'And You Can't Find Me Nowhere': Relocating Identity and Structure within Equality Jurisprudence

This paper explores key tensions in conceptualizing equality. It begins by arguing for the equality of lives lived and then goes on to link this to equality based on power. Yet, although equality of power seems to offer a more radical model than approaches to equality based on resources, satisfaction, and recognition, it nevertheless is not entirely suitable, since it too centres equality's subject. After addressing some of the analytical problems a subject-centred framework raises, including how to deal with reactionary identities and practices, the paper considers instead a structural approach to equality. This focuses on targeting social organizing principles, while recognizing the complex relationship between inequalities of gender, race, sexuality, and class and inequalities associated with unpopular viewpoints or beliefs. Finally, using lesbian and gay sexuality as an example, the paper considers the ways in which normative-epistemological organizing principles — proper place and the public/private — naturalize, legitimize but also hold the possibility of undercutting asymmetries of power.     

Incompatibility of the Digital Economy Act 2010 subscriber appeal process provisions with Article 6 of the ECHR

Through case-law research, this paper critically assesses the compatibility of the Digital Economy Act 2010 (DEA) subscriber appeal process provisions (Section 13 of the DEA) with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Drawing on the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case-law, Ofcom's Initial Obligations Code (the Code), and the DEA judicial review decision, namely, BT PLC and Talk Talk PLC v Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills and others, this paper focuses on the three Strasbourg Court principles of equality of arms, admissibility of evidence, and presumption of innocence, in an effort to determine whether Section 13 of the DEA infringes them, and whether this constitutes a breach of a subscriber's right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the ECHR. The paper examines these three ECtHR principles. It contrasts such principles with the Code's provisions, and considers the compatibility of Section 13 of the DEA with Article 6 of the ECHR. It concludes that the DEA subscriber appeal process provisions do indeed infringe these principles, thus constituting a violation of subscribers' right to a fair trial. It also recommends that the UK government start taking seriously human rights in general, and Article 6 of the ECHR in particular.     

‘Notice and staydown’ and social media: amending Article 13 of the Proposed Directive on Copyright

ABSTRACT

This paper critically assesses the compatibility of content recognition and filtering technology or so-called notice and staydown approach with the right of social network platforms and users to a fair trial, privacy and freedom of expression under Articles 6, 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (1950) (ECHR). The analysis draws on Article 13 of the European Commission’s proposal for a Directive on Copyright, the case-law of the Strasbourg and Luxembourg Court and academic literature. It argues that the adoption of content recognition and filtering technology could pose a threat to social network platforms and user human rights. It considers the compliance of ‘notice and staydown’ with the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) three-part, non-cumulative test, to determine whether a ‘notice and staydown’ approach is, firstly, ‘in accordance with the law’, secondly, pursues one or more legitimate aims included in Article 8(2) and 10(2) ECHR and thirdly, is ‘necessary’ and ‘proportionate’. It concludes that ‘notice and staydown’ could infringe part one and part three of the ECtHR test as well as the ECtHR principle of equality of arms, thereby violating the rights of social network platforms and users under Articles 6, 8 and 10 of the Convention.     

Can an employer-based health insurance system be just?

It is America's distinctive practice to tie private health insurance to employment, and recent proposals have tried to retain this link through mandating that all employers provide health insurance to their employees. My primary approach to these issues is neither economic, nor historical, nor political but ethical. After a brief historical overview, I outline a general approach to evaluating the ethical significance of linking the distributions of distinct goods. I examine whether an unjust distribution of jobs spoils justice in the distribution of health insurance, taking as a central example gender inequities in employment and exploring their impact on job-based health insurance. Second, I explore the possibility that justly awarding jobs guarantees justice in employment-sponsored insurance. However, linking the distributions of different goods remains problematic, because such links inevitably undermine equality by enabling the same individuals to enjoy advantages in many different distributive areas. Finally, I examine recent proposals to reform America's health care system by requiring all employers to provide health insurance to their employees. I argue that such proposals lend themselves to the same ethical problems that the current system does and urge greater attention to alternative reform options.     

