People simultaneously entangled in multiple state systems are often subject to contradictory legal mandates that can foster distrust and incentivize system avoidance. This study focuses on those indebted to both the child support system and the criminal legal system, a situation we describe as dual debt. We ask whether and how the imposition of legal debts with punitive surveillance and collections mechanisms fosters alienation in the form of legal cynicism and estrangement, which we refer to jointly as legal anomie. Drawing from interview data in Minnesota, we find that legal anomie and system avoidance are mutually reinforcing processes, as debts in these systems triggered consequences that pushed people out of the formal labor market and heightened their distrust of legal institutions. The case of dual debt demonstrates how alienating and contradictory policy systems can foster both legal anomie and system avoidance, particularly in the context of economic and social precarity.

Of all the principles in classical Jewish law that stand out from a comparative legal perspective perhaps none is more notable than the ban on self-incrimination in criminal procedures. Contrary to the most basic evidentiary assumptions of other ancient legal systems, this principle differs fundamentally from the right to remain silent that is part of both early modern and modern legal systems. Only rabbinic jurisprudence incorporates an outright exclusion of criminal confessions. Despite receiving much scholarly attention over the centuries, this principle’s fundamental justification relating to the rule of law and the public pursuit of justice has gone unnoticed. This article explores this salient jurisprudential perspective, and sheds new light on this principle by contrasting the Jewish legal approach with the primary modes of criminal adjudication that were adopted in the West. What emerges from this comparative analysis is that this seemingly anomalous principle actually reveals much about the core commitments and values of Jewish law. These, in turn, have substantial implications for certain contemporary legal practices and dilemmas.

Shareholders are not allowed to bring actions for damages due to a fall in share value or loss of dividend, which are “reflective” of their company’s loss. Later, this principle also found its application to “reflective” losses of employees and creditors. The Supreme Court, however, in Marex Financial v Sevilleja, unanimously held that the principle would apply only to shareholders and not to creditors. The article argues that, while the majority opinion in the Marex decision is reasonably balanced, the minority opinion went a step further by even doubting the very existence of the no reflective loss principle without properly appreciating what shareholding entails. If the minority’s position becomes the law, it will jeopardise companies’ existence as separate legal entities with the capacity to decide with respect to their assets. Further, if the protection of the principle is removed, companies’ counterparties will have to worry constantly about facing numerous direct shareholders’ actions, whether they settle the dispute with the company or not. As a result, if the minority view becomes the law, it can potentially make the company a less dependable commercial partner.

Convention on International Civil Aviation — Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects — Annex 15 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation — Aeronautical Information Services, 16th edition

A taskforce, appointed by HM Treasury, has recently proposed legislation to eliminate certificated (paper) shares and to require the investors currently holding paper shares to hold them indirectly through nominees. It has also suggested that disclosure combined with a common messaging protocol will enable the market to improve the ability of indirect shareholders to exercise their rights. In this paper we make a case against legislation eliminating paper certificates. We argue that the industry does not need the Government to remove paper certificates. If they want paper certificates to disappear, they should develop a model for holding uncertificated shares directly that is affordable for retail investors. The Government should nevertheless intervene. It should encourage the Competition and Markets Authority to investigate the price structure of accounts for holding uncertificated shares directly with CREST, which operates as a monopoly provider for such accounts in the UK. We further explain that the current system for holding shares indirectly disenfranchises investors and argue that this not only affects investors but also deprives issuers of oversight of their governance. We use empirical evidence to explain that disclosure combined with a common messaging protocol is unlikely to cause the market to develop a system that better enfranchises indirect shareholders. Consequently, we propose legislation to give indirect investors better access to shareholder rights.

Water-mediated claims in both international law and domestic law are often framed around, or adjudicated based on land-centred principles. In Canada, too, such claims tend to be judicially assessed through land-centric concepts. This approach has significant implications for Indigenous law and related claims to water-mediated spaces. It also has consequences for both international law and domestic law, particularly with respect to how aqua nullius and similar Eurocentric concepts are disguised and used in settler-colonial states like Canada. Accordingly, this article urges a critical engagement with Indigenous law and similar cosmologies on water in a manner that foregrounds the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and in re-reading how the UNDRIP is incorporated and implemented in Canada.

