Is there a “common law” of responsibility?

Contrary to common expectations and a good deal of legal folk wisdom, several surveys have failed to find group differences in the way people attribute responsibility and assign punishments. These nonfinding, suggest that there is a considerable degree of consensus about how to judge wrongdoing. The nature of this consensus is examined using survey data collected in two Japanese and one American cities. We examine the extent of group differences in the evaluation of inputs (here a set of hypothetical vignettes), decision rules, and punishments. The paper concludes with a discussion of the conceptual, theoretical, and methodological issues raised by these and similar findings of small group differences. Collectively, these three issues define, an agenda for future research on the nature and extent of a common law of responsibility.This is a revised version of a paper presented at the 1986 meeting of the Law and Society Association. The research was supported by seed funds from the Social Science Research Council and from the University of Michigan and by N.S.F. grant No. SOC 77-242918. Japanese data were gathered and analyzed with support from the Nihon Gakujutsu Shinkokai and Mombusho to the Japanese investigators: Yoko Hosoi, Zensuke Ishimura, Nozomu Matsubara, Haruo Nishimura, Nobuho Tomita, and Kazuhiko Tokoro. They have recently published a book on the project. (Ishimura et al., 1986).     

“Convergence of three nets” and its law transformation in China

The convergence of the three nets of telecommunication, television and Internet is a general trend of development. Though the “convergence of three nets” promotes the competition in the relevant markets, it causes relatively big impacts on the existing legal order. To meet the challenges brought forth by the “convergence of three nets”, many countries and regions have successively adopted effective measures for legal transformation, not only integrating laws and regulations on the telecommunication industry, but also attaching high importance to the transformation of the legal adjustment and control mode where increasingly more emphasis is laid on the influence and functions of competition law in the “convergence of three nets”. China’s antimonopoly law shall also play an important role during the process of the “convergence of three nets”. With respect to the definition of the relevant market and identification of monopoly practices, we shall closely combine the features of the “convergence of three nets” and pointedly apply the antimonopoly law.     

A law for need or a law for greed?: Restoring the lost law in the international law of foreign investment

The 1990s brought about a change in the international law of foreign investment due to the primacy achieved by the tenets of neo-liberalism. They drove concerns about the environment and poverty away from the concerns of the law and gave priority to the interests of multinational corporations by enhancing their ability for movement of assets and the absolute protection of these assets through treaty rules. The regime created by this law was operated through secure systems of dispute settlement through arbitration which also enabled the stabilization of these rules. In the process, private power of a section within the hegemonic state was able to subvert international law through the use of low order sources of the law and secure a system of investment promotion and protection. The restoration of the more universal themes of environmental protection and poverty alleviation is necessary. This paper outlines the developments that accentuated the sectional interests of multinational capital and explores the means by which a change that reflects the global interests could be effected.

The perspective of “justice” of international law in the global context

After the Cold War and the quick development of globalization, non-state acts by international organizations, transnational corporations and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), etc., are becoming more active. Global issues with regard to, inter alia, environment, human rights, terrorism are constantly emerging, which bring great challenge to the Westphalia System that is based on state sovereignty and centered on the national state. At the same time, the values, which include “individualism” and “global justice,” are constantly casting impact on international legal system. Doubtlessly, in the current context of international relations, “justice among states” is still the reasonable positioning of the value of modern international law. However, making “individualism” and “global justice” compatible and modifying “justice among states” is an inevitable trend. At the same time, the rule brought about by the modification on the value of justice must be handled properly.     

Student-led law reviews: what every UK law school needs?

