Browse by title

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 114 items :

  • Legal Theory x
  • All accessible content x
Clear All
This content is available to you

Jan M. Broekman and Frank Fleerackers

‘Thoughts Backing Speech’ underlines that law depends on specific speech acts. One cannot say anything at random in law and about written laws. That is not only the case in law and a lawyer’s profession, but also at peripheries of legal discourse, in a conversation on the street or other public spaces. That theme is disregarded in semiotic studies. Legal meaning-making, which does not take place within the profession, is difficult to trace. Our understanding of law as a citizen is, on the contrary, to a large extent determined by what is talked about, accepted or rejected, thought or neglected beyond the domain of valid law. Thoughts that back this type of speech confront us with major components of law’s discourse such as our evidence of thinking and judging when we discuss law in public. They also regard interactivity and interaction as constitutive in law practices. What unfolds outside the legal profession is often linked to concepts such as ‘nature’ and ‘natural’. ‘Legal consciousness’ is therefore reconsidered. The sign character of laws and their meaning reintroduce the semiotic relevance of human expressivity, of our understanding the multilingual character of reality in law, and of the basics of human rights – altogether issues that constitute every legal conversation anywhere. Keywords Street, Periphery of law, Interactivity, Interaction, Legal consciousness, Human rights, Multilingual realities

This content is available to you

Preface: And property for all?

Property, Power and Market Economies

Mark Findlay

This content is available to you

Law and the new normal: reimagining property

Property, Power and Market Economies

Mark Findlay

This content is available to you

Legal theory: from intellectual property to informational goods

A Conflict-Based Approach to Intellectual Rights

Niels van Dijk

This content is available to you

Acknowledgments and sources

A Conflict-Based Approach to Intellectual Rights

Niels van Dijk

This content is available to you

Samo Bardutzky and Elaine Fahey

This edited volume explores how we frame the subjects and objects of contemporary European Union (EU) law. The inquiry as to the subjects and objects of Public International Law (PIL) is one long dismissed as fruitless (e.g. Higgins, 1994). Nevertheless, it is a more revealing inquiry in EU law, which has explicitly sought to differentiate itself as a new legal order of PIL with a distinctive framing of its subjects and objects. As the EU’s internal and external competences have evolved, significant changes surround the subjects and objects of contemporary EU law. It may increasingly capture a broader range of actors and interests, intentionally or otherwise. The subjects and objects of EU regulatory frameworks thus raise fundamental issues as to the rule of law as well as to the EU’s legitimacy in the wider world. While there may be hundreds of years of work across disciplines on the self as subject, the object as an entity often appears a neglected field of inquiry. The EU treaties and EU law jurisprudence alike reveal a quantifiable panoply of interests, actors, objects and subjects, scattered across them. The collaborative research effort presented in this volume is linked to three primary motifs or considerations in how we frame the subjects and objects of EU law: transformations, the external-internal nexus and crises as to EU law. It confronts the question: how should we understand the dialectic between the subjects and objects in contemporary EU law? Can the objects of EU law so readily become its subjects? What are the normative parameters of the shift from subject to object and object to subject? How are new narratives understood within this dialectic? Keywords: EU law, jurisprudence, EU integration, Transformations, Crises, CJEU, EU international relations, public international law, subjects, objects

This content is available to you

Edited by Samo Bardutzky and Elaine Fahey

This content is available to you

Bengt Lindell

The Swedish Academy Glossary (SAOL) does not list a definition for the term ‘overall assessment’. However, the term ‘overall assessment’ refers to a number of factors, aspects or perspectives that are brought together into a comprehensive assessment, an overall assessment. In this book, the word has a more specific meaning. An overall assessment means that a choice must be made between several possible decision options using certain criteria in order to achieve one or more objectives. This definition addresses both the meaning and the purpose of an overall assessment. Virtually everyone makes overall assessments on a daily basis. This might involve big, important things like purchasing a home: What is our price range? What city/neighbourhood? Running costs (taxes, maintenance, utilities)? Proximity to daycare, school and work? Renovation needs? And so on. Or the assessment might involve where the family should go on holiday. There are a few options (e.g., Spain, Bulgaria or Italy) and a number of selection criteria such as cost, climate and how child-friendly it is. Another example is buying a new car, which will be explored in detail later on. Even in such cases, there are several different options to consider when evaluating the different car models, which have different prices, different environmental performance, different collision safety and comfort levels, and so on.

This content is available to you

Andrea Bianchi

This content is available to you

Frank Fagan

A legal cycle is legislation that takes effect contingently, where contingent factors are ex ante known to fluctuate with some level of predictable regularity. Apart from broad constitutional mandate, lawmakers have historically and suboptimally responded to legal cycles with general and patchwork patterns of legislation involving repeal, amendment, and new enactment. This is true across nearly all domains of codified law. This chapter develops a normative theory of how lawmakers should respond to legal cycles by setting forth the optimal architecture of stabilization rules. Under a general set of conditions, stabilization rules work toward smoothing fluctuations in rulemaking and exert downward pressure on short-term legislative pathologies that result from cognitive bias and interest group politics. The potential of welfare-enhancing stabilization rules is discussed across banking law, budget law, environmental law, health law, national security law, and criminal sentencing. Keywords: timing rules, contingent law, legal cycles, stabilization rules, climate change, budget law, availability bias