This article discusses European copyright law as applied to the development and training of generative AI and natural language processing in public interest research institutions and libraries. The article focuses on the scope of the new exceptions from copyright law for text and data mining (TDM) for research purposes and discusses them from the perspective of research ethics and principles of open science in publicly financed research. The public interest mission of research institutions and libraries includes the open dissemination of research results but the exceptions from copyright are focused only on the training phase in AI development. Regulation on data transparency is fragmented. The article finds that while new exceptions open for developing language models under research institutions and libraries’ public interest mission to preserve national languages, the regulation is not adapted to principles of research ethics and open science, and legal uncertainty remains.

In many African countries with hegemonic-party or de facto one-party systems, political leaders have historically exploited ostensibly proper constitutional amendments to undermine constitutionalism, a practice raising questions about the legitimacy, or lack thereof, of such amendments. This article argues that amendment legitimacy is contingent on achieving ‘broad consensus’, a concept endorsed by the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance. Traditional amendment procedures, such as supermajorities and referendums, while crucial, have proven to be imperfect proxies for ensuring such broad consensus. To more effectively safeguard the core constitutional rules of democratic governance, this article contends that political parties must be recognised as key sites of power division and checks and balances. Accordingly, constitutional amendment procedures should require some level of cross-party approval for key amendments, thus preventing individual political groups, regardless of their dominance, from unilaterally altering fundamental rules of the game. This approach would not only enhance the legitimacy of amendments but also serve as a safeguard against contemporary forms of democratic backsliding, where incumbents exploit formal processes to undermine democratic competition. While this process might make constitutional changes more difficult, it would apply only to a narrow set of fundamental aspects of constitutional democracy. Moreover, it does not necessarily conflict with popular self-governance (and its majoritarian expression), but instead calls for an inclusive re-imagining of majoritarianism.

In recent years, a growing number of countries have courted controversy by regulating activities outside their borders. They have used extraterritorial lawmaking to cultivate competitive global markets, strengthen or weaken data privacy, combat foreign terrorism and military aggression, promote human rights abroad, and suppress political dissent at home. This Article explores whether extraterritorial lawmaking can be reconciled with the right to self-determination under international law. I argue that the right to self-determination entitles each national polity to determine the laws and institutions by which it is governed within its territory. Extraterritorial lawmaking violates the right to self-determination when it subjects peoples to legal norms they have not freely endorsed. This insight calls for a paradigm shift in how international lawyers evaluate extraterritoriality, with broad ramifications for legal theory and practice.

A future multilateral investment court (MIC) or multilateral appellate mechanism (MAM) will operate on a plurilateral basis, among States that become parties to the tribunal's constitutive instrument and grant it jurisdiction over disputes under their investment treaties. The creation of a MIC or MAM would involve a significant strengthening and centralization of dispute settlement institutions in the investment treaty regime, which is already overly dependent on law-development by adjudicators, reflected in well-established concerns about loss of State control. Thus, a key challenge in designing a MIC or MAM is to incorporate appropriate control mechanisms that will enable State input, without unduly undermining a MIC or MAM's independence. This article analyses control mechanisms in a MIC or MAM, considering a wide range of questions of institutional design. It highlights two fundamental tensions. One is the tension between independence and accountability. The other tension is between procedural multilateralism and substantive bilateralism. While the procedural law in a MIC or MAM will have been multilateralized, the substantive law the tribunal will interpret and apply will remain contained in mostly bilateral investment treaties, controlled by the parties to those agreements. This article addresses the challenges of designing a multilateral tribunal for a regime that lacks multilateral substantive law and contributes to wider debates over striking an appropriate balance between international judicial independence and Member State control.

The employment of cutting-edge technology in the European Union's external border management is transforming the way that States acquire control over seaborne migrants and deconstructing traditional conceptions of border and territory. This article sheds light on a new generation of human rights violations on the high seas, where people's rights become contingent on their geographical location which is increasingly traceable by monitoring bodies. Amidst the burgeoning phenomena of abandonment at sea and contemporary forms of migrant push-backs, this article contends that human rights jurisdiction ought to be reconceptualized in functional terms to capture new modalities of State power, that if and when exercised, can amount to effective control, triggering a State's human rights obligations.

