Who deserves credit for epistemic successes, and who is to blame for epistemic failures? Extreme views, which would place responsibility either solely on the individual or solely on the individual’s surrounding environment, are not plausible. Recently, progress has been made toward articulating virtue epistemology as a suitable middle ground. A socio-environmentally oriented virtue epistemology can recognize that an individual’s traits play an important role in shaping what that individual believes, while also recognizing that some of the most efficacious individual traits have to do with how individuals structure their epistemic environments and how they respond to information received within these environments. I contribute to the development of such an epistemology by introducing and elucidating the virtue of epistemic exactingness, which is characterized by a motivation to regulate the epistemically significant conduct of others.

An abundance and diverse range of prehistoric fishing practices was revealed during excavations between 2012 and 2022 at the construction site of the Femern Belt Tunnel, linking the islands of Lolland (Denmark) and Femern (Germany). The waterlogged parts of the prehistoric Syltholm Fjord yielded well preserved organic materials, including the remains of wooden fish traps and weirs, and numerous vertical stakes and posts driven into the former seabed – evidence of long term fishing practices using stationary wooden structures from the Mesolithic to the Bronze Age (c. 4700–900 cal BC). Here, we present the results of a detailed study on these stationary wooden fishing structures, making this the most comprehensive and detailed description of prehistoric passive fishing practices in Syltholm Fjord to date. The exceptional scale of the excavated area (57 ha) and abundance of organic materials encountered during excavations provides us with a rare opportunity to identify individual weir systems and information on their construction, maintenance, and use. To contextualise further, we provide an up-to-date compilation of comparable finds in the Danish archaeological record, including a dataset of directly dated specimens, based on both published and unpublished sources. Our results show that stationary wooden fishing structures are an invaluable archaeological resource, and their study, combining landscape reconstruction, ethnographic analogy, and fishing technology, together with artefactual evidence and radiocarbon dating, allows us to reconstruct prehistoric fishing strategies in depth. Due to the long chronology and diversity of the study materials, our results complement previous research on the many nuances and regional specificities of the persistence of fishing practices in the western Baltic Sea over time, despite introductions of new cultures, populations, and livelihoods. Finally, we emphasise that the Neolithisation process in Northern Europe was not as straightforward and uniform in terms of subsistence as commonly assumed.

This is the third series in the annual Menzies Lecture series. The lectures were delivered at the University of Virginia and at William and Mary College Williamsburg on 8 and 12 October 1987.

The Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) (‘the Act’) pt VIB establishes a framework for the registration and enforcement of certified agreements, which are collective industrial instruments that regulate the employment relationship for a significant proportion of the workforce. The Act provides for agreements between unions of employees and employers and agreements between employers and employees directly. A certified agreement comes into effect only after it is approved by the employer and a ‘valid majority’ of its employees and is registered by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (‘the Commission’). The significance of registration of a certified agreement lies in the imposition of legally enforceable rights and obligations upon the parties bound by the agreement. One of the most significant obligations imposed on the parties bound by a registered certified agreement is the obligation not to engage in industrial action for the duration of the agreement, which is ordinarily no longer than three years.

It is at last being recognized that there is need to reform the antiquated and costly apparatus of administrative law that we inherited frum England. Despite murmurs of dissatisfaction extending over many decades all that has been achieved so far by legislation amounts to little more than a tinkering with the machinery of adjudication in marginal areas. The problem is an old one. The public interest demands that administration, including the provision of multifarious services that are crucial to the community, be carried out as efficiently as possible. Equally the public interest demands that individual rights and expectations should not be overridden by an uncaring bureaucracy.

It is a great privilege for me to be here today at this College, which had become distinguished as a seat of learning long before my own country had first been settled by English-speaking people. The occasion for my presence is to deliver one of a series of lectures given in honour of Sir Robert Gordon Menzies, who was Prime Minister of Australia from 1949 to 1966 and who, more relevantly for today’s occasion, was both a distinguished constitutional lawyer and a lover of Virginia.

The theory of Montesquieu, that to secure liberty it is necessary to separate the three main functions of the state — the legislative, the executive and the judicial — has had a profound and lasting influence on political thought. James Madison, who expounded the theory with such effect in No. 47 of The Federalist papers, regarded the separation of powers as the most sacred principle of the United States Constitution.

