would better resort to their own criminal law. As Dutchcriminal law extends the mens rea of the accomplice beyond ‘knowledge’so as to cover dolus eventualis as well, application of domesticlaw might have affected the outcome of the case.     

Is a domain name property?

Legal context. Domain names have become increasingly valuableassets, in some respects more valuable than trade marks. A domainname may identify not only the source of the goods, services,business or information, but also the virtual location of thesource, much as an address or telephone number does. However,there is still a significant unresolved issue as to whethera domain name is a form of intangible property or merely a contractualright. Resolution of this issue is important for commercialtransactions affecting domain names and for legal proceedingsand remedies relating to them. Key points. Domain names have been analogized by courts to addresses,patents, trade marks, and even by one writer to cattle. However,in this author's view, the best way to characterize the legalstatus of a domain name is by analogy to a telephone number.Although United States appellate authority suggests that a domainname is a form of intangible intellectual property, it is submittedthat the better, but not judicially clear or consistent, viewis that a domain name is not property. This position reflectsthe practice in Canada where, in registering a .ca domain name,the registrant agrees, as a contractual condition of registration,that it acquires no property right in the domain name. Practical significance. The authorities in this area are stillnot clear. Until this issue is resolved, whether globally oron a country-by-country basis, the prevailing uncertainty willinhibit commercial transactions involving domains, such as theirtransfer and their value for the purposes of securitisation.     

The Spanish Constitutional Tribunal's Decision in Guatemalan Generals: Unconditional Universality is Back

On 26 September 2005, the Spanish Constitutional Tribunal reversedthe decisions of the Audiencia Nacional and the High Court (TribunalSupremo) in the case of the Guatemalan Generals. According tothe two judicial bodies, the exercise of universal jurisdictionover international crimes required a link between the crimeor the victims or the offender and Spain, such as the presenceof the offender on Spanish territory or the Spanish nationalityof the victims. The Constitutional Tribunal held, instead, thatthese requirements are contrary to the principle pro actione,i.e. they result in an unjustified restriction of the constitutionalright to effective judicial protection. The Tribunal also clarifiedthat universal jurisdiction, whose aim is fighting impunity,does not require any link other than the universal characterof the values protected by the provisions criminalizing themost serious violations of international law. The presence ofthe accused in Spain is merely a condition for trial, not adistinct ground of jurisdiction; in other words, the accusedmust be in Spain for the trial to begin, but jurisdiction maybe exercised even in his absence, for example for the issuanceof a request for extradition. The only condition to which theexercise of universal jurisdiction is subject is that the stateof the locus commissi delicti is not already investigating andprosecuting the case effectively.     

The Legal Effects of Resolutions of the UN Security Council and General Assembly in the Jurisprudence of the ICJ

This article aims to extract from the jurisprudence of the InternationalCourt of Justice a basic theory of legal effects of unilateralinstruments of international organizations in public internationallaw. These effects can be divided into three categories. Thefirst is substantive effects. These include binding, authorizingand (dis)empowering effects. The second category is causativeeffects, whereby determinations of fact or of law bring substantiveeffects into existence. The third category is modal effects– how and when the substantive effects come into existence(e.g. immediate or deferred, retroactive or non-retroactive,reversible or irreversible effect). Each of these categoriesof legal effects behaves differently according to whether theeffects are intrinsic or extrinsic. Intrinsic effects are basedon the special treaty powers of the United Nations SecurityCouncil and General Assembly. In this hypothesis, all threecategories of effects exist to the full extent that the explicitand implicit powers of the adopting body allow for them. Extrinsiceffects are directly based on general international law, inparticular on the rules of formation of customary internationallaw. Here, there are no causative effects. Substantive effectsdo not strictly speaking exist; only pre-substantive ones do.And modal effects are always immediate, non-retroactive andreversible.     

