Oxford Journal of Legal Studies最新文献

There have been several important formal changes to the United Kingdom's constitution over the past few decades, including devolution to Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales; the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights in domestic law; and the creation of a new Supreme Court. This article is about the informal semantic changes that may have accompanied these formal changes. It focuses on several central concepts: parliamentary sovereignty, the rule of law, the separation of powers, devolution, and human rights. Using a recently developed machine learning method to analyse a massive corpus of parliamentary debate, the article gauges the extent to which these concepts have become more (or less) related to the meaning of the UK's constitution in parliamentary discourse. Ultimately, the analysis supports some important theoretical expectations about the changing nature of the constitution, including the claim that parliamentary sovereignty is now a less significant concept for the meaning of the constitution than it once was.

This article sketches out two distinct attitudes towards textuality in international law, namely international hermeneutics and international poetics. It argues that these two attitudes towards textuality espouse very different types of dualism of thought. This difference bears major implications on how the international lawyer approaches international legal texts. In exposing these two attitudes towards textuality and the distinct types of dualism they reveal, this article makes a plea for a greater embrace of international poetics by international lawyers, and thus for a complete remoulding of international lawyers' dualist patterns of thought.

How should criminal conduct be divided among different offences? To date, this question has received only one serious answer: the fair labelling principle, which states that distinctions among offences should reflect distinctions in the nature and seriousness of the wrongdoing that they criminalise. This article argues that the fair labelling principle should not be the sole or main principle governing offence differentiation decisions. Its argument consists in three main claims. First, the only plausible foundation for the principle is a duty to ensure that the blame expressed through criminal conviction is allocated justly. Second, this duty cannot be absolute: if it were, the result would be an absurdly highly differentiated criminal law. Third, several other factors are relevant to how we should differentiate offences, and these will often count against the demands of just blaming. A complete normative account of offence differentiation must thus extend beyond fair labelling-or indeed, any single principle.

This article develops the comparative law framework on legal transplantation to theorise the impact of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 (UKIMA) on the UK constitution across three registers of analysis-the territorial, the material and the conceptual. It arrives at three conclusions. First, in relation to the territorial constitution, this article argues that the UKIMA introduces something transformative: the concept of an internal market as a shared regulatory space that cuts across the respective competences of the UK and devolved legislatures. Secondly, the legal transplant framework points to the introduction of a powerful commitment to the principles of a liberal market economy as the basis of the UK's material constitution. Finally, regarding the conceptual constitution, this article concludes that the UKIMA effects a qualitative change to established patterns of judicial review through its co-opting of courts as agents to secure the foundations of the newly recast material constitution.

Despite the recent consolidation of sentencing law and procedure, the fundamental values which underpin the policy and practice of sentencing in England and Wales have remained largely unchanged since the deserts-based model introduced by the Criminal Justice Act of 1991. It is argued that this paradigm is no longer appropriate and presents a significant impediment to reducing imprisonment and mainstreaming restorative forms of intervention within the criminal process. An alternative value-based approach is proposed to counter this trend, one that provides greater structural flexibility and empowers sentencers to engage more effectively with the social impact of penal intervention.

Urban inequality in South Africa is a formidable problem that is linked to the injustices of its historical apartheid past. This paper identifies sectional titles, a form of property ownership where proprietors wholly own their apartment unit while co-owning the land and common property, as critical to providing more affordable housing. Sectional title schemes mitigate urban inequality by giving a greater proportion of the country the opportunity to own legally secure, well-located dwellings while serving as a platform where communal living could take place. Two suggestions how sectional title legislation can further alleviate aspects of urban inequality are made (1) Permitting a supermajority of sectional owners to terminate a sectional scheme prevents holdout and allows urban land to be redeveloped, providing an increase in housing. (2) Municipalities could consider mandating ethnic integration in sectional schemes to counter the organic formation of mono-racial residential enclaves which remain in present-day South Africa.

Regulation is sometimes designed to be future-proof, so that it can adapt to changing economic and technological realities. The EU (and UK) Regulatory Framework for electronic communications was expressly crafted to be able to adjust to the evolution of the industry. This article considers how well the regime has stood the test of time and, based on this analysis, what lessons can be drawn for regulation more generally. It appears that, by and large, the Framework has effectively accompanied the transformation of telecommunications in Europe. On the other hand, the EU legislature's commitment to future-proof intervention has waned over time. Every new review of the regime has represented a move away from the philosophy and mechanisms conceived to ensure that regulation would adapt seamlessly to industry shifts. This experience suggests that the failure or success of future-proof intervention primarily hinges on the intertemporal consistency of legislatures.