Resource Priority,Fairness, and Equality-Efficiency Compromises

A central issue in theories of social justice is the potential conflict between equality and efficiency in the distribution of resources. We suggest here that resource priority is a key factor that moderates the perceived fairness of equality/efficiency compromises in resource allocation. Participants were presented with scenarios involving a policy change that pitted equality against economic efficiency in the allocation of a variety of resources that differed in their importance levels (basic versus non-basic). We found that participants gave more weight to efficiency considerations at the expense of equality in distributing non-basic (higher-level) resources than in distributing basic resources. We discuss the priority hypothesis in connection with norms of justice, human motives, the need hierarchy (deficiency versus growth needs), the consumption of basic versus non-basic resources, and the legitimacy of allocation policies. The paper is based on portions of doctoral research conducted by Eviathar Matania under the supervision of Ilan Yaniv.     

La crisis de la deuda soberana y la reforma del artículo 135 de la constitución española

The following piece of paper is a critical approach to the amendment of the Article 135 of the Spanish Constitution, by means of which the principle of balanced budget and the restricting of the public expenditure are constitutionalized. This work consists of four different paragraphs: the first one, in which a chronological approach to the debt crisis in the Eurozone and the reform of the Article 135 of the Constitution are carried out; the second one, where the new features that the current Article 135 contain are presented; the third one, in which the critical analysis of the 2011 constitutional reform is now developed (around tour fundamental axes: content, procedure, time and purpose and significance); and the fourth one resulting with a number of final considerations.     

Authority, Equality and Democracy

Abstract.  The purpose of this essay is to argue that considerations of fairness play an essential role in the justification of democratic decision procedures. The first part argues that considerations of fairness form part of a practical authority's legitimacy, and that in the political context, those considerations of fairness entail a principle of equal distribution of political power. Subsequently, the article elaborates on the kind of equality which is required in democratic procedures, arguing that different principles of equality should apply to the deliberation and the decision stages of democracy. Finally, the article concludes with a few sketchy remarks on the possible relations between considerations of fairness and soundness of democratic procedures.     

“机关”不宜规定为单位犯罪的主体

机关应否规定为单位犯罪的主体,在1996年修订《刑法》时即存在争论。我国1997年《刑法》第30条明文规定"机关"可以作为单位犯罪的主体,但争论并未因此而停止。通过对"机关应否规定为单位犯罪主体的争论"和"机关规定为单位犯罪主体的得失"的评析,可以看出将国家机关规定为单位犯罪的主体弊大于利,因而虽有规定,却没有执行,实际成为置而不用。据此,"机关"不宜规定为单位犯罪的主体,《刑法》第30条中的"机关"一词还是取消为好。     

Asylum Claims and Drug Offences: the Seriousness Threshold of Article 1F(b) of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the UN Drug Conventions

Asylum claims lodged by individuals who were involved in drugactivities prior to their entry into the country of asylum raisecomplex questions as to whether they have committed a seriousnon-political crime under Article 1F(b) of the 1951 Conventionand thus shall be excluded from refugee protection. The 1988 UN Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugsand Psychotropic Substances (Trafficking Convention) —which is the relevant international framework for drugs in thefield of international criminal law — indiscriminatelyconsiders all forms of supply related drug offences as ‘seriouscriminal offences’, irrespective of individual criminalresponsibility. This conflicts with the complex nature of thedrug industry particularly in countries affected by armed conflictand proportionality considerations inherent to Article 1F(b). Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treatiesprovide a possibility to reconcile the ambiguous wording ofthe Trafficking convention with Article 1F(b) by means of interpretation.Offences for personal consumption as the least serious drugoffences do not reach the seriousness threshold of Article 1F(b).Trafficking offences in turn attain the seriousness thresholdonly if aggravating circumstances prevail over mitigating circumstances,and if there are no grounds for rejecting individual responsibilityor defenses to criminal liability. International, large-scaleactivities carried out by transnational organized criminal groupsare factors that make drug offences most serious.     