'The erosion of property law principles in cohabitation disputes--a step too far?': Stack V Dowder [2007] 1 All ER 929, HL

Cohabitation of unmarried couples is becoming ever so popularin the society. Accordingly the number of property disputesbetween such couples is on the rise. Until now the law in thisarea was marred with conflicting dictums. In Stack v Dowdenthe House of Lords tried to resolve these conflicts by layingdown a simple rule that if there is a joint legal ownershipthe presumption would be of joint beneficial ownership. Thisarticle argues that the framework suggested by the majorityof House of Lords in Stack v Dowden cannot be rationalized bythe long standing law of property.     

Punishing International Crimes Committed by the Persecuted: The Kapo Trials in Israel (1950s-1960s)

This article deals with the legal and moral imperatives arisingout of the Kapo trials, which took place in Israel between 1951and 1964. Section 2 considers substantive aspects of the IsraeliNazi and Nazi Collaborators Law (adopted in 1950), as well asthe moral quagmire embedded within this Law. Section 3 exploresthe dialogue that these trials advanced (and the dialogue thatthey failed to advance) in Israeli society. Section 4 offerssome reflection on the reasons why these trials have been expungedfrom Israel's collective memory. The authors also attempt toshed some light on the impact that this deliberate collectiveforgetting has had on the construction of Israel's nationalidentity and examine the central role that judicial institutionshave played in reconstructing the past and providing meaningfor the Kapo trials as a nation-building mechanism.     

The State of Nature and Laws of Seinfeld: Not That There’s Anything Wrong With That

Seinfeld (1989–1998) and it’s co-creator’s Curb Your Enthusiasm (2000–present), are each considered groundbreaking television. Critics regard their humor and intellectual comedy as Twain-like and creative. While both shows have been criticized for their character’s indifference and apolitical attitude, the programs resonate with those in society who more subtly consider law and politics. This project argues that Seinfeld and Curb present a unique theory of justice. These two shows constitute a common and current image of what is just in society. While critics have argued that Seinfeld and Curb are not shows about nothing, I argue that these comedians offer us a legal philosophy. For those who view these characters as merely “self-absorbed, superficial, and immature,” I posit that they represent the obscure area between what John Locke termed “the state of nature” and what legal scholars call “legal culture.” I propose that these sitcoms demonstrate a way of speaking about law that provides a constitutive theory of law and justice.     

Damaska and the Faces of International Criminal Justice

Mirjan Damaka 's scholarly publications provide important insightsfor the analysis of systems of criminal justice at the internationallevel. This is particularly true for his major book: The Facesof Justice and State Authority – A Comparative Approachto the Legal Process. The book develops ideal types, or models,of the structure and the function of government. As far as thestructure of government, the ideal types of hierarchical andcoordinate officialdom are contrasted with one another. Withregard to the function of government in society, two other mutuallyexclusive ideal types are developed: the ideal type of the purelyreactive state and that of the purely activist state. In thepurely reactive state all state activities are essentially aform of dispute resolution between individual citizens. Consequently,all proceedings take the shape of a contest between two parties.In the reactive state, on the other hand, all law is an expressionof state policies. This entails that all proceedings are essentiallyan official inquiry enabling the state to implement its policies.The four ideal types call for several observations, one of thembeing that, at the international level, there is no authoritythat can be compared to a state. Setting up international criminal courts requires choices withregard to the structure and function of authority. Internationalhuman rights instruments provide no guidance as to the natureof the choices to be made. In particular, they do not indicatewhether the legal process should be structured as a contestbetween two parties or as an official inquiry. The same is truefor empirical evidence. An analysis of the structures of authority in internationalcriminal courts reveal that they represent hybrids of the hierarchicaland the coordinate ideal types of officialdom. The fact thatthese courts are unitary courts has a profound effect on evidentiaryarrangements. The most important issue raised by the exposition of ideal typesof The Faces of Justice concerns the relationship between thegoals of international criminal justice and the appropriatelegal process to serve their realization. Goals of a conflict-solvingnature are best served by a legal process structured as a contestbetween two parties and goals related to the implementationof policies by a legal process structured as an official inquiry.It is therefore essential to determine what goals are beingpursed by international criminal courts. One may distinguishhere between goals that international systems of justice mayor may not have in common with national systems of criminaljustice. The pursuit of the traditional goals of criminal justicecommon to international and national systems of justice doesnot provide compelling reasons to prefer either a contest modelor an inquest model of the legal process. This is different,however, for the idiosyncratic goals of international criminaljustice that set apart international systems of criminal justicefrom national systems. The pursuit of these goals makes it desirablethat historical facts are established as accurately as is possiblein the given circumstances. They are, therefore, best servedby a legal process that takes the shape of an official inquiry.In the hybrid type of procedure adopted by the ICTY there isinsufficient clarity about the procedural status of the peculiargoals of international criminal justice as well as about theuse of procedural means to pursue them. This entails that itis not really possible to determine whether this hybrid representsa success. Hybrid types of procedure cannot truly exist withoutadopting a view with regard to the impartiality of judges thatis inspired by standards enshrined in international human rightsinstrument rather than those that are characteristic for thelegal process shaped as a contest between two parties.     

