The paper discusses the issue of family involvement in the process of obtaining consent to treatment. Legally, doctors have a duty to inform the patient, and the patient has a right to be informed before making a decision. In this context, however, there is no requirement to involve relatives or to take into account their interests or requests. Yet, findings from in-depth interviews with NHS general practitioners presented in the paper indicate that in reality relatives have a substantial impact on the process of informed consent. Their presence may lead the doctor to provide more information to the patient and help the patient better understand the information conveyed by the doctor. Ultimately, the relatives' involvement enhances the patient's ability to make an informed decision, even though in some cases – when the relative is dominant – this may have a negative impact on the channel of communication between doctor and patient. These findings reflect a relational approach to patient autonomy. They lead the author to suggest that the current doctor-patient partnership model in English medical law would benefit by the addition of relatives as an integral component of the decision making team. Such a significant shift in the legal approach requires changes in the type of information conveyed by the doctor to the patient; in the means to increase the patient's understanding; and lastly at the point when decisions are actually made.

There are few other areas in family law where incongruence between the legal and social positions is as evident as that concerning parenthood. Recent cases involving lesbian couples and known sperm donors serve to highlight the increasing tension between the respective roles of biology, intention and functional parenting in the attribution of legal parental status. As both legislative and case-law developments have shown, intention is central in some circumstances, but not in others. The main claim of this paper is that this ad hoc approach leads to incoherent and unsatisfactory law: instead of striving to identify a status, what we are really looking to do is to identify the people who assume responsibility for a child. Drawing upon recent case-law, this paper explores how a conceptual reform of the law could result in a principled framework which would place formally recognised intention at the heart of parental status in order to reconnect legal duty with social reality for as many children and parents as possible. Moreover, it would ensure that parental status would not be dictated by the mode of conception of the child (natural or assisted). The analysis identifies the objectives of reform before proposing a new model which, while recognising the social importance of the biological parentage link, would reserve legal status for functional parenthood.

This paper argues that adverse publicity can fulfil two crucial roles in consumer protection law and policy. First, it can operate as an effective regulatory sanction in its own right; secondly it can play a vital role in helping consumers to exert market discipline by making informed choices about suppliers. However, there are significant risks to using adverse publicity to achieve these ends and it is imperative that any regulatory regime addresses these. Studying this topic now is particularly important for three main reasons. First, there has been widespread recognition that the regulatory offence, typically backed up with fines, is not the most effective form of sanction. More flexible, targeted and responsive options are required. Secondly, there is now ample evidence that regulated information, for example in the form of mandatory disclosure, frequently fails to help consumers to make fully informed choices. Finally, there are some highly significant very recent examples of enforcers using publicity in ways that can be viewed both as a sanction and as an information tool. The need to sanction responsively and to bolster consumer sovereignty demonstrates the potential for adverse publicity as a tool of consumer protection policy.

Although cartel behaviour is almost universally (and rightly) condemned, it is not clear why cartel participants deserve the full wrath of the criminal law and its associated punishment. To fill this void, I develop a normative (or principled) justification for the criminalisation of conduct characteristic of ‘hard core’ cartels. The paper opens with a brief consideration of the rhetoric commonly used to denounce cartel activity, eg that it ‘steals from’ or ‘robs’ consumers. To put the discussion in context, a brief definition of ‘hard core’ cartel behaviour is provided and the harms associated with this activity are identified. These are: welfare losses in the form of appropriation (from consumer to producer) of consumer surplus, the creation of deadweight loss to the economy, the creation of productive inefficiency (hindering innovation of both products and processes), and the creation of so-called X-inefficiency. As not all activities which cause harm ought to be criminalised, a theory as to why certain harms in a liberal society can be criminalised is developed. It is based on JS Mill's harm to others principle (as refined by Feinberg) and on a choice of social institutions using Rawls's ‘veil of ignorance.’ The theory is centred on the value of individual choice in securing one's own well-being, with the market as an indispensable instrument for this. But as applied to the harm associated with cartel conduct, this theory shows that none of the earlier mentioned problems associated with this activity provide sufficient justification for criminalisation. However, as the harm from hard core cartel activity strikes at an important institution which permits an individual's ability to secure their own well-being in a liberal society, criminalisation of hard core cartel behaviour can have its normative justification on this basis.

