Economic freedom and economic rights: Direction,significance and ideology

The discussion here takes stock of and analyses the way in which ideas of economic freedom and basic economic rights have evolved during the last half century to generate legal discourse and legal action, and with what effect, with particular reference to Europe as a site for such developments. It is necessary to probe the understanding and purpose of such ‘rights talk’ and also to set the discourse in relevant ideological contexts. For the purpose of this exercise, a broad distinction is drawn between two major categories of economic right. The first category may be broadly described as ‘integration rights’—entrepreneurial in character, forward‐looking and opportunistic in a historical context of supranational integration and trade liberalisation. The second category, in contrast, may be termed ‘vulnerability rights’; these are more protective in character, and serve to enhance the opportunities of the economically disadvantaged, those sections of the population at risk of social exclusion and poverty. An assessment is made, on the one hand, of the achievement of the movement to exploit integration rights, and on the other hand, the prospect for the mobilisation and assertion of vulnerability rights in the wake of governmental policies of austerity.     

Symmetric and asymmetric nexus between economic freedom and stock market development in Pakistan

Economic Change and Restructuring - This study investigates symmetric and asymmetric association between the economic freedom index and sustainable stock market development (SMD) in Pakistan....     

Economic freedom in Muslim countries: an explanation using the theory of institutional path dependency

This article explains the level of economic freedom in Muslim countries through the theory of institutional path dependency. Islamic countries are generally not free and they have a poor record regarding property rights. To explain these realities we use the institutional history of Muslim countries. We define three steps: the Arab and Ottoman Empires when Islamic law was of great importance, European colonisation, and the contemporary era with its movement towards a revival of Islam. Islamic law is not liberal. This explain why in general Muslim countries are not free. Colonisation radically changed institutional life in the twentieth century. British colonisation proved to be better than did French or Soviet colonisation. This explains why the Persian Gulf countries are freer. The collapse of the Soviet model explains the speed of liberalisation in former socialist countries (such as Albania, Kyrgyz Republic, and Kazakhstan). Nevertheless, the twentieth century was not just the century of Westernisation. It was also the century of the revival of Islam. The article concludes that the history of the twentieth century does not explain the way in which Muslim countries are attracted by the ideal of the Muslim city. The revival of Islamic intellectual innovations and the evolution of Muslim opinion sustain this thesis. Therefore, there is a dependency on the past and on an imagined future. Islam acts, like yesterday, on the world of institutional possibilities.     

The Human Rights Act 1998: research,freedom of speech and academic freedom

This article will consider rights to receive and express information and ideas from the perspective of the researcher, the researched, the researcher's institution and the wider community. It will also consider how the courts will resolve the inevitable conflicts between these rights. It does not address the right to education enshrined in Article 2 of the First Protocol² but rather the other Convention Articles, particularly Article 10, particularly relevant to the conduct of intellectual inquiry. It is intended to underline the potential reach of the Act for all public bodies which seek to be learning organisations, and the consequent need for such bodies to review their practices and procedures before the Act comes into force on 2 October 2000.     

Copyright, continuums and freedom of speech

‘A book may be good for nothing; or there may be onlyone thing in it worth knowing; are we to read it all through?’(Samuel Johnson) This section is dedicated to the review ofideas, articles, books, films and other media. It will includereplies (and rejoinders) to articles, the evaluation of newideas or proposals, and reviews of books and articles both directlyand indirectly related to intellectual property law.

Copyright and Free Speech Comparative and International Analyses ByJonathan Griffiths and Uma Suthersanen, Eds, 2005, Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press Price: £80.00, Hardback, ISBN: 0199276048.pp. 426   If one were to summarize this     

国家举债权与宪法基本权利之关系——以经济自由权为中心

经济自由权是一项宪法基本权利,它是指市场主体的营利动机、意志及其行为的客观化应当受到国家的尊重与保护,并排除公权力恣意侵犯的一种能力或资格.它最初从财产权发展而来,但其又比财产权内涵更加丰富,外延更加广泛.经济自由权是公民租税义务之对价,对它的长期尊重和保护是一个国家大规模行使举债权的前提.反过来,国家举债权的行使对经济自由权既有积极的促进作用,也有消极的侵害后果.因此,为了趋利避害,必须对举债权力实施控制.     

Compromise and religious freedom

Compromise is surprisingly common in the context of religious freedom. In Holt v. Hobbs, for example, a Muslim prison inmate challenged his prison’s no-beards policy on religious freedom grounds. He proposed, and was eventually granted, a compromise that allowed him to grow a half-inch beard rather than the full beard normally required by his beliefs. Some have argued that such a compromise is inconsistent with the purpose of religious freedom, which is to guard against interference with an individual’s religious practices. Accepting a compromise, after all, may require a significant modification to one’s default practices. But this paper argues that compromise can be appropriate if the purpose of religious freedom is to foster the inclusion and acceptance of all people in a diverse political community. Moreover, the benefits of compromise may lend support to the inclusion-based conception of religious freedom as against the more traditional non-interference conception.

     

Character-building and freedom in education

Educators, parents, and policy-makers in the United States, as in other countries, are concerned about the apparent inability of many schools to contribute to the development of character and civic virtue in their pupils. The answer, experience shows, is not for government to require a pedagogy of state-defined character education which, in a pluralistic society, would inevitably create new conflicts. Instead, education policy should take advantage of the growing interest on the part of educators in creating autonomous, distinctive schools, and the continuing interest, on the part of parents, in being able to choose what school their children will attend. Schools which exhibit a distinctive character based upon a shared understanding of the goals of education are effective not only in teaching academics but also in developing positive character traits in their pupils. Charter schools and educational vouchers are two means of encouraging and supporting such coherent schools. The article concludes with a series of policy recommendations designed to balance the autonomy of schools against the need for public accountability. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Sustaining freedom,security and justice – from terrorism to immigration

This article focuses on two areas central to sustaining freedom, security and justice: terrorism and immigration. Their inter-relationship and the instruments and measures adopted to prosecute them have significantly advanced judicial co-operation, communitisation of security, and re-assessment of the nature and requirements of EU governance in an EU committed to human rights, liberal democracy and realising sustainable freedom, security and justice. The article outlines the background to EU involvement in judicial co-operation. It then explores EU competence, instruments and measures developed to (i) combat terrorism and international organized crime; and (ii) immigration and asylum. It concludes that the inextricable linkage between the two has serious implications for future EU democratic governance. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.