Two Meanings of ‘Reasonableness’: Dispelling the ‘Floating’ Reasonable Doubt

The ‘reasonable doubt standard’ is the controlling standard of proof for criminal fact finding in several jurisdictions. Drawing on decision theory, some scholars have argued that the stringency of this standard varies according to the circumstances of the case. This article contends that the standard does not lend itself to the ‘sliding‐scale’ approach mandated by decision theory. This is supported through investigation of the concept of ‘reasonableness’. While this concept has mostly been studied as it operates with reference to practical reasoning, scant attention has been given to the meaning that it acquires when referred to theoretical reasoning. Unlike in the former case, reasonableness does not in the latter depend on the reasoner's attitudes in favour of the outcomes of a decisional process. Therefore, since criminal fact finding is an instance of theoretical reasoning, the question whether in this enterprise a doubt is reasonable is not susceptible to a decision‐theoretic approach.     

From ‘Interinstitutional Agreements’ to ‘Interinstitutional Agencies/Offices’?

Abstract:  This article tries to trace a line between Interinstitutional Agreements (IIAs) and Interinstitutional Agencies/Offices, recently established on the basis of the new 'externalisation policy' of the European Commission. Both phenomena serve, to a certain extent, to achieve the same objective, namely a smoother and more effective cooperation between the main institutions within the European Union. On the basis of an empirical documentation of more than 100 IIAs, the article classifies and assesses the extraordinary variety and diversity of IIAs collected in this compilation—according to their chronological distribution, number of parties involved in the conclusion, denomination, and substantial content. The evaluation of these IIAs first addresses the question of their permissibility, proceeding with the examination of their legal nature and effects. The article concludes by asking which of the two dichotomous instruments—IIAs or Interinstitutional Agencies/Offices—will prevail, and hence ensure a more expeditious discharge of the Commissions bureaucracy.     

Legal ‘Elasticity’ and ‘Sidestepping’ in European Crisis Management of Financial Markets

This paper explores the roles played by law in crisis management of financial markets and some possible consequences. Three questions are raised ‐‐about the ‘elastic’ use of law, about ‘sidestepping’ existing legal order by invention of new structures and about redistributive consequences. These questions are appraised empirically in relation to three areas of financial market law: public support given to banking from 2008 onwards; English case law concerning derivatives contracts when confronted with Lehman‐style insolvencies; and the European Stability Mechanism, which during summer 2015 was being primed in relation to Greece. On the first two case studies, law, having been mightily stretched, did not break. Likewise, legal sidestepping, as epitomised by the European Stability Mechanism, may result in a less coherent legal structure; however such incoherence may be not be fatal to the ensemble. On all three fronts, redistributive questions remain controversial, but controversy in itself does not undermine legal structures. A particular form of theory, the Legal Theory of Finance, is discussed in light of the case studies. Such theory may have an unfulfilled longing to discern law‐like regularities (ironically chasing economics).     

Case Comment: The Legality of ‘Kettling’ after Austin

This case comment considers the European Court of Human Rights decision of Austin v United Kingdom (2012) 55 EHRR 14. Austin claimed, unsuccessfully, that police kettling at a public protest in London amounted to a violation of her right to liberty under Article 5 of the European Convention of Human Rights. This case comment suggests that the court took an unexpected and unorthodox approach to the issue of ‘deprivation’ within Article 5. This decision may come to undermine the protections afforded by Article 5 and extend the current exceptions to Article 5 to an indefinite range of situations.     

‘Citizens’ and ‘Foreigners’ in EU Law. Migration Law and its Cosmopolitan Outlook

Migration has become a controversial subject across Europe and beyond. At the same time, the EU has built up an impressive set of rules for third‐country nationals over the past two decades, which—unlike the mobility of EU citizens—received comparatively little attention apart from immigration and asylum specialists. This contribution presents the constitutional framework for ‘migration law’ towards third‐country nationals and shows in how far they depart from the paradigm of intra‐European mobility. It will be argued that differences can be rationalised by divergent objectives and do, nonetheless, not present a move towards ‘fortress Europe’. EU migration law maintains the distinction between citizens and foreigners at the same time as it protects migrants, including refugees. By accommodating migrants' rights and self‐government, EU migration law can be construed as an endeavour to replace traditional notions of alienage with constitutional rules with a cosmopolitan outlook.     