The barristers' profession of England and Wales no longer relies on its special reputation to attract the next generation of practitioners. Today, the Bar deliberately sells itself to prospective members. This activity is designed to construct and communicate an appealing self-identity, and to tacitly sort out desirable recruits. It is a significant component of the Bar's enduring status ‘project’. Nonetheless, these processes take place within a complex wider environment, one which calls on the Bar to be competitive and distinct, as well as rational and inclusive. This paper is a unique, qualitative examination of the ways in which the barristers' profession markets itself within this context. It is the product of an investigation of the recruitment initiatives of one of the Inns of Court, targeted at law students. This paper identifies four main strands of the Bar's professional identity at this stage of entry: the Bar as traditional community; profession of excellence; inclusive profession; and a group facing certain challenges to its commanding position. The analysis shows how these multiple, sometimes conflicting, and often ambiguous themes are conveyed and handled. In the process, it reveals areas where the Bar is taking advantage of the current climate, and others where serious fault-lines in the Bar's identity have emerged. Finally, this analysis identifies the sorts of demands these images make of potential members if they want to be accepted into this old and sought-after profession.

This paper investigates how planning regulation constructs the local, encapsulating a locality and prioritising local decision making over regional and national scales. It draws on a case study of the regulation of multiple occupation to make three interrelated points. First, the analysis emphasises the plurality of ‘locals’ and the interrelationships between them. Secondly, the paper explains how the juridification of the local is required to make a locality legally visible. This operationalisation and construction of the local (legally, spatially and socially) must take place before the political logic of localism, the prioritisation of local decision making over other scales of governance, can take legal effect. Thirdly, the paper explains how, once the ‘local’ is legally constructed and can make decisions, this prioritisation of apparently neutral local expertise and knowledge can act to enclose the spatial and social with sometimes powerful exclusionary and regressive effects.

Over the years, there has been an explosion in the mainstream scholarship of various academic disciplines on the issue of the appropriate corporate objective, which has been framed by a debate between the shareholder wealth maximisation and stakeholder-orientated theories. Behind the two paradigms is a complex set of controversies on which there exists wide disagreement. What is certain is that the prevailing theories have obvious normative and/or practical limitations and neither is to be extolled as an affirmative theory, for different reasons. The purpose of this paper is to cut through the consequent knot of partial and inaccurate dialectic in order to develop a positive normative principle of the corporate objective. This will be referred to as the Equitable Maximisation and Viability principle. The objective of the corporation as a separate legal entity should be to: (i) respect, protect, and fulfil the demonstrable, legitimate interests and expectations of the constituent groups that contribute to the corporation; and (ii) to facilitate the corporation's viability so that its future is guaranteed with sufficiently high probability. This theory is justifiable on the basis of the values of equality and efficiency.

For almost as long as there have been elections, their outcomes have been disputed. Disgruntled candidates have tried many different avenues to right the wrongs of an election they consider they should have won. For several hundred years, jurisdiction over disputed elections was exercised by the Monarch personally, then by the courts, and then by Parliament until finally, in the 1860s, Parliament ceded its power to the courts in the form of the election petitions jurisdiction. This paper considers that history, examines the current system of election petitions, and proposes a number of reforms to this crucial aspect of British democracy.

In this paper, I use Dworkin's distinction between rules and principles to analyse the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. I argue that, inherent in many conceptions of the doctrine, is an assumption that it operates in the conclusive manner of a Dworkinian rule. I then submit that the doctrine actually functions in the flexible way characteristic of a Dworkinian principle. In support of this contention, I argue that Acts of Parliament may be balanced against competing principles or statutes; that they possess the dimension of weight or importance; and that the degree to which they will be adhered in any particular case will be contingent upon the importance attributed to any competing principle or statute. I finish the paper with an evaluation of my arguments and an attempt to anticipate potential counter-arguments.

