Justifying Preventive Detention

Law and Philosophy -     

Justifying Age Discrimination

The characteristics of age discrimination as provided for inthe Employment Equality (Age) Discrimination Regulations setit apart from existing anti-discrimination schemes. The ambitof the Regulations is limited to the employment field. Withinthis area, the legislation does not simply seek to identifya characteristic of a specific minority group and then removethat factor from the decision-making process. Instead, workingfrom a quality common to all (age), the Regulations seek onlyto prevent reliance on it for purposes that are ‘illegitimate’or if the consequences of doing so are ‘disproportionate’.This is necessary: first because the Regulations do not seekmerely to protect discrete age groups, and in practice the interestsof persons of different age may well be in conflict; secondlybecause many decision-making criteria that appear objectiveare in substance, age-related. In order to sort ‘bad’discrimination from ‘good’ discrimination a notionof substantive equality must exist. The Regulations themselvesgive little indication of what equality should mean. There isno existing consensus from which the answer can be drawn, andthe rationales that have underpinned previous anti-discriminationlegislation are not easily transposed to age discrimination.The practical application of the justification defence containedin Regulation 3 will shape the substantive meaning of equalityin this area. This article seeks to identify what the properapproach should be to the provisions of Regulation 3, and suggeststhat this should be derived from considerations of transparentdecision-making, and the need to respect the dignity of theindividual.     

On Justifying Legal Paternalism

Abstract. Paternalism, understood as coercive intervention with the behavior of a person in order to prevent her from causing harm to herself, is a highly controversial issue, because it implies a departure from the widely recognized principle of harm to others. Some conceptual differences between legal paternalism and other forms of state coercion that also depart from the principle of harm to others will be indicated. This is followed by an analysis of the arguments that are usually brought forth against legal paternalism. And finally, the possibility of determining ethically justifiable types of legal paternalism is explored.     

Enterprise Liability: Justifying Vicarious Liability

In Lister v Hesley Hall [2002] 1 AC 215 the House of Lords reformedthe law on vicarious liability, in the context of a claim arisingover the intentional infliction of harm, by introducing the‘close connection’ test. The immediate catalystwas the desire to facilitate recovery of damages on the partof victims of child abuse. The precise form the revision assumedwas derived from two Canadian Supreme Court cases: Bazley vCurry [1999] 174 DLR (4th) 45 and Jacobi v Griffiths [1999]174 DLR (4th) 7. The Canadian jurisprudence contains a detailedreview of the policy factors underpinning the law of vicariousliability and expresses the view that the most significant ofthese is ‘enterprise liability’. This article attemptsto establish whether enterprise liability holds the same significancein the UK. And, on the assumption that it does, the articlegoes on to consider any difficulties that may ensue and anyfurther common law reforms that may result. In particular itconsiders whether the law on vicarious liability for independentcontractors is likely to change.     

Justifying Compensation for Frustrated Legitimate Expectations

That government agencies and public bodies can be liable for damages when they induce and then frustrate people’s legitimate expectations is an important and distinctive feature of administrative law in Europe. This article sets out to establish a set of moral principles and ideals that might justify this legal institution. The notion of security of expectations found in the work of utilitarian writers provides a starting point. Having examined the strengths and weaknesses of this approach, I then turn to consider an alternative argument based on finding a solution to the problem of credible commitments. Finally, I look for suitable moral arguments in the liberal and Kantian political theorising of John Rawls. I argue that if we see the function of the rule of law as not merely to maximise aggregate utility and to make policymakers’ decisions seem credible but also to ensure Justice as Fairness for individuals, then this provides a more robust and satisfactory way to justify the liability of public bodies for legitimate expectations they induce and then frustrate.     

知识产权的法理基础

本文首先在洛克"劳动财产权理论"和康德"意志论"的语境中探讨知识产权的法理基础,并通过与有形财产权的比较,揭示了知识产权在法哲学上的正当性根据;其次,依据法经济学原理对知识产权进行法理分析,阐明知识产权法律制度背后的经济原因,回应了几种不认同"知识财产权"形式的观点,从而证成了知识产权制度建立与存在的必然性.     

Justifying Imprisonment: On the Optimality of Excessively Costly Punishment

The criminal punishment literature has focused on justifyingnonmaximal punishments and the use of nonmonetary sanctions.It has not addressed why imprisonment, rather than cheaper formsof corporal punishment, should be the dominant type of nonmonetarysanctions. David Friedman (1999) recently hypothesized that,because convicts lack political influence, it is desirable tomake punishment costlier than necessary to prevent policy makersfrom excessively punishing convicts. This article explicitlymodels this hypothesis and uses simulations to determine underwhat circumstances this hypothesis justifies using imprisonmentrather than cheaper nonmonetary sanctions.     

知识产权诉讼正当性标准的确立及意义

构架知识产权诉讼正当性的判断标准在我国当前知识产权滥诉问题日益突出的背景下,有着重要的理论研究意义。知识产权诉讼正当性标准包括当事人适格、诉的利益和诚信原则。知识产权诉讼正当性标准的确立,有利于明确和完善诉讼制度的具体技术配置和法官相应的权限配置,同时,保障当事人诉权在知识产权实体法律与程序法律中的一致性。另外,知识产权诉讼正当性标准具备了相当程度的延展性,能够实现知识产权诉讼程序的规范确定性与知识产权法制规范空间预留的融合。     

Self-Objectification,System Justifying Beliefs,and the Rise of Labiaplasty

Social Justice Research - Labiaplasty, an invasive surgical procedure that reduces the size of the labia minora, has dramatically increased in popularity, particularly among adolescent and young...     