Clashing Rights, the Welfare of the Child and the Human Rights Act

Under the Human Rights Act so far there has been until very recently little judicial or even academic recognition of the difference between resolving clashes of Convention rights and addressing conflicts between utilitarian concerns and such rights. This article has chosen to illustrate that failure of recognition and to consider methods of resolving the conflict between rights, by concentrating on one particular clash of rights – that between media free speech under Article 10 and the privacy of children under Article 8. It argues for presumptive equality for the two rights and for conducting a 'parallel analysis' of their application to the circumstances of a particular case. It contends that therefore the principle that the child's welfare is paramount must be abandoned in its present form, as must the presumptive priority accorded to Article 10 where that principle is not found to apply.     

《民法典》违约金制度的功能优化

《民法典》第585条主要延续了《合同法》第114条的违约金规定。目前,违约金制度的基本功能定位模糊,作为配套措施的司法调整规则适用混乱,无法厘清其与损害赔偿之间的关系,致使司法实践普遍遵循赔偿为主抑或功能均等的适用模式,难以充分发挥其担保履行和简化证明的作用。事实上,违约金兼具担保和赔偿的双重功能,在不同的历史时期和比...     

Women Solicitors as a Barometer for Problems within the Legal Profession – Time to Put Values before Profits?

This article will consider the theoretical explanations for why women are not remaining within and progressing through the ranks of the solicitors' profession in England and Wales. It sets out the findings from a Law Society commissioned project to examine the reasons why women have had a break from practice or chosen to leave the profession. Finally, it considers whether one of the purported strategies used to empower women solicitors – the business case for equality of opportunity in the solicitors' profession – is actively working against women and the profession (more broadly), and that only a return to a wider values-based approach to professional identity will meet the criticisms raised by many of the women who participated in this research.     

Substantive equality in South African health care: the limits of law

The article considers the scope and limits of law as an instrument for facilitating equitable access to health care in South Africa. The focus is on exploring the extent to which the notion of substantive equality in access to health care services that is implicitly guaranteed by the Constitution and supported by current health care reforms, is realisable for patients seeking treatment. The article highlights the gap between the idea of substantive equality in the Constitution and the resources at the disposal of the health care sector and the country as a whole. It is submitted that though formal equality in access to health care services has been realised, substantive equality is currently unattainable, if it is attainable at all, on account of entrenched structural inequality, general poverty and a high burden of disease.     

我国侵权责任法的侵权构成模式——以“民事权益”的定位与功能分析为中心

依国内学术界多数观点,由于侵权责任法没有对权益进行区分保护,所以我国侵权责任法的侵权构成模式属于法国法模式。但是否将民事权益作为侵权责任构成要件的判断要素,才是法国法模式与德国法模式的本质区别。我国侵权责任法契合未来民法典的整体布局,明文以民事权益作为侵权责任成立的判断要素,在立法模式上属于德国法模式。但在适用层面,德国法模式未必是一个很好的选择。侵权责任法（尤其是第2条）的独特规定及特色不同于德国法,并缺少与德国民法典第823条第2款和第826条类似的法规范支撑。可依“欧洲侵权法原则”提出的“弹性制度”解释权益的区分保护问题。     

“增信措施”的担保定性及公司对外担保规则的适用

增信措施是指在典型的保证方式以外,第三方提供的其他能够增加债务人信用和保障债权人债权实现的措施或方式,包括但不限于债务加入、第三方差额补足、到期回购以及流动性支持等。实务中有关增信措施的裁判规则未尽统一,原因在于就其性质存在第三人清偿、独立的合同义务、债务加入以及保证等多种认识,而这些认识均有不同程度的缺陷。《九民纪要》第23条明确了公司加入他人债务准用对外担保的规则,自应适用《公司法》第16条通过决议机制限制公司对外担保的规定;但《九民纪要》第91条、《民法典担保制度解释》第36条对其他增信措施的规定却未明确此一规则,增信措施的定性及有关问题的处理规则仍存疑问。增信措施与保证既有关联,也有差别,宜将其定性为非典型保证,并与非典型物的担保共同构成非典型担保。公司对外提供的可能产生财产责任后果的增信措施与对外担保在效果上别无二致;公司治理的理念客观上要求公司不能随意对外提供增信措施;增信措施藉由非典型担保可被《公司法》第16条所涵摄,公司对外提供增信措施的,同样应遵循公司对外担保的规则。     