In the United States (US) student-run law reviews have long offered students the opportunity to develop their skills as editors and members of a publication team and to engage with new legal research. With law ordinarily taught as a three-year postgraduate degree, these reviews are normally staffed by a postgraduate editorial team. Similar efforts in the United Kingdom (UK) have largely been short-lived. Some venerable academic journals, such as the Cambridge Law Journal, started their lives as student-centred projects, but academics soon assumed control of the process because of the variable quality of undergraduate editing. This false start proved difficult to recover from, but a spate of newly founded student law reviews in the last decade suggests that these publications have increasing traction in UK legal education. This article evaluates the challenges and potential benefits of these efforts to translate US practice into UK law schools in light of the experience of creating and maintaining the North East Law Review, a student-led periodical based at Newcastle University which publishes student-generated content based on high-quality coursework submissions. This process potentially enhances the assessment process, with the student editorial team preparing essays for publication and student authors re-engaging with their work in light of feedback. Publishing such essays furthermore allows all students to benchmark their own work against excellent coursework performance.     

The obligation to provide “non-personalised” search results under the Chinese E-commerce law

Pursuant to Article 18(1) of the Chinese E-Commerce Law, e-commerce business has an obligation, when providing search results for goods and services based on consumers’ hobbies, consumption habit, or any other traits, to provide them with options that do not target their identifiable personal traits. The law does not provide any elaboration on the precise scope of application of the said provision. Yet, a plain literal interpretation of this obligation may lead to a broad requirement where the business operator has to provide a truly random “non-personalised” set of search results in all circumstances whenever personalised services are provided. Such an interpretation is in all likelihood unreasonable and impractical. This article argues that the proper interpretation of Article 18(1) should be based on its regulatory purpose to protect the lawful rights and interests of consumers. It further considers the precise types of rights and interests that ought to be protected by Article 18(1), and concludes that its appropriate scope of application should be limited to targeted personalisation of search results, which infringe on the consumers’ right to obtain true information and entitlement to human dignity. Personalisation which does not violate the said right and entitlement, should not fall within the regulatory ambit of Article 18(1).     

Equal before the law?

This article reviews empirically the relationship between politicians and decisions to prosecute or not to prosecute businesspeople who are suspected of fraud and of complicity in the supply of arms to Iraq, within the context of (a) conventional ideas about impartiality of the administration of law; and (b) the politics of bureaucratic survival. It discusses some key difficulties in ascertaining “what happened” and relative culpability in serious fraud trials, and the personal interest-inspired factors that can influence testimony. It concludes that in the UK, there is relative autonomy in decision-making in serious fraud cases, but that in “politically sensitive areas” such as the supply of arms to Iraq, there has been overt interference on purported “public interest” grounds with the information made available to the defence and even to the prosecution itself. It notes that without access to the grounds for decisionsnot to prosecute, their “purely legal” justification is difficult to challenge, and this is of most social significance where members of social elites are concerned. It concludes by addressing some difficulties in producing procedural models which provide genuine accountability for white-collar prosecutions and non-prosecutions in different countries.     

“You must be joking”: the role of humour in the law classroom

There is a body of literature, including persuasive empirical evidence, linking the use of positive humour in tertiary classrooms with the creation of a relaxed learning environment, student motivation, attendance and engagement as well as positive student evaluations of teacher performance. However, the literature on the use of humour in teaching law is generally limited to anecdotal evidence. Drawing on the literature on using humour in teaching courses that students perceive as “difficult” in other disciplines, in this article we explore the benefits and pitfalls of using humour in the law classroom and provide illustrations of how humour might be used appropriately and effectively in teaching law.     

Enter the quagmire – the complicated relationship between data protection law and consumer protection law

This article examines the complex relationship between consumer protection law and data protection law, particularly within the EU's online environment, and highlights the problems that stem from this complexity. It suggests that, while there are significant similarities between their respective sources, tools and purposes, there are also arguable differences between consumer protection law and data protection law. One such arguable difference is found in that, while consumer protection law can be seen to merely set a floor in its pursuit of a sufficiently high level of consumer protection, data protection law – due to its clearly articulated dual purposes of (a) protecting individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and (b) providing for the free movement of such data – sets both a floor and a ceiling.Having discussed the relationship between consumer protection law and data protection law in more detail, the argument is made that it seems possible to conclude that the balance struck in the Data Protection Directive, and soon in the General Data Protection Regulation, places limitations on consumer protection law. The implications of this conclusion are then examined briefly in the context of some matters currently coming before the CJEU and the contours of a framework are presented, addressing situations where a data protection-based liability claim is pursued against a third-party non-controller under consumer protection law.     