Justifying Affirmative Action: Perception and Reality

This article surveys developments in United Kingdom law and policy which require, permit or are more accommodating towards, the use of affirmative action. It then considers the various justifications that can be used in support of affirmative action and their philosophical and political strengths and weaknesses. Finally, it advocates a strategic approach to the justification and use of affirmative action, taking account of relevant political, contextual, pragmatic, and practical considerations.     

Justifying law: An explanation of the deep structure of American law

Conclusion Charles Darwin argued that human beings are what happen whenphysical laws act upon a planet with the characteristics that earthhad five billion years ago. Similarly, I have argued that theprimacy of individual will is what eventually happens when asociety allocates and limits coercion based upon rights. From timeto time particular visions of the good or the right dominate publicbehavior, but they are eventually enframed by rights — the authoritative claim of each person to respect.I have argued that the propositional structure of American law—the laws themselves — can be seen to be a logically consistentsystem of propositions stemming from the axiom that the will ofeach person is worthy of respect. This is an explanatory, not anormative, proposition. The axiom was not put there by anyoneand the law derived from it, any more than the human brian wasput there and the theory of relativity derived from it. The axiomcame to be embodied in k because of a fact — the single universalcharacteristic of human beings that is relevant to the question ofarranging coercion is individual will — and a process — the right ofeach person to demand a justification for coercion used upon him.Since will is universal to human beings, this would suggest thatany rights-based legal system would evince a general structuresimilar to our own. Particularities of national culture, naturalresources, population density, and so on would produce a verydifferent liberty frontier from the one facing this country andhence, different laws. But the general structure of law — the relationship between principle and policy decision, the role of thebasic rights, and so on — should be similar. This similarity shouldprovide a common basis for cooperation between states, transcending particularities of economic structure, political structure and ideology. We have seen that a very broad range ofeconomic and political institutions may be justified. The essential difference between states lies not in the different ways that theyarrange institutions but in the different ways that they justifythem. Those that justify them to people as persons are similar.Those that justify them by conformity to a design are different.The theory set out here is not a design. It is an explanation. Onevirtue of explanations is that they draw forth other explanations.More importantly, they offer perspective — they tell us what weare up to. As the social relations which law must rationalizebecome ever more complex, perspective becomes ever more necessary. The simple laws have already been written. The connectionbetween the doctrine of consideration and the first principle isobvious. The connection between the hard look doctrine ofreviewing administrative agencies and the second principle isnowhere near so obvious (though it is a lovely example of thejudicial process enframing the realm of uncertainty). The morecomplex and artificial the institution, the poorer the guidance ofintuition and the more necessary are conscious guides to decision.Justification comes easy to printers. Most of them don't knowwhy a page of print that has straight margines left and right isjustified. They don't need to know, for the idea has immediateintuitive appeal; it is easy to accept and to remember, and, onceremembered, it is an effective guide to behavior. It is easy to seethat this line of print is not justified and to do somethingabout it. It is not so easy to tell whether the hard look doctrine orthe enforcement of a surrogate motherhood contract sits fairly on itspage. Justification of law requires an understanding of thecriterion against which it is being done. There is an intuitive core— a sense — to any act of judgment, but that core can be illuminated and developed by an understanding of the framework withinwhich it operates.     

关于拘留转为逮捕证明要求的调查报告及分析

本调查报告经对９个刑警支队和９０个刑警大队千余名刑警的问卷调查和１０多次刑警、检察官座谈会后得出结论,现行拘留转为逮捕的证明要求偏高,部分案件在法定期限内无法或难于完成,建议将证明要求降低为有证据证明有犯罪重大嫌疑,同时将拘留审查时间缩短为几十个小时。本文还建议设立逮捕审查制,被逮捕人就逮捕必要性,可请求检察院复议。复核;提起公诉后,向合议庭提出申请,对合议庭决定不服的,可提起上诉。     

论反不正当竞争法视阕下视频网站商业模式保护

互联网“注意力经济”下,企业为获得稀缺资源竞争日趋激烈.互联网“吸晴产业”——网络视频行业因庞大用户量而被屏蔽视频广告软件产业“搭便车”.随着屏蔽视频广告行为属不正当竞争行为的司法范式的确立,学界开始对“视频网站商业模式”是否应受法律保护开始讨论.而从法经济学角度阐释视频网站商业模式保护的必要性以及反不正当竞争法对其保护的合理性能够使我们更深入理解保护“视频网站商业模式”的重要性.     

Justifying Exceptions to Proof of Causation in Tort Law

This article defends a set of exceptions to the general rule in tort law that a claimant must prove that a particular defendant's wrongful conduct was a cause of its injury on the balance of probabilities in order to be entitled to compensatory damages in respect of that injury. The basic rationale for each exception is that it provides a means of enforcing the defendant's secondary moral duty to its victim. The article further demonstrates that the acceptance of this set of exceptions does not undermine the general rule.