On the enforcement of specific performance in Civil Law countries

Proponents of specific performance as a remedy for breach of contract have found support in the alleged use of the remedy in Civil Law countries. However, we provide evidence that specific performance is in fact a rare remedy in Denmark, Germany and France, and under CISG, when performance requires actions to be undertaken, and we relate this to costs of enforcement. We argue that it is administratively costly to run a system of enforcement that renders specific performance attractive to the aggrieved party, and that the Civil Law countries have (like Common Law countries) chosen not to incur these costs of enforcement. This is especially clear in the case of Denmark, where specific performance of actions has been abandoned as a legal remedy.At the normative level, we argue that enforcement costs provides an additional rationale, over and above the rationales of the theory of efficient breach, for damages and against specific performance as the general remedy.     

Predictors of length of stay in forensic psychiatry: The influence of perceived risk of violence

This study describes the prevalence of adverse events and length of stay in forensic psychiatric patients with and without a restriction order. Detailed clinical and administrative information from medical records and written court decisions was gathered retrospectively from admission until discharge for a Swedish population-based, consecutive cohort of forensic psychiatric patients (n = 125). The median length of stay for the whole cohort was 951 days, but patients with a restriction order stayed in hospital almost five times as long as patients without. Restriction orders were related to convictions for violent crime, but not for any other differences in demographic or clinical variables. The majority of the patients (60%) were involved in adverse events (violence, threats, substance abuse, or absconding) at some time during their treatment. Patients with restriction orders were overrepresented in violent and threat events. Previous contact with child and adolescence psychiatric services, current violent index crime, psychotic disorders, a history of substance, and absconding during treatment predicted longer length of stay. Being a parent, high current Global Assessment of Functioning scores, and mood disorders were all significantly related to earlier discharge. In a stepwise Cox regression analysis current violent index crime and absconding remained risk factors for a longer hospital stay, while a diagnosis of mood disorder was significantly related to a shorter length of stay.     

The Government Deference Dimension of Judicial Decision Making: Evidence from the Supreme Court of Norway

Past research has revealed conflicting findings regarding the degree to which judges on European apex courts enact their policy preferences or instead disagree on the basis of divergent legal views. We investigate disagreement between judges on the Norwegian Supreme Court between 1996 and 2016. During this period, the court dealt with a greater volume of policy-relevant cases than previously. The method of appointment to the court was also changed to a judicial appointments commission. We analyse non-unanimous cases using item response theory models. We find that judges are not divided along left–right lines but instead disagree about the appropriate degree of deference to give to public authorities. There is no significant association between the appointing government and judges' ideal points either before or after the reform to appointments. Judges who were formerly academics are however much less deferential than career judges or judges who were previously lawyers in private practice.     

Cross-ethnic generalizability of the three-factor model of psychopathy: the Youth Psychopathic Traits Inventory in an incarcerated sample of native Dutch and Moroccan immigrant boys

Background

Previous research provides support for the existence of the psychopathy construct in youths. However, studies regarding the psychometric properties of psychopathy measures with ethnic minority youths are lacking.

Methods

In the present study, the three-factor structure of the Youth Psychopathic Traits Inventory (YPI) was examined for both native Dutch youth (N = 158) and an ethnic minority group, Moroccans (N = 141), in an incarcerated adolescent population in the Netherlands.

Results

Our results showed that the three-factor structure of the YPI is comparable across an ethnic majority and an ethnic minority group in an incarcerated sample in the Netherlands. Moreover, associations between psychopathic traits and mental health problems were similar for both ethnic groups.

Conclusion

The results support the cross-ethnic generalizability of the three-factor model of psychopathy as measured through the Youth Psychopathic Traits Inventory.     

Competing Supremacies and Clashing Institutional Rationalities: the Danish Supreme Court's Decision in the Ajos Case and the National Limits of Judicial Cooperation

On 6 December 2016, the Supreme Court of Denmark (SCDK) ruled on the grounds of Ajos case. The ruling concerned the scope of the principle of non‐discrimination on the grounds of age and whether a national court could weigh the principle of non‐discrimination on grounds of age against the principles of legal controversy, as the protection of legitimate expectations. The ruling has caused a great deal of controversy as the SCDK defied clear guidelines from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the ruling. Moreover, the case has been seen by some as an example of a new ‘sovereigntism’ in Danish law that is at odds with the project of European integration through law. This article explains the case from both an EU law and Danish constitutional law perspective. It concludes by providing a set of explanations of the new course of the SCDK in its relationship with the EU.     

Dissent,Legitimacy, and Public Support for Court Decisions: Evidence from a Survey‐Based Experiment

Scholars often argue that whereas unanimous rulings should boost public support for court decisions, dissents should fuel public opposition. Previous studies on public responses to U.S. Supreme Court decisions suggest that unanimity does in fact bolster support. However, a recent study has also found that dissents may increase support among opponents of a court decision by suggesting evidence of procedural justice. By examining how individuals react to dissents from the Supreme Court of Norway, this article is the first study outside the U.S. context of the public's reaction to unanimity and dissent. Breaking with the common notion of the negative effects of dissent on public support, the article shows that when the Supreme Court handles cases of higher political salience, the formulation of dissenting opinions can be a meaningful way of securing greater support for its policy outputs by suggesting evidence of procedural justice. Contrary to recent studies, however, this positive influence of dissent is irrespective of individuals' ex ante policy views.