State Immunity for Torture

The House of Lords’ ruling in Jones v Ministry of InteriorAl-Mamlaka Al-Arabiya AS Saudiya (the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia)and others sets an important precedent in the field of internationalcivil claims for torture. It was also the first to address indetail the ratio of the seminal judgment in Pinochet No. 3,a ruling that has given rise to much speculation as to the relationshipbetween State immunity, jus cogens norms and human rights. Thisarticle explores the significance of the Jones case, and, inthe light of that ruling, comments more generally upon the widerissue of the extent to which State immunity acts as a barrierto international legal actions for torture brought in domesticcourts in both the civil and criminal spheres.     

What the ICJ did not say about the Duty to Punish Genocide: The Missing Pieces in a Puzzle

The article focuses on the legal implications of the constructionof the International Court of Justice (ICJ or the Court) ofthe duty to punish genocide under Article VI of the Conventionon the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide inthe Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro judgment.It posits that the Court's discussion of the duty to punishis satisfying in terms of what it says and less satisfying interms of what it is silent about. It is satisfying in the sensethat the Court's construction of the duty to cooperate withinternational tribunals prosecuting genocide as including aduty of extradition, seems to extend beyond the plain languageof the Convention and indeed beyond the parties’ originalintent. It is not fully satisfying because the duty to prosecuteremains quite limited. It is further argued that the obligationto punish genocide as established in Article I and the obligationto prosecute genocide as established in Article VI should beunderstood as two distinct obligations. Article VI merely setsthe institutional arrangements for prosecution. Other normativesources support the conclusion that a general duty to prosecuteperpetrators of genocide or extradite them for prosecution elsewhereapplies even in those cases where the offence was not committedin the territory of a contracting state or when the offenderis prosecuted by an international court that has jurisdictionover the state where the alleged perpetrator is found.     

Aviation Safety, ICAO and Obligations Erga Omnes

The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is a UnitedNations (UN)-specialized agency mandated to promote the safetyof international civil aviation. Because of the importance ofair transport in the contemporary society, safety issues havebecome a matter of prime and common concern. Safety oversightfunction is not only the individual but also the collectiveresponsibility of States. In view of the inherent link betweenaviation safety and the elementary considerations of humanity,the obligation to provide safety oversight has arguably acquiredan erga omnes character, and all States have a legal interestin its observance. The audit activities of ICAO have providedsome preliminary experience demonstrating that this obligationshould ideally be enforced through centralized and neutral mechanismswithin the UN system.     