A Riddle Whose Answer is ‘Tort’: A Reassessment of International News Service v Associated Press

The decision of the US Supreme Court in International News Service v Associated Press (1918) has variously been interpreted as recognising a ‘quasi‐property’ right in ‘valuable intangibles’, such as hot news; as turning on unjust enrichment; or as creating a novel tort of unfair competition by misappropriation. It is suggested that the case is more authentically understood as an incidental result of a process by which the Supreme Court extended the boundaries of tort liability, and the corresponding scope of property protection, in a series of decisions against organised labour. The argument is pursued with reference to the prima facie tort theory of Oliver Wendell Holmes, the American ‘labour injunction’, and the labour law record of the author of the majority opinion in International News, Justice Mahlon Pitney.     

Unjust Enrichment in the ‘Fairchild Enclave’ International Energy Group Ltd v Zurich Insurance plc

In International Energy Group v Zurich Insurance, the Supreme Court considered the implications of the special rule in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd for insurers’ for employers’ liability. The question for the Court was whether, in the light of its earlier decision in Durham v BAI (Run off) Ltd, insurers could be held liable for employees’ mesothelioma claims, even if the employer was not insured throughout the period of employment. The seven Justices unanimously held that insurers’ liability was proportionate to the period of insurance. In reaching that result, the majority recognised that the insurers were entitled to ‘equitable recoupment’ from insured‐employers in respect of periods during which they were uninsured. This note critiques the recoupment right with an unjust enrichment lens.     

EMU and the Shift in the European Labour Law Agenda: From ‘Social Policy’ to ‘Employment Policy’

This article examines the interaction between EMU and the European Union (EU) employment strategy and its implications for law. It focuses on the importance of EMU as a catalyst in the development of the EU's social and employment policy in the years following the Treaty on European Union in 1992, up to the inauguration of a new employment policy in the Treaty of Amsterdam. In analysing the EU's discourse on labour market regulation, it is arguable that a shift has occurred in the EU's position on the ‘labour market flexibility’ debate: that the EU institutions are more readily accepting of the orthodoxy that labour market regulation and labour market institutions are a major cause of unemployment within EU countries and that a deregulatory approach, which emphasises greater ‘flexibility’ in labour markets, is the key to solving Europe's unemployment ills, along with macroeconomic stability, restrictive fiscal policy and wage restraint. As the EU's employment strategy has matured, this increased emphasis on employment policy has come to displace discourses around social policy. This change in emphasis has important implications for EMU since it signals a re‐orientation from an approach to labour market regulation which had as its core a strong concept of employment protection and high labour standards, to an approach which prioritises employment creation, and minimises the role of social policy, since social policy is seen as potentially increasing the regulatory burden.     

Anthropological facial ‘reconstruction’ – recognizing the fallacies, ‘unembracing’ the errors, and realizing method limits

Despite being practiced for over the last 200 years, facial approximation methods remain in their infancy as the soft tissue prediction methods employed have not been tested and justified. Scientific testing is the only way forward and much of it is needed. The lack of systematic scientific tests in the past has enabled many misleading notions to become established. Many of these notions appear to have arisen and been sustained as a result of practitioner biases--this is clearly evident even in the name commonly used to describe the method of building faces from skulls, for "facial reconstruction" implies everything the method is not, e.g., technical/scientific, exact, and credible. Although facial approximation methods are useful for forensic investigation (even if they do not generate identifications through true positive recognitions of the faces), the public should beware of the marketing and political ploys employed within the profession. These ploys give rise to some impressive, but unjustifiable claims--but do not just take my word for it; evaluate the evidence for yourself with disregard to the indoctrination waged by the facial "reconstruction" field in general, including that promoted by what I have had to say here. Use your own reason and intellect and see which conclusions you reach.