攻击“新权利”,澳大利亚法律评论和同行评议过程

James Allan
{"title":"攻击“新权利”,澳大利亚法律评论和同行评议过程","authors":"James Allan","doi":"10.38127/uqlj.v42i1.7505","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In a just published issue in one of Australia’s oldest and best-known law reviews, the Federal Law Review, Dr Harry Hobbs of the University of Technology Sydney has written an article that comes out swinging (read on to see that that is, if anything, a mild description) against critics of three High Court of Australia cases. The three judgments are separated by 28 years in total, but Hobbs lumps them — or rather various critics of any one of these three decisions — together as part of a supposedly coherent and like-minded whole. I am one of those thus lumped, which is why I am taking the time to offer up this brief reply, though there are dozens of others also so categorised.","PeriodicalId":83293,"journal":{"name":"The University of Queensland law journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Attacking the 'New Right', Australian Law Reviews and the Peer Review Process\",\"authors\":\"James Allan\",\"doi\":\"10.38127/uqlj.v42i1.7505\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In a just published issue in one of Australia’s oldest and best-known law reviews, the Federal Law Review, Dr Harry Hobbs of the University of Technology Sydney has written an article that comes out swinging (read on to see that that is, if anything, a mild description) against critics of three High Court of Australia cases. The three judgments are separated by 28 years in total, but Hobbs lumps them — or rather various critics of any one of these three decisions — together as part of a supposedly coherent and like-minded whole. I am one of those thus lumped, which is why I am taking the time to offer up this brief reply, though there are dozens of others also so categorised.\",\"PeriodicalId\":83293,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The University of Queensland law journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The University of Queensland law journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.38127/uqlj.v42i1.7505\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The University of Queensland law journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.38127/uqlj.v42i1.7505","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

悉尼科技大学的Harry Hobbs博士在澳大利亚最古老、最著名的法律评论之一《联邦法律评论》刚刚发表的一期文章中,写了一篇文章,对澳大利亚高等法院的三起案件的批评者进行了抨击(如果有什么不同的话,那就是一个温和的描述)。这三个判断总共相隔28年,但霍布斯将它们——或者更确切地说是对这三个决定中任何一个的各种批评者——作为一个所谓连贯和志同道合的整体的一部分。我是这样被归为一类的人,这就是为什么我会花时间提供这个简短的答复,尽管还有几十个其他人也被如此分类。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Attacking the 'New Right', Australian Law Reviews and the Peer Review Process
In a just published issue in one of Australia’s oldest and best-known law reviews, the Federal Law Review, Dr Harry Hobbs of the University of Technology Sydney has written an article that comes out swinging (read on to see that that is, if anything, a mild description) against critics of three High Court of Australia cases. The three judgments are separated by 28 years in total, but Hobbs lumps them — or rather various critics of any one of these three decisions — together as part of a supposedly coherent and like-minded whole. I am one of those thus lumped, which is why I am taking the time to offer up this brief reply, though there are dozens of others also so categorised.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Robodebt and Novel Data Technologies in the Public Sector The Territorial Scope of Australia’s Unfair Contract Terms Provisions Regulating Decisions that Lead to Loss of Life in Workplaces Lending on the Edge Substantive Equality and the Possibilities of the Queensland Human Rights Act 2019
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1