This paper argues that climate change litigation is an important component of the governance framework that has emerged to regulate how states respond to climate change at the global, regional and local levels. The paper examines climate change-related cases from selected jurisdictions, including Australia and the EU, and proposes a theoretical framework to shed light on the use of litigation as a regulatory response to climate change.

Three forms of ‘material contribution’ are discussed within the context of the traditional ‘but for’ test of causation. The NESS test (Necessary Element in at least one Sufficient Set) is shown to offer a more appropriate approach when causal over-determination is present as in, for instance, Fairchild and other cases involving multiple sources of asbestos. The particular problems posed by the recent Sienkiewicz case are then examined. It is argued that removing the incoherence in the common law of causation in personal injury will require the judiciary to overcome its antipathy to statistical evidence.

This paper seeks to explore copyright from the perspective of John Rawls's egalitarian conception of justice. It first evaluates the classical theories for copyright. Next, it examines Rawls's principles of justice with particular emphasis on the difference principle. Then, it applies Rawls to the design of copyright law and debates on two doctrines of copyright law – namely the idea/expression dichotomy and the relevance of the merit of a work for copyright. The significance of the debate is to show that Rawls's perspective on justice offers a better justification for copyright and its principles and would potentially induce better justice.

This paper engages with a changing politics of male circumcision. It suggests that various shifts which have occurred in how the issue is debated challenge legal constructions of the practice as a private familial issue. Although circumcision rates have declined in those Western nations which have traditionally practised it, the procedure is now being promoted as a medicalised response to the HIV/AIDS pandemic in sub-Saharan Africa. Such initiatives propose a new biomedical rationale for the practice and have been difficult to confine to the African context or to adult bodies, prompting a resurgence of enthusiasm for neonatal male circumcision on the part of professional bodies in the USA and elsewhere. Although we have reservations about such public health policies, which we suggest downplay risks inherent in the procedure both for the individual and for the advancement of public health, we argue that such strategies have the potential to move debates about circumcision beyond the parameters of traditional ‘medical law’, with its focus on the doctor–patient nexus and the issue of who can validly consent to medical procedures. We suggest that, as with female genital cutting, male circumcision ought to be debated within a paradigm of social justice which gives adequate weighting to the interests of all affected parties (including women whose health may actually be compromised by the procedure) and which renders visible the socio-economic dimensions of the issue. In line with a social justice approach, we argue that public health initiatives must comply with international ethico-legal standards and be attentive to the emergence of an international human right to health. The shift in analytical frame that we propose has the potential not only to make us re-think our approach to the ethics and legality of male circumcision by challenging its construction as a familial decision but also to impact on the need for a broader conceptualisation of health law as rooted in social justice.

This paper considers an often ignored topic in the English system of precedent, the role of High Court precedent in the county court. In doing so it reveals the many weaknesses of the existing approach to lower court precedent. It is argued that the High Court, (generally) a first instance tribunal, which does not bind itself and can come to contradictory decisions in different cases, the later not overruling the earlier, should not bind any court below it. A model of how multi-tiered first instance tribunals, such as the High Court and county court, should interact is demonstrated by the approach taken between the Court of Session, Outer House, and inferior courts in Scotland.

The study of criminal justice policy making is generally approached from the perspective of structural variables (eg social, cultural or economic), or, if inclined towards agency-led approaches, on the policy making activities of ‘elites’. The potential of practitioners to shape policy has been relatively neglected. This paper explores a striking example of practitioner-led criminal justice policy transformation: the decline in the use of custody for juveniles in England and Wales in the 1980s. The focus of the study is on the communicative origins of a philosophical turnaround in youth justice localities through the empowerment of youth justice practitioners. Drawing on empirical sources (including reflective interviews with key participant-observers) the paper explores, in depth, the occurrence and the meaning of local structural transformations. It is argued that the emergence of trust relations between participants in local youth justice processes was the key development behind the transformation of the state of penal culture towards one of ‘communicative rationality’ which, in turn, enabled the dramatic reduction in the use of custody. It is suggested that proponents of more moderate penal policy could draw valuable lessons from this episode.