民法典离婚损害赔偿制度法律适用的疑难问题

离婚损害赔偿在性质上属离异损害赔偿,与夫妻间侵权责任彼此独立但存在一定的交叉。《民法典》第1091条新增"其他重大过错"的范围应以是否严重违反家庭义务或家庭伦理,以至于威胁到共同生活的可能性作为判断标准。重大过错行为与离婚之间因果关系的认定应采推定原则。离婚赔偿范围仅指因离婚造成的精神损害,而不包括财产损害;离婚精神损害赔偿金数额的确定应将与婚姻家庭有关的特殊因素纳入考量范畴。为避免双重赔偿与过度惩罚,在司法实践中,应注意离婚损害赔偿制度与离婚财产分割之照顾无过错方原则以及夫妻间侵权责任制度的协调适用。     

Disability Rights Commission: From Civil Rights to Social Rights

This paper argues that, although originally conceived as part of the ‘civil rights’ agenda, the development of disability rights in Britain by the Disability Rights Commission (DRC) is better seen as a movement towards the realization of social, economic, and cultural rights, and so as reaffirmation of the indissolubility of human rights in the round. As such, that process of development represents a concrete exercise in the implementation of social rights by a statutory equality body and a significant step towards the conception of disability rights as universal participation, not just individual or minority group entitlement. The paper considers the distinctive features of that regulatory activity. It asks what sort of equality the DRC set out to achieve for disabled people and where, as a result, its work positioned it on the regulatory spectrum. From the particular experience of the DRC, the paper looks forward to considerations of general relevance to other such bodies, including the new Equality and Human Rights Commission.     

The Tide in Favour of Equality: Same-Sex Marriage in Canada and England and Wales

The tide in favour of legal equality for gay and lesbian individualsand couples continues to roll forward on both sides of the Atlantic.In Canada, the federal Parliament recently passed legislation(the Civil Marriage Act) (CMA) that extends the legal capacityto marry for civil purposes to same-sex couples throughout thecountry. This change in the law was driven not by the executiveand legislative branches of government but by the courts, interpretingand applying the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (theCharter). On the other side of the Atlantic, in England andWales, the Westminster Parliament in 2004 passed legislation(the Civil Partnership Act) (CPA) that will enable same-sexcouples to obtain legal recognition of their relationships,and to access most of the legal rights and responsibilitiesoffered to married couples. However, unlike the Canadian legislation,civil marriages between same-sex couples will still not be legallyrecognized. This article considers whether the English courtswill also facilitate the legal recognition of same-sex civilmarriage, like their Canadian counterparts. The author concludesthat, in light of recent case law, there is an increasinglystrong argument that the opposite-sex marriage requirement inEngland and Wales violates Article 14 (the equality provision)of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which isincorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act, 1998. However,the author also concludes that there are a number of reasonsto be cautious that a positive result would flow, at this point,from a domestic court challenge to the opposite-sex marriagerequirement.     

一人公司“法人格滥用推定”制度的法理评析——兼论公司立法的价值抉择

我国《公司法》第64条规定的一人公司"法人格滥用推定"制度,与"公司法人格否认"制度有着质的差别。对一人公司实行"法人格滥用推定",实质上是自始就没把一人公司当"公司"。这不仅在逻辑上自相矛盾,而且在法律上有违平等原则,并有可能打击人们创设一人公司的热情,从而使"一人公司"仅仅停留于纸面而失去实际意义。为追求自由、效率、公平、安全等价值目标,我国《公司法》应当取消专门针对一人公司的"法人格滥用推定"制度,转而对包括一人公司在内的各种类型的公司统一适用"公司法人格否认"制度。