Reforming the United Kingdom Constitution: Law,Convention, Soft Law

The Governance of Britain Green Paper continues the programme of constitutional reform begun in 1997, and appears to reinforce the juridification of the UK's constitution. Nevertheless, several key reforms will be implemented not by legislation, but by creating new conventions. This article argues that such ‘declared’ conventions are best understood as a form of constitutional ‘soft law’, which attempt to influence constitutional behaviour rather than generating binding norms. Applying a regulatory analysis, it then argues that the case for a soft, rather than hard law approach to constitutional reform is weaker than its widespread use in the UK suggests. Finally, the article challenges the thesis that the political constitution is being replaced by a legal constitution, arguing that the government's attitude to constitutional reform still exhibits basic characteristics of political constitutionalism. Moreover, there is more to contemporary constitutional developments than a bipolar contest between political and legal constitutionalism.     

United Kingdom Military Law: Autonomy, Civilianisation, Juridification

This paper argues that military law has undergone a long-term process of change. Previously an autonomous legal system with little civilian input at the administrative, judicial and policy-making levels, military law became subject to a consensual policy of civilianisation from the early 1960s, reflected primarily in the adoption of civilian criminal law norms by the military justice system. More recently there has emerged the juridification of significant areas of military relations in respect to discipline and certain other terms of service which hitherto have not been subject to externally imposed legal regulation. Explanations for the shifts from autonomy, through civilianisation, and then to juridification, ranging from political and social developments to new human rights and equal opportunities discourses, are offered for such changes.     

Rule-making, rule-breaking? Law breaking by government in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom

This article concerns a relatively novel issue: rule breaking and unlawful conduct by government bodies; to which degree does it occur, what is the nature of this misconduct, what are the underlying motives, and what are the consequences and possible solutions? Rule and law breaking is harmful for the credibility and integrity of a state and its law enforcement system. However, very little empirical research has been carried out into this issue, in comparison to research into state crime. There is little clarity about how public actors deal with criminal and administrative laws and rules in areas like environmental protection, safety regulations and working conditions. Do government bodies set a good example? Is their behaviour better or worse than the public and businesses? An analytical framework for research will be presented and also the results of an extensive research project in the Netherlands; the main themes of which have been benchmarked against data from the United Kingdom. The article will conclude with a summary of the main findings and a number of suggestions for further research and policy development.     

European Community Law and the Redistribution of Regulatory Power in the United Kingdom

Abstract: This paper draws on a series of case studies of implementation of specific Community law instruments, in the fields of food safety, toy safety, beverage labelling, television broadcasting, and free movement of persons. The objective is to explore the question of how, and to what extent, the need to implement Community law and policy functions to reinforce or to retard shifts in regulatory power in the United Kingdom: from local to central regulatory power; from official regulation to self-regulation; and from bureaucratic and political controls to privately-initiated control through the courts.     

Inching toward incrementalism: federalism, devolution, and health policy in the United States and the United Kingdom

In the United States, the recently enacted Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 envisions a significant increase in federal oversight over the nation's health care system. At the same time, however, the legislation requires the states to play key roles in every aspect of the reform agenda (such as expanding Medicaid programs, creating insurance exchanges, and working with providers on delivery system reforms). The complicated intergovernmental partnerships that govern the nation's fragmented and decentralized system are likely to continue, albeit with greater federal oversight and control. But what about intergovernmental relations in the United Kingdom? What impact did the formal devolution of power in 1999 to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland have on health policy in those nations, and in the United Kingdom more generally? Has devolution begun a political process in which health policy in the United Kingdom will, over time, become increasingly decentralized and fragmented, or will this "state of unions" retain its long-standing reputation as perhaps the most centralized of the European nations? In this article, we explore the federalist and intergovernmental implications of recent reforms in the United States and the United Kingdom, and we put forward the argument that political fragmentation (long-standing in the United States and just emerging in the United Kingdom) produces new intergovernmental partnerships that, in turn, produce incremental growth in overall government involvement in the health care arena. This is the impact of what can be called catalytic federalism.     

Toward Reform of Defamation Law in the British Caribbean: Efforts at Reform in the United Kingdom and Jamaica

The ongoing review of defamation laws by the Jamaican government has sharpened the focus on the need to identify appropriate standards for public officials in libel actions in light of the growing recognition of a need for transparency. Conventional wisdom speaks to the indispensable role of the media to inform the public of government activities to facilitate the democratic process. Jamaica's unique history of colonialism, underdevelopment and poverty has led to a political system based on pork barrel economics – inimical to government transparency so necessary in a democracy. This article explores how British, Caribbean and U.S. jurisdictions have sought to manage the paradigm shift between the right to reputation and the need to ensure responsible and accountable governance. The aim is to identify a path of reform for Caribbean defamation law that ensures greater public official accountability and better incorporates twenty-first century notions of democracy.     

Unconscionability of E-contracts: A Comparative Study of India,the United Kingdom,and the United States

Liverpool Law Review - Adhesion contracts have a strong likelihood of being unconscionable. The laws and principles are further complicated by the introduction of electronic contracts, specifically...     

United Kingdom: Sisters and inheritance tax

Joyce and Sybil Burden are two sisters who have lived togethersince birth and currently occupy a UK farmhouse. When one ofthem dies the other will face a large inheritance tax bill andwill have to sell the     

Coroners' autopsies: quality concerns in the United Kingdom

Safety in health care has increasingly become a key focus of health care providers. Data on "patient outcomes" and evidence-based clinical decision-making have led to real changes in health care policy and care provision. Specialist groups such as the National Patient Safety Agency which operates the National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death (NCEPOD) in the United Kingdom are reliant on good information in order to identify factors that lead to poor patient care. In a recent study the NCEPOD reviewed the quality of coroners' autopsy reports on which they rely for much of their core data. The study found that just over half of the reports (52%) were considered satisfactory by the reviewers, 19% were good and 4% were excellent. However, over a quarter of autopsies were marked as poor or of an unacceptable standard. While analysing the factors associated with poor-quality autopsies, comments and recommendations were made with regard to the processes of death investigation and the degree to which the coroner's death investigation meets the needs of health care services.     

Priority-setting processes for medicines: the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand

The agencies involved in the assessment and prioritisation of medicines for public subsidy purposes in Australia, England and Wales, and New Zealand are compared in terms of their processes; ultimate decision-maker and political involvement in decisions; price-setting processes; decision criteria and inclusion of economic assessment of cost-effectiveness; provision for the rule of rescue and separate treatment of potentially life-saving medicines and cancer drugs; levels of access; extent of consumer participation in processes and decisions; and provision for appeal from decisions. All countries face the key challenge of expanding access to important new treatments, while maintaining cost-effectiveness as a key criterion for public funding and safeguarding the affordability and sustainability of their programs into the future. New Zealand's model may have led to a greater focus on cost-containment and overall affordability than those of the other two agencies. Despite controversial decisions that have led on occasion to disappointment and challenge, the Australian and New Zealand agencies have survived and appear to have managed to date to maintain public and political support. By contrast, the United Kingdom's National Institute for Healthcare and Clinical Excellence is facing major changes to its role that could see it become more of an advisory organisation.