Servitude and Forced Labour in the 21st Century: The Human Rights of Domestic Workers

Organisations and scholars have recently drawn attention towhat they call a modern form of slavery, ‘domestic slavery’.Domestic workers in Europe and elsewhere live and work in appallingconditions and are vulnerable to abuse. This article describesthe problem, presents the relevant legal instruments and analysesa decision of the European Court of Human Rights, Siliadin vFrance, where France was found in breach of the prohibitionof slavery, servitude, forced and compulsory labour under theEuropean Convention on Human Rights. The paper examines thegrowing interaction between international labour law and internationalhuman rights law. It argues that the decision in Siliadin andits legal implications constitute a positive first step towardsaddressing the problem of the coercion and vulnerability ofmigrant domestic workers.     

Assisting an Accused to Represent Himself: Appointment of Amici Curiae as the Most Appropriate Option

Given the proportion and complexity of international criminalproceedings, allowing an accused to represent himself beforean international criminal court might render his defence ineffective,even if the accused is a lawyer himself. If international criminalcourts are not willing to have the accused bear the consequencesof his choice of self-representation, the measure of appointingexperienced Defence Counsel as amici curiae to make legal contributionsto add to the Judges’ informed decisions seems to entailfewer undesirable ethical consequences for counsel than beingadded as ‘standby counsel’ or ‘court assignedcounsel’. Through occupying a neutral position and notbeing required to represent the accused, the amici's input maybalance the flow of defence and prosecution arguments and thuscontribute to the fairness of international criminal trials.The measure of appointing standby counsel or court assignedcounsel to an accused who wishes to represent himself appearsless appropriate, especially from a legal professional perspective.     

UNITED STATES COURTS AND THE OPTIMAL DETERRENCE OF INTERNATIONAL CARTELS: A WELFARIST PERSPECTIVE ON EMPAGRAN

E. Hoffmann–La Roche Ltd. v. Empagran S.A. concerned aprivate antitrust suit for damages against a global vitaminscartel. The central issue in the litigation was whether foreignplaintiffs injured by the cartel's conduct abroad could bringsuit in U.S. court, an issue that was ultimately resolved inthe negative. We take a welfarist perspective on this issueand inquire whether optimal deterrence requires U.S. courtsto take subject matter jurisdiction under U.S. law for claimssuch as those in Empagran. Our analysis considers, in particular,the arguments of various economist amici in favor of jurisdictionand arguments of the U.S. and foreign government amici againstjurisdiction. We explain why the issue is difficult to resolve,and identify several economic concerns that the amici donot address, which may counsel against jurisdiction. We alsoanalyze the legal standard enunciated by the Supreme Court andapplied on remand by the D.C. Circuit, and we argue that itsfocus on "independent" harms and "proximate" causation is problematicand does not provide an adequate economic foundation for resolvingthe underlying legal issues.     

Claim construction and the extent of patent protection: A comparative analysis of the Phillips en banc Federal Circuit decision

Legal context. The United Kingdom's House of Loads in Kirin-Amgenand the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuitin Phillips addressed similar issues with respect to the methodologyof claim interpretation and the fundamental rules and policiesfor determining the extent of patent protection. This articlewill review Phillips and Kirin-Amgen from the comparative lawperspective. It will compare the UK and US rules and patentpolicies with their German and Japanese counterparts, discussingthe bases for these differences and examining them from theperspective of patent policies, specifically with respect tofair protection and legal certainty. Key points. Despite the use of the same rule and methodology,legal commentators and patent professionals emphasize the differencesin the extent of patent protection in different jurisdictions.Such differences result from the availability of the doctrineof equivalents. For jurisdictions such as the UK, the US andJapan, where courts seldom apply the doctrine of equivalents,the differences result from the way in which the courts conductclaim construction. These courts use the perspective of a hypotheticalperson to support a broad or narrow claim construction, reflectingthe weight given to the competing patent policies. Practical significance. This article cites key cases for claimconstruction and the doctrine of equivalents in four major patentjurisdictions: the UK, the US, Germany and Japan. Knowledgeof the case law trends in these jurisdictions is essential fordrafting patents documents and enforcing patents.