In contemporary private law theory the relationship between ‘macro’ theories of distributive justice and the ‘micro’ site of interpersonal transactions remains under‐explored. In this paper, I draw on the ‘macro’ theory of justice articulated by John Rawls and offer an account of ‘micro contractual justice’.
In July 2019, the UK Parliament voted by an overwhelming majority for fundamental reform of Northern Ireland's archaic abortion laws. Drawing on extensive archival resources and a small number of interviews, we locate this extraordinary political moment in a broader historical context.
This article identifies a major development in the role and practice of the ombudsman. It argues that the New Public Management practices that have transformed public administration in the last 30 years have led to a more managerial approach to the ombudsman's work.
The juridification of the European policy process is increasingly fragile, and little understood. This study develops a novel methodology to investigate the influence of Member States on the rulings of the CJEU.
In Fashion ID, the CJEU held that an operator of a website featuring a Facebook ‘Like’ button is a data controller jointly with Facebook in collecting and transmitting personal data to Facebook, but Facebook alone is a data controller for any subsequent data processing. We question whether this ‘fragmented’ controllership helps to achieve the goal of 'no gaps' in the protection of individuals.
The Court of Appeal has set out a new framework for the application of copyright law's joint authorship test in a recent landmark case. Kogan v Martin brings some welcome clarity to the complex joint authorship landscape, embedding an inclusive pro‐collaboration default standard.
What can feminism contribute to the study of law? A lot. What can feminism contribute to the study of jurisprudence? This is trickier. In her well-regarded book about law and gender, Joanne Conaghan labours to show that gender has pervasive relevance, not only to law but also to jurisprudence, including general jurisprudence.
This book puts forward the ‘case’ for imposing fiduciary duties on shareholders in listed companies within ‘common law Asia’, especially when such shareholders exercise their vote in general meeting. But the book does much more than this. The argument is multi-textured and tightly knit.
John Gardner draws on an eclectic range of examples from literature, cinema, and television to offer philosophical reflections on questions such as: What is the value of friendship? Why apologise? What does any of this have to do with the legal resolution of a contractual dispute or the law governing compensation for automobile accidents? Everything, Gardner argues.
Autobiographies of law professors are like buses: one waits a long time, then two come along at once. There have been memorable biographies in the UK, but in the Commonwealth, there has never been, as far as I know, a full length, cradle to great age, autobiography. Why might an autobiography of a law professor now be of interest?
The impact of Covid-19 on the court system has been significant, substituting online and telephone hearings for face-to-face court proceedings. The implications of these forms of remote justice on the participative experiences of litigants in person is not yet well understood.
Intellectual property tends to be highly technical and of low political salience. Within the EU legislators tend to leave that complexity to be worked out by courts. Favale, Kretschmer and Torremans’ recent piece shows how the CJEU attempts to fill this ‘normative void’ and how Member States influence this process.
Alex Sharpe argues that gender self-declaration will not undermine women’s rights or lead to an increase in harms. We present the gender critical rebuttal, arguing that it indirectly undermines women’s rights to single sex spaces and that this will lead to harm.
Robin West’s 2019 Chorley Lecture offers important insights in relation to the ethic of consent in sexual life. In this response, I argue that by embracing the contested nature of the concept of consent there is room for deeper conversations about the boundaries of sex, criminalisation and harm.
Experiments on bias demonstrate the inability of judges and jurors, and other professionals to shrug off so-called ‘anchoring’ effects, and other common cognitive biases. The goal of ‘Just Cognition’ is to interrogate precisely what these examples teach us about (the veracity of our assumptions about) how bias operates within the judicial sphere.
A feminist discussion of consensual sex should consider when sex is wanted and when it is harmful. But is should also consider the justifications for exceptionalism concerning sex. A response to Robin West.
Adrian Vermeule’s lecture on the ‘Publius Paradox’ raises awkward questions for constitutional lawyers, as much in the United Kingdom as elsewhere.
In recent months, the MLR has included publications, in printed and in electronic form, from authors who criticize claims contained in my research. I take this opportunity to respond to those criticisms.
Is it OK for the law to assign responsibilities to persons who lack the ability to respond to reasons? For John Gardner, the answer is 'normally, no'. Even when we do saddle those persons with responsibilities, we do so because we treat them, fictitiously, as if they are able to respond to reasons. Is that right?
Stanley Paulson's intriguing tracing of the developments of Hans Kelsen's work seems to maintain that Kelsen's decisionist stance of judicial decision-making was tamed by his constructivist 'Kantian' approach to law. While agreeing with Paulson’s jurisprudential analysis, a denial of the radicalism of Kelsen's decisionism often is the basis for the classic juxtaposition between his and Carl Schmitt's decisionist theory. But the opposite view is more appropriate: Schmitt's judge has much less room for individual political views than Kelsen's.
