The issue of standing in cost-benefit analysis

Insufficient attention has been given in cost-benefit analysis to whose benefits are to be counted. Foreigners, illegal aliens, fetuses, and criminals are problematic cases. Persons or entities may be given “standing” by participation in decision processes; by having their preferences counted, if meaningful preferences exist; by having their welfare counted, if they cannot express their preferences; or by representation by others whom they do not choose. Problems of standing arise in the valuation of life, the consideration of future generations and nonhuman entities, and equity weighting. These problem may be treated by altering the scope of the expert community or by interaction between that community and the political community. They are not always resolvable, but should be treated more explicitly.     

Setting aside a trust on the ground of mistake--In the Matter of the DSL Remuneration Trust: DSL Remuneration Trust [2007] JRC 251

This case concerned a remuneration trust which had been establishedby a company called DSL in April 2000. The beneficiaries ofthe Trust were named as the past, present and future employeesof DSL and their families. The shares in DSL were owned by acouple, Mr and Mrs L, who were also the two directors of DSL.The Trust assets comprised the proceeds of sale of the businessof DSL and its interest in two retail shops, and representedthe bulk of the assets of Mr and Mrs L and their family. The terms of the Trust prevented any outright distribution orpayments being made or any benefits     

Double-Speak: The European Union and Gender Parity

Ideas about pursuing a more equal balance between men and women in decision-making bodies and ‘parity democracy’ have been promoted by both the Council of Europe and the institutions of the European Union for nearly 20 years. In the early 1990s, the institutions of the EU played an important role in providing a platform for discussion and debate and thus brought these notions into mainstream political discourse in some of the member states. In response, during the late 1990s and early 2000s, several member states implemented policy to encourage more balanced participation for men and women in national and sub-national decision-making bodies. However, despite its own policy statements to the contrary, the EU decision-making bodies themselves remain male-dominated. This article asks how the EU on the one hand provided an impetus for some of the member states to take action to increase gender balance in decision-making while, on the other hand, its own institutions have remained largely unchanged.     

Jersey trusts and foreign divorce proceedings: The H Trust (2007) JRC 187

This is a second and important judgment in the H Trust litigation,which was first before the Royal Court in April 2006. At thathearing, the Royal Court directed the Jersey resident trusteeof the H Trust not to take any part in English divorce proceedingsbetween a husband and wife, both of whom were beneficiariesunder the H Trust, but to provide full information to the partiesfor use in the English High Court. The husband was the settlorof the H Trust. The Royal Court also encouraged the trusteeto assist in giving effect to any reasonable arrangement