On October 7, 2023, Palestinian armed groups, chiefly Hamas's armed wing, breached the fence around the Gaza strip and launched attacks on Israeli territory. Over several hours, Palestinian fighters killed 1,269 people, mostly civilians, engaged in sexual violence and torture, and took 253 hostages. The same day, Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared, “Israel is at war,” and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) launched air strikes and later a ground invasion of Gaza. In the eleven months since, Palestinian groups have continued to hold, mistreat, and kill hostages and launched rockets into Israel's population centers. Meanwhile, the IDF has killed an estimated forty-one thousand people in Gaza, mostly civilians, engaged in sexual violence and torture of Palestinian detainees, damaged or destroyed most of the food, water, and medical infrastructure, and restricted humanitarian access, with dire consequences. Civilian casualty experts argue the death toll (which excludes the likely greater number killed “indirectly” through disease and deprivation) far exceeds what we have come to expect from contemporary military campaigns. Both sides have committed violations of International Humanitarian Law (IHL), too many to list individually.

On 29 December 1838, the Dean of Exeter Cathedral, Whittington Landon, died. In the months that followed, the cathedral chapter repeatedly refused to elect the individuals nominated by the Crown, setting the stage for a protracted struggle that would play out in Parliament and in the Court of Queen's Bench. This is the story of R v The President and Chapter of the Cathedral Church of St Peter in Exeter.1

In this article Renate Ní Uigín, Librarian of the Honorable Society of King's Inns Library in Dublin, gives LIM an overview of the library's fascinating history and its collection, while also outlining the service it offers today.

This article by Susan Brodigan at McCann FitzGerald LLP provides an overview of Irish case law, outlining the methods used for researching Irish cases while also giving tips to those new to the profession, or to the Irish jurisdiction.

The problem of relations between Church and state has existed from the very beginnings of Christianity and has evolved over centuries. The dominant model today is one of separation between the state and religious communities. In the context of the Roman Catholic Church, the Vatican City State remains the only exception to this principle. This article examines the tensions inherent in the way in which the Roman Pontiff, as head of the Vatican City State, exercises both religious and secular power, and how rule of law principles operate to constrain the operation of power as between the various organs of this state.

The 2023 Texas federal district court decision Braidwood Management, Inc. vs. Becerra enjoined the enforcement of the Affordable Care Act’s preventive care mandate, which requires “first-dollar” insurance coverage for a range of preventive measures, including pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), an HIV prophylactic drug. Most scholars have analyzed the case with respect to the conflict between public health goals and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). This Article suggests another reading of the Braidwood decision in light of a broader socio-legal phenomenon I call preventive health stigma. Stereotypes attach to the underlying medical condition that a given measure is aimed at preventing, or to the actual preventive measure resulting in stigmatization. Preventive health stigma penetrated the Braidwood decision through the case’s focus on PrEP users’ signaled prurient behavior instead of the drug’s proven health benefits. After offering a novel reading of the Braidwood decision, this Article also shows how preventive health stigma surfaces in the legal treatment of other preventive measures, such as abortion pills, masking, and vaccines. Understanding how stigma attaches to preventive medicine constitutes an important step in understanding how law and prejudice can undermine health reform.

US and UK courts define religion as a belief system dealing with existential concerns, which is separable from politics, and need not be theistic. Where does this concept of religion come from? Some scholars trace it to the advent of the Protestant Reformation when religion became a matter of competing theological propositions. My analysis of both John Calvin and Roger Williams shows that those Protestant thinkers emphasized the view that religion is essentially a belief system. However, Protestantism cannot explain all of the features of the US and UK concept of religion. It is because of the liberal belief in individual rights and in popular sovereignty that early liberals like Roger Williams and contemporary courts embrace the separability of religion from politics. These courts also reject the view that religion is necessarily theistic given their liberal commitment to treating citizens that subscribe to certain non-theistic ideologies as equal citizens to citizens with theistic ideologies.