James Edwards identifies four principal areas of concern about my book’s central thesis. My book structures its argument differently. I suspect that revisiting the four issues in the order in which they are tackled in the book would assuage some of Edwards’ concerns. Clarifying misunderstandings about my arguments, and drawing attention to key passages pre-empting objections, should assuage others.
Understanding the significance of 2017 for the world and its politics and laws -- domestic and international alike -- will take some time. In contributing to that discourse, jurists should look to new conversations in different places; mass movements, history and artistic expression.
Access to justice has been a fundamental principle of our constitution since King John’s Magna Carta of 1215. Then came the reign of Chris Grayling.
The revival of political constitutionalism has taken a normative turn. Chris Thornhill asks whether it should be more descriptively grounded. He may be asking the wrong question.
A convention of sorts, barring judges entering into partisan politics, does exist. In addition, circumspect judicial engagement with politics outside the courtroom is compatible with the function of the judiciary.
Robinson and Bulkan make a convincing case that the past and present of Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is of great concern for the future constitutional orders of the Caribbean, Commonwealth and United Kingdom. This note further explores the historical context to understand that future and its politics.
This comment connects Gerner-Beuerle's article on the evolution of company and securities law to the 'law and finance school', exploring the problems of original 'law and finance' research, Gerner-Beuerle's contribution in this direction, and suggesting how and why we may need a 'time traveller's guide' to law and finance.
Professor Weatherall’s thought-provoking critique of the selective resistance to empiricism in trade mark law is a significant and welcome intervention. But the existence of certain structural features suggests that only a qualified turn to empiricism is possible, and the broader engagement between Law and Science holds other cautionary lessons.
With Article 50 now triggered, and the ‘Great Repeal Bill’ White Paper published, was there ever such an agitated time for the British Constitution?
Ferran's article raises an interesting question: why don’t we see more corporate law-driven migrations (or LLP conversions) in the UK, and more regulatory competition for this potentially lucrative business?
In response to the effect that Covid is having on opportunities for early career scholars, the MLR is making available a fund to support research through MLR Fellowships. The Fellowships provide funding for early career scholars of up to £10,000 as well as the option of mentoring support from an MLR Editorial Committee member. More details about the fund and the application process can be found here: https://www.modernlawreview.co.uk/about-mlr-scholarships/
On 10th June 2020 members of the Modern Law Review Editorial Committee hosted a Zoom information session for women on publishing in the MLR, with the goal of encouraging submissions from female academics.
The video is now available at this link.
The session was attended by 217 women from 62 institutions and 16 countries across the world. The MLR Committee were delighted to host the event, and will continue to reflect on ways to build on our commitment to ensuring that the MLR is a welcoming platform for women.
In the meantime, we look forward to receiving your submissions!
The July Issue of the Modern Law Review is now available, with articles on macro and micro justice in contract, abortion law reform in Northern Ireland, new public management and the ombudsman, and member state influence on the CJEU, case notes on new decisions on data controllership and joint authorship, a review article on gender and analytic general jurisprudence, and book reviews on shareholder duties in common law Asia, private law theory, and biographies of academic lawyers.
Members of the MLR Editorial Committee will host a Zoom information session for female academics on publishing in the Review. The session will take place on Wednesday 10 June at 4-5pm BST.
MLR Committee members Jo Braithwaite, Tatiana Cutts, Conor Gearty, Kate Greasley, Orla Lynskey, Virginia Mantouvalou, Vanessa Munro and Sarah Paterson will be providing information and answering questions about the kind of work published by the MLR, the nature of the MLR’s peer review process and how to increase your chances of publication. The session is open to women at all career stages, including doctoral students: email t.cutts@lse.ac.uk to register or ask any questions.
During the session, the committee will also be inviting views on potential barriers to submission, and other steps the Committee might take to help redress those barriers. If you would like to comment but would prefer to do so confidentially, please feel free to do so by email either before or after the session.
Due to the ongoing situation with Covid-19, we are very sorry to inform you that the MLR 49th Chorley Lecture and Dinner scheduled for 17th June 2020 has been cancelled. Professor Hugh Collins’ lecture: ‘Fat Cats, Production Networks, and the Right to Fair Pay’ will be rescheduled for June 2021 (dates to be confirmed).
RT @DrTomPoole: US law academics - leave your law review troubles behind. Why not submit to @ModernLRev, the UK’s top generalist law journa…
Join our mailing list