Internet tech giants are regulated by multiple overlapping yet distinct pieces of EU legislation that establish a range of substantive digital rights for internet users, and varying legal opportunity structures for strategic litigation within their enforcement architecture. My Article focuses on the digital rights and enforcement architecture of the EU’s new Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act compared to the General Data Protection Regulation. Consideration of key strategic litigation concerning the existing Regulation informs my exploration of opportunities and barriers for strategic litigation under the new Acts. Analysis of these strategic litigation opportunities necessarily encompasses the EU’s new regime for mass claims under the Representative Action Directive, and interaction between internet users’ digital rights and consumer protection laws. I contend that the new Acts comparatively centralize public enforcement power in the European Commission, marginalizing civil society, and effectively precluding most strategic litigation by civil society with regard to public enforcement. Furthermore, the new Acts could increase regulatory fragmentation and the risk of legal incoherence by establishing additional regulatory authorities and competences alongside existing institutions and regimes. I argue that private enforcement strategic litigation against internet tech giants could empower civil society to influence the development of digital rights. Private enforcement strategic litigation could also aid legal coherence as an enforcement mechanism that allows multiple areas of law to be raised and addressed at the same time, rather than in silos. However there are considerable barriers to such litigation, including legal questions such as cross-border jurisdiction and standing, and the resources needed for effective strategic litigation. Overall, concerning legal analysis for strategic litigation, my article demonstrates that we must consider both public and private dimensions of enforcement architecture across multiple area of law, taking into account the different power dynamics of different enforcement mechanisms, to understand the opportunities for strategic litigation to advance digital rights in the internet attention economy.

For centuries the superior courts have wielded a judicial big stick labelled ‘jurisdictional error’ in order to control and supervise the activities of administrators and inferior tribunals; moreover the stick has been brandished in the face of parliaments which have indicated fairly clearly that they intended the particular inferior body to be free of judicial interference. The doctrine of review for jurisdictional error is well established; but there is widespread criticism of its operation. The distinction between findings of inferior bodies which are ‘collateral’ to the merits and thus reviewable and those which are not, a distinction which is basic to the doctrine, has been described as one of the ‘apparently meaningless categories’ of legal reference. Particularly effective and persistent criticism has been mounted by D. M. Gordon. In his view the distinction between jurisdictional facts and other facts cannot be maintained. He is completely opposed to any acceptance of the idea that the courts should be free to manipulate jurisdictional error to control the activities of inferior bodies on policy grounds alone; arbitrariness and uncertainty have no place in the law of judicial review.

In resolving disputes, the High Court of Australia sometimes has cause to expound upon the relationship between the Australian State and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. This article examines overblown and disingenuous New Right criticism directed towards the High Court in the aftermath of judgments deemed favourable to Indigenous Australians. It finds two themes recur in these attacks: that the High Court’s decision is undemocratic, or that the High Court has acted illegitimately. This article demonstrates that such claims are legally baseless. Drawing on quotes from major players in this debate, the article argues further that beneath this criticism lies a deeper angst over the sovereign foundations of Australia; an anxiety that reappears in arguments against contemporary calls for constitutional reform. As Australia nonetheless inches closer towards constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, the ferocity of New Right censure suggests that the movement may fear the Australian people do not share their same suspicions.

A method is developed for extending any type of factor solution to new tests. The theoretical basis for this approximating scheme is thoroughly investigated, and then a simplification in the technique is introduced for practical purposes. An example is presented which illustrates the procedure of extending a factor solution to three new tests simultaneously.

A nonparametric test of dispersion with paired replicates data is described which involves jackknifing logarithmic transformations of the ratio of variance estimates for the pre- and post-treatment populations. Results from a Monte Carlo simulation show that the test performs well under Ho and has good power properties. Examples are given of applying the procedure on psychiatric data.

The Doolittle, Wherry-Doolittle, and Summerfield-Lubin methods of multiple correlation are compared theoretically as well as by an application in which a set of predictors is selected. Wherry's method and the Summerfield-Lubin method are shown to be equivalent; the relationship of these methods to the Doolittle method is indicated. The Summerfield-Lubin method, because of its compactness and ease of computation, and because of the meaningfulness of the interim computational values, is recommended as a convenient least squares method of multiple correlation and predictor selection.

A test for multisample sphericity based on the efficient scores criterion is obtained as an alternative to the likelihood ratio test developed by Mendoza.

Two systems of factor analysis—factoring correlations with units in the diagonal cells and factoring correlations with communalities in the diagonal cells—are considered in relation to the commonly used statistical procedure of separating a set of data (scores) into two or more parts. It is shown that both systems of factor analysis imply the separation of the observed data into two orthogonal parts. The matrices used to achieve the separation differ for the two systems of factor analysis.