Animal Defenders International v United Kingdom: Sensible Dialogue or a Bad Case of Strasbourg Jitters?

In Animal Defenders International v United Kingdom a majority of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights held that the UK's statutory broadcasting ban on political advertisements under the Communications Act 2003 did not breach the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The judgment departs from the Court's established case law and, it is argued, raises several issues of concern both with regard to freedom of expression, and for human rights adjudication more generally. In particular, the Court's use of a doctrine of ‘general measures’ led it to place a great deal of reliance on the quality and quantity of legislative debate that preceded the UK ban, rather than its actual impact upon the applicant.     

The Changing Position of Legal Academics in the United Kingdom: Professionalization or Proletarianization?

This article analyses changes to United Kingdom (UK) university law schools during the period coinciding with Phil Thomas’ career as a law teacher – the latter part of the twentieth century and the first two decades of the twenty-first – in part illustrating the analysis with other examples from Thomas’ career. We will focus specifically on the way in which what it means to be a legal academic has altered, with UK legal academics having been professionalized as a community during this era. Yet, seemingly paradoxically, it is also an era during which, many have suggested, academics in UK universities have become a proletariat.     

Does racism affect health? Evidence from the United States and the United Kingdom

Blacks have worse overall health than whites in both the United States and the United Kingdom. However, the relative difference in health between the two groups within each cultural context differs between each context. In this article, we attempt to glean insights into these health disparities. We do so by first examining what is currently known about differences in morbidity and mortality for blacks and whites in the United States and the United Kingdom. We then turn to medical examination data by race and country of birth in an attempt to further untangle the complex interplay of socioeconomic status (SES), race, and racism as determinants of health in the United States and the United Kingdom. We find that (1) longer exposure of blacks to the recipient country is a risk for mortality in the United States but not in the United Kingdom; (2) adjustment for SES matters a good deal for mortality in the United States, but less so in the United Kingdom; (3) morbidity indicators do not paint a clear picture of black disadvantage relative to whites in either context; and (4) were one to consider medical examination data alone, differences between the two groups exist only in the United States. Taken together, we conclude that it is possible that the "less racist" United Kingdom provides a healthier environment for blacks than the United States. However, there remain many mysteries that escape simple explanation. Our findings raise more questions than they answer, and the health risks and health status of blacks in the United States are much more complex than previously thought.     

Rational rejection? The ethical complications of assessing organ transplant candidates in the United Kingdom and the United States

The practice of allocating scarce organs in medicine is an ethical minefield. Due to the organ shortage, organ procurement agencies in both the United Kingdom and the United States are placed in the unenviable position of having to choose a limited number of patients to compete equally for life-saving treatment. They do this by composing multidisciplinary transplant teams, which must evaluate transplant candidates and their complex range of personal, medical, environmental, psychiatric and financial characteristics. During the candidate assessment process, such teams may often be torn between their moral duty to save those who are most in need, considerations of efficiency, and the battle against forming moral judgments about particular candidates. Several ethical approaches can be adopted by transplant teams during the decision-making process, but do these ideologies provide adequate justification for their sometimes controversial decisions? This article provides a detailed examination of the ethical principles available to transplant teams in the United Kingdom and the United States, and the effect that these principles have on assessment procedures, organ allocation protocols, transplant candidates and their prospects.     

Harassment and stalking of Members of the United Kingdom Parliament: associations and consequences

A survey concerning intrusive/aggressive behaviours towards MPs was administered at Westminster, and in Queensland, New Zealand and Norway. Follow-up interviews were conducted with a sample at Westminster. This paper examines the experiences and associations of the 239 Westminster responders, of whom 81% had experienced intrusive/aggressive behaviours, 18% been subject to attack/attempted attack, and 53% stalked or harassed. Being stalked and subject to certain types of intrusive/aggressive behaviour were associated with younger age and being in the Commons five years or less, but serious incidents were more common in those who had been MPs for longer. There were no associations with brief periods of harassment. Some differences with party and constituency type emerged. Mental illness was prominent amongst perpetrators. Motives predominantly concerned personal grievances. Significant proportions of MPs suffered psychological ill-effects, necessitating inconvenient behaviour changes. Internal consistencies in these results and similarities to other sites are explored, and their implications discussed.     

Preserving the Law’s Coherence: Citizens United v. FEC and Stare Decisis

In addition to striking down the portions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act that limited the amount of money corporations and unions could spend on independent expenditures, Citizens United v. FEC overturned two decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, an action that stands in contrast to the principle of stare decisis. This article analyzes the discussions of stare decisis in the various Citizens United opinions and compares these discussions to existing scholarly debate on the proper role of stare decisis in constitutional law. It also examines citations and discussions of Citizens United in state supreme court and federal circuit court of appeals cases to analyze how the justices’ discussions of stare decisis in Citizens United have influenced lower courts. The article concludes that the Citizens United opinions that discussed stare decisis — particularly Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion and Chief Justice John Roberts’ concurrence — are highly problematic for a number of reasons. The applications of stare decisis in the opinions were also flawed. Citizens United has thus made it even easier for lower courts to abandon stare decisis and overturn precedent.     

Shifting Interpretation in International Court of Justice’s Decision in the Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America: A Deliberate Step?

Iran and the United States (US) have resorted to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on five occasions to settle their disputes. The latest dispute was initiated by Iran and pertains to US’s decision of withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) agreement and re-imposition of sanctions on Iran, including its nationals and companies. In this brief critique, the authors have analysed the preliminary objections and the ICJ’s approach in deciding the dispute. The authors have noticed that the ICJ digressed from its earlier decisions which involved the Treaty of Amity 1955 between Iran and the US. It is also to be noted that the ICJ has not substantiated its deviation with analytical observation. Also, it is opined that although the international adjudication lacks a system of precedent, it is the sacrosanct duty of the ICJ to establish a coherent jurisprudence in the interest of justice, which the ICJ has consciously neglected to achieve in this present dispute.

     

An analysis of the United Kingdom’s cannabis market using crowdsourced data

This article contributes to the growing literature on the use of computer-mediated communications to research illicit markets. In it, we conduct an analysis of the British cannabis market using data crowdsourced from a publicly available platform, PriceofWeed.com. Crowd-sourced transaction data present some new insights into the British cannabis market. First, this study has tracked the trafficking flow of cannabis within the UK. Second, it shows the extent to which a quantity discount is granted to consumers. Third, it discusses purchasing habits of cannabis users. Conclusions suggest new areas of application of crowdsourcing to research hard to reach and deviant populations.