“Legitimacy” of international law: The source, development and the paths to overcome crisis

The source or basis of the force of international law or legitimacy of international law is a basic issue in international jurisprudence and the heart of controversy among scholars pro and con international law. In the development of the discipline of international law, this issue has been extensively discussed along various academic paths. In the background of globalization, the demonstration on the “legitimacy” of international institutions by the school of international institution in the field of international relations, including the “source of legitimacy”, the acquisition of legitimacy or legalization, and even the “legitimationskrise”, sheds helpful light on further study of the “legitimacy” of international law.     

“‘Novel food’ for thought” on law and policymaking in the global creative economy

Law and policymaking form a central theme of the global governance debate. In these times of an emerging global creative economy the debate is becoming increasingly complex as global governance is faced with serious challenges of a political, economic, cultural, environmental, social, technological and, last but not least, legal nature. Against the backdrop of a global food crisis, both in terms of food security and food safety for all, the present article explores some of the broader regulatory aspects of these challenges by looking at the regulation of food and notably novel food as engineered by the use of bio- and nano-technologies. It aims to show how the preservation of the integrity of law over time, and with it the objectives of providing legal predictability and legal certainty, are threatened by deficiencies in the institutional design of the current international legal framework as well as in the conceptual understanding underlying the legal instruments adopted by these institutions. The analysis at the international level is complemented by a brief look at the domestic level exemplified by the situation in the European Union and the People’s Republic of China against the backdrop of their attempts to formulate and successfully implement policies enhancing their competitive advantages in the creative economy.     

The EU law “core” module: surviving the perfect storm of Brexit and the SQE

This article seeks to examine the potential impact of the vote to leave the European Union (EU) in the UK referendum in June 2016, together with changes to professional training, notably the imposition of a new Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE) from 2019/20, on the teaching of EU law in law degrees in England and Wales. The history of the qualifying law degree (QLD) and the place of the EU law core module within it are explained. The likely continuing effect of EU law in the English Legal System is summarised, and the reduction in EU law content in the requirements for professional training as compared with that customary on a QLD is noted. In the light of these apparent threats to the EU law module, possibilities are explored for rethinking approaches to teaching law which would reinvigorate the significance of EU law in law degrees which may well undergo redesign in the light of the changes considered here.     

Reflections on the sociology of law: A rejection of law as ‘socially marginal’

Rejecting the concept of law as subservient to social pathology, the principle aim of this article is to locate law as a critical matter of social structure – and power – which requires to be considered as a central element in the construction of society and social institutions. As such, this article contends that wider jurisprudential notions such as legal procedure and procedural justice, and juridical power and discretion are cogent, robust normative social concerns (as much as they are legal concerns) that positively require consideration and representation in the empirical study of sociological phenomena. Reflecting upon scholarship and research evidence on legal procedure and decision-making, the article attempts to elucidate the inter-relationship between power, ‘the social’, and the operation of law. It concludes that law is not ‘socially marginal’ but socially, totally central.     

Blockchain and law: Incompatible codes?

Blockchain has recently joined a long line of technological innovations that have been characterised as disruptive to, and possibly even subversive of, fundamental legal principles. This article looks behind the hype to examine how blockchain might – or might not – be compatible with established legal and regulatory models. Data protection is discussed as an example of an area of law that some have claimed cannot be reconciled with blockchain. Various other conflicts are also identified and concerns about blockchain are placed in the context of wider historical debates about new technologies vs law.