Legal Recognition of Plural Unions: Is A Nonmarital Relationship Status the Answer to the Dilemma?

Intimate relationships involving three or more adults are increasingly visible in American society. Multiparty relationships, which are also known as plural unions, mainly take two different forms: systemic polygyny and polyamory. Family law currently denies recognition to all plural unions. Granting legal recognition to multiparty relationships would advance the goal of family pluralism and expand access to valuable legal protections. However, the possibility of granting official recognition to plural unions must be approached with caution, because systemic polygyny poses a serious risk of harm to women and children arising from the imposition of oppressive gender roles. A possible solution to this dilemma lies in offering a formal nonmarital status (such as civil union, domestic partnership, reciprocal beneficiary, or designated beneficiary) to participants in plural unions. As a result of their differing attitudes toward marriage, polyamorists would be likely to embrace a nonmarital relationship status, while participants in systemic polygyny would most likely reject it. Thus, providing a nonmarital status for plural unions could allow polyamorists to obtain the benefits of relationship recognition, without placing the government's seal of approval on the oppressive aspects of systemic polygyny.     

The House of Lords: The Working of the Electoral Process in the 1999 Act of Parliament

This article investigates the working of the 1999 Act of Parliament in relation to the electoral process. One of the more controversial measures in the 1999 Act was the preservation of the representation of the hereditary element in the House of Lords. In the 2007-2008 session of Parliament, Lord Avebury introduced the House of Lords (Amendment) Bill, to repeal this electoral process, and Lord (David) Steel of Aikwood introduced the House of Lords Bill, which had provisions to the same effect as Lord Avebury's Bill. The working of this electoral process is therefore likely to be a topic of debate in the 2008-2009 session of the House of Lords. We suggest that there are three possible options to deal with the likely future issues for this electoral process. These we present as a contribution to a wider debate on the way forward for this constitutional issue.     

‘Solidity or Wind?’ What's on the Menu in the Bill of Rights Debate?

This article examines the pronouncements and positions of the leading political parties on the Human Rights Act and the proposals for a new British Bill of Rights and Responsibilities. It analyses the main arguments made in support of a British Bill of Rights and Responsibilities, which are advanced around five main issues: security, the judges, parliamentary sovereignty, responsibilities and 'British rights'. The article was written before the government published the Green Paper Rights and Responsibilities: developing our constitutional framework in March 2009 and provides a political context with which to analyse it.     

Citizenship and the Constitution

The status of “British subjects”, the relationship between the individual and the State, and the concept of “rights” and “liberties” are relevant to the current political debate about “British identity”, citizenship, “multiculturalism”, a “British Bill of Rights”, and whether there is now a need for a written constitution. This article describes the confused contemporary understanding of what is meant by “British” citizenship and analyses the parallel developments of citizenship and our constitutional arrangements. The Human Rights Act, devolution and Gordon Brown's proposed constitutional renewal are important steps in setting out the ideas and principles that bind us together as a nation. Together with a coherent definition of the rights and obligations of British citizenship, constitutional reform would achieve a stronger sense of what it means to be British today.     

Points of departure: re-examining the discursive formation of the Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990

Leung’s article re-examines the political and legislative history of the debates that led up to the passage of the 1990 Hate Crime Statistics Act, in particular the 1980 House committee hearing on Increasing Violence against Minorities and a 1983 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights report entitled Intimidation and Violence: Racial and Religious Bigotry in America. Both identify organized white supremacy as the cause of the nation’s epidemic of racial intimidation and violent bigotry in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Many significant recommendations were made, but data collection became the first piece of legislation to address the national problem of hate violence. Leung seeks to explain why. By analysing the relationship between committee hearings, the key report and the political context of the Reagan administration, he demonstrates how ‘hate crime’ became an object of knowledge, and how its definition had implications for policy development.     

The Impact of the Threat of Terrorism on U.S. District Court Decisions During Wartime

Federal courts are key actors in the U.S. government’s fight against terrorism because they adjudicate cases based on the USA PATRIOT Act, and accordingly make national security policy. We examine the extent that the terror threat influences judicial decisions in a dataset of 111 USA PATRIOT Act cases decided in the U.S. District Courts from 2001 through 2013, while controlling for other judicial decision-making variables. The results demonstrate that when a case involves a heightened terror threat, federal judges are more likely to defer to the government. Some key control variables are also significant.     

试析我国劳动合同法的劳动者维权功能

我国劳动合同法具有明显的维护劳动者合法权益的功能,主要体现在立法目的、权利和义务分配、法律责任分配,以及监督检查等诸多方面,劳动合同法是我国广大劳动者维权的重要依据和有力武器。     

公平:在倾斜中实现平衡——《劳动合同法》应当向劳动者倾斜

向劳动者倾斜不仅是《劳动合同法》的立法需要,也是追求法律公正与公平的现实需要。《劳动合同法》向劳动者倾斜的力度是适度的,并不存在倾斜过度问题。《劳动合同法》只有向劳动者倾斜,侧重保护处于弱势劳动者的合法权益,在倾斜中调整和平衡雇佣双方的关系,才能建立起平衡、和谐的劳动关系。     

美国《2005年集团诉讼公平法》及其启示

为规制集团诉讼在消费者保护领域的滥用现象,美国出台了2005年集团诉讼公平法.该法对美国原有的集团诉讼规则进行了重大变革,尤其在管辖权规则与和解规则的完善方面.中国应在立法理念、立法技术等方面借鉴美国经验,完善民事诉讼模式,逐步建立集团诉讼机制.     

Critical Review of the Equivalence between P2P Lending and Debt-Based Crowdfunding

The equivalence theory between P2P lending and debt-based crowd-funding mistakenly equates the debt-based crowd-funding that recognized by itself and that in the JOBS Act, which has misled the Chinese regulators in terms of regulatory timing and strategy, distorted the credit risk control system in relation to risk prevention, and kicked off many regulatory conundrums concerned with the P2P lending participants’ role in the context of securities regulation. The rules and regulations concerning debt-based crowd-funding in the JOBS Act are not transplantable for P2P lending regulation in China,nor is the securities regulatory regime. In order to avoid the negative effects caused by the equivalence theory, we should abandon it.