Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

19 results

  • Introduction

  • Edited by Edward S. Dove, University of Edinburgh, Niamh Nic Shuibhne, University of Edinburgh
  • Book:
    Law and Legacy in Medical Jurisprudence
    Published online:
    23 December 2021
    Print publication:
    10 March 2022, pp 1-20

  • Summary

    Graeme Laurie stepped down from the Chair in Medical Jurisprudence at the University of Edinburgh in 2019. This edited collection pays tribute to his extraordinary contributions to the field. Graeme has often spoken about the importance of ‘legacy’ in academic work and has forged a remarkable intellectual legacy of his own, notably through his work on genetic privacy, human tissue and information governance, and the regulatory salience of the concept of liminality. The chapters in this volume animate the concept of legacy as a lens of analysis for the study and practice of medical jurisprudence. In this light, legacy reveals characteristics of both benefit and burden, as both a facilitator of and an encumbrance to the development of law, policy and regulation. Overall, the contributions reconcile the ideas of legacy and responsiveness and show that both dimensions are critical to achieve and sustain the health of medical jurisprudence itself as a dynamic, interdisciplinary and policy-engaged field of thinking.

Law and Legacy in Medical Jurisprudence
  • Essays in Honour of Graeme Laurie
  • Edited by Edward S. Dove, Niamh Nic Shuibhne
  • Published online:
    23 December 2021
    Print publication:
    10 March 2022
  • Graeme Laurie stepped down from the Chair in Medical Jurisprudence at the University of Edinburgh in 2019. This edited collection pays tribute to his extraordinary contributions to the field. Graeme often spoke about the importance of 'legacy' in academic work and forged a remarkable intellectual legacy of his own, notably through his work on genetic privacy, human tissue and information governance, and the regulatory salience of the concept of liminality. The essays in this volume animate the concept of legacy to analyse the study and practice of medical jurisprudence. In this light, legacy reveals characteristics of both benefit and burden, as both an encumbrance to and facilitator of the development of law, policy and regulation. The contributions reconcile the ideas of legacy and responsiveness and show that both dimensions are critical to achieve and sustain the health of medical jurisprudence itself as a dynamic, interdisciplinary and policy-engaged field of thinking.

  • 18 - Consensus as Challenge and Retraction of Rights

  • from Part III - Consensus Analysis Outside the ECHR System
  • Edited by Panos Kapotas, University of Portsmouth, Vassilis P. Tzevelekos, University of Liverpool
  • Book:
    Building Consensus on European Consensus
    Published online:
    04 January 2019
    Print publication:
    17 January 2019, pp 421-447

  • Summary

    The European Court of Human Rights invokes consensus primarily to identify a threshold for extending the margin of appreciation or, conversely, reserving substantive interpretative authority at central judicial level. In that context, consensus is a determinant of the relevant law. In contrast, for European Union (EU) citizenship law, consensus arguably presents a challenge to how rights are protected. Citizenship case law on the conditions governing access to social benefits is used as an illustration of legal change with consequences of rights retraction to investigate the legal considerations that should apply in such situations. Irrespective of what specific rights are being looked at, or whether in European Convention on Human Rights or EU law, there is a shared challenge: how to manage fundamental questioning of and uncertainty around the purpose of institutions beyond the State? In the project of shaping rights over time, an important theme therefore bonds the work of the Strasbourg and Luxembourg courts; it is no easy task to determine when consensus amounts to the exercise of leadership, on the one hand, or to its abrogation, on the other. However, it is also argued that consensus is not the appropriate tool to resolve this critical question.

  • Derogating from the Free Movement of Persons: When can EU Citizens be Deported?

  • Niamh Nic Shuibhne
  • Journal:
    Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies / Volume 8 / 2006
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    27 October 2017, pp. 187-227

  • Ten years ago, the Bayerisches Landessozialgericht referred four questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling; the resulting judgment on María Martínez Sala’s entitlement to a child-raising allowance finally yanked the concept of Union citizenship from its sluggish hinterland in the EC Treaty and launched the Court and the Community legislature on a mission—to uncover the substantive content and scope of citizenship, and to realise its potential as an autonomous rights-giving force. The intervening decade has seen enthusiastic, if not always coherent, progression of this vocation, and thereby renewed animation of Community law on the free movement of persons. Much work in this field seeks to plot the evolving rights for EU citizens; but what about the position of the Member States? Their capacity to determine and manage their own immigration rules had already been eroded by ‘traditional’ Community law on workers, establishment and services.

  • 5 - EU citizenship after Lisbon

  • Edited by Diamond Ashiagbor, University of London, Nicola Countouris, University College London, Ioannis Lianos, University College London
  • Book:
    The European Union after the Treaty of Lisbon
    Published online:
    05 June 2012
    Print publication:
    16 April 2012, pp 136-155

  • Summary

    Introduction

    EU citizenship, so far at least, has been mostly effective as a legal construct. Its substance has emerged primarily through case law on the rights to free movement and residence, much of which has been codified in Directive 2004/38. The other Treaty provisions linked expressly to EU citizenship outline a number of political rights, including municipal and European Parliament electoral rights.

    The Lisbon Treaty did not engage radically with these formal aspects of EU citizenship. There has been some restructuring to create what is now Part Two of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), making an express linkage between the prohibition on nationality discrimination, action to combat other forms of discrimination, and the primary rights of EU citizenship. In most substantive respects, the Treaty rights already attached to EU citizenship are reproduced in Articles 20–25 TFEU, although there are some innovations too. The first part of this chapter goes through relevant Treaty on European Union (TEU) and Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) provisions and outlines any changes effected through the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty.

  • Minority Language Rights

  • Pádraig Ó Riagáin, Niamh Nic Shuibhne
  • Journal:
    Annual Review of Applied Linguistics / Volume 17 / March 1997
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    16 October 2009, pp. 11-29

  • Contests over human rights as claims or entitlements to state assistance are how a major, if relatively recent, feature of the socio-political processes and institutions, of modern societies (Turner 1993). Within this wider debate about human rights, the subject of minority rights has long been of concern (Dinstein and Tabory 1992, Sigler 1983). A widely held, but not unanimous, view has emerged which argues that minorities have group or collective rights which cannot be reduced to their human rights as individuals. Linguistic and cultural rights are seen by many scholars as two such overlapping dimensions of collective minority rights (de Varennes 1996, Kymlicka 1995a, Phillipson and Skutnabb-Kangas 1995). In a world of multicultural and multilingual states, so the argument runs, these collective rights can only be guaranteed by the active involvement of states in the implementation of policies which support linguistic and cultural rights, just as in the case of more universally recognized and accepted social and economic rights (Stavenhagen 1990).