The common law restraint of trade doctrine continues to provide valuable protection in a variety of business contexts. This paper analyses an incompatibility problem that has arisen between that doctrine and EU competition rules (in particular Art 101 Treaty on the Functioning of the EU [TFEU]) as implemented by EU Regulation 1/2003, which, amongst other matters, delineates the interface between national law and EU competition law. According to the High Court, once a court has applied Art 101 TFEU, Art 3 of the Regulation prevents a court from reaching a contrary finding under the restraint of trade doctrine. Thus, the court cannot find a clause is void under the doctrine if the clause comes within the scope of, but is not prohibited by, Art 101 TFEU. In effect, this conclusion displaces the restraint of trade doctrine for parties who are subject to unreasonable restraints that fall foul of the doctrine but are not prohibited by Art 101 TFEU. The interface problem and the possible solution are presented as issues of Europeanisation. The negative impact on national law deriving from an EU measure is portrayed as a ‘top down’ Europeanisation scenario. A contrary ‘uploading’ perspective reveals how and why Art 3 and associated Recitals in Regulation 1/2003 were ‘constructed’. These findings on the intended scope of Art 3 are used to challenge the High Court's view on the negative implications of the Regulation for the restraint of trade doctrine. Finally, this paper offers specific proposals as to how courts in the United Kingdom and Ireland could ensure that the restraint of trade doctrine is not an inevitable casualty of Europeanisation. It argues that when looking for a solution to the ‘top-down’ Europeanisation problem faced by the restraint of trade doctrine, the ‘uploading’ perspective of Europeanisation suggests a solution.

UN peacekeeping missions operate under the authority of the UN. However, the military personnel that constitute a UN peacekeeping mission remain organs of the states from which they are contributed. Thus, whether unlawful acts committed by peacekeepers can be attributed to the UN is dependent upon whether the peacekeeping force can be regarded as being under the direction and control of the UN. This is a question of fact. According to the ICJ and the International Law Commission, unlawful acts committed by peacekeeping forces will be attributed to the UN only where the UN exercised ‘effective control’ over the commission of the unlawful act. In contrast, the ECtHR has consistently propounded a very different test, asserting that unlawful acts will be attributed to the UN only where the UN retained ‘ultimate authority and control’ over the peacekeeping mission. I argue, however, that neither of these tests provides a suitable legal framework for determining attribution of unlawful conduct in the context of UN peacekeeping missions. After outlining the deficiencies of these tests, I submit that a more suitable approach to determining attribution would be based upon the overall control test as outlined by the ICTY in Tadić.

During the 1530s Henry VIII remarried twice, each time annulling his previous marriage. The English laws outlining the prohibited degrees of relationship for marriage were changed upon each marriage in the First and Second Succession Acts. These Acts were passed in Ireland by an Irish Parliament in 1536–7 and became part of the Irish statute book. However, the second Act regulating Henry VIII's marriage to Queen Jane (Marriage Act (no 2) 1537) was never published and was unknown to Irish law for centuries. The Act made its return onto the Irish statute book in 2007, greatly extending the class of relatives prohibited from marrying and potentially annulling many Irish marriages. This paper traces the fate of the lost Act and analyses the consequences of its rediscovery both on Irish marriage law and the legitimacy of the Irish statute book.

A relatively recent collective work published in France examines the extent to which social science knowledge is cumulative. However this work includes no chapter on law. The purpose of this paper is to imagine what a chapter on law might look like had one been invited by the editor. Is legal knowledge cumulative? This present paper is sceptical, although much depends on where one erects the boundaries between law and other social science disciplines. Yet, despite the scepticism, a reflection on cumulativeness and legal knowledge is not without interest. Indeed quite the opposite: for it generates a range of interesting sub-questions such as whether or not there have been paradigm changes in the discipline of law amounting to scientific revolutions.