Online research in philosophy

The first text of Justinian’s sixth century Digest records that Ulpian, the leading lawyer from Syria and counsellor to successive emperors of the Severan age (AD 193-235), related the term ‘law’ to four elements: art, religion, ethics and philosophy.2 Law is the art of the good and equitable, of which lawyers can well be called priests. They cultivate justice and the knowledge of right and wrong, and aim, unless Ulpian is mistaken, at the true philosophy.3 He goes on to say that private law is collected from three sources: natural law,4 the law common to all communities (ius gentium) and the law specific to each community (civil law).5 Gaius, a generation earlier, listed two sources: the civil law of each community and the ius gentium.6 He recognized, however, the existence of natural law which, so far as performing a ‘natural obligation’ is concerned, cannot be changed by civil law.7 At times he identifies natural law with ius gentium.

Discusses the lack of American interest in learning about foreign civil procedure. Considers points where America might benefit from foreign experiences. Suggests significant differences in procedure can be attributed to emphasis on day-in-court thinking over reasoned decision thinking.

On normative order -- On institutional order-- Law and the constitutional state -- A problem : rules or habits? -- On persons -- Wrongs and duties -- Legal positions and relations : rights and obligations -- Legal relations and things : property -- Legal powers and validity -- Powers and public law : law and politics -- Constraints on power : fundamental rights -- Criminal law and civil society : law and morality -- Private law and civil society : law and economy -- Positive law and moral autonomy -- On law and justice -- Law and values : reflections on method.

The Scottish Parliament celebrates its tenth birthday in 2009. Enormous hopes attached to its creation and this chapter assesses what it has done for family law. Certainly, the Scottish Parliament has been busy, passing legislation reforming the birth status of children; the position of non-marital fathers; adoption law; child protection; marriage law; the grounds for divorce and civil partnership dissolution and the consequences thereof; and the position of non-marital cohabitants, both during the relationship and on its termination. In addition, it has co-operated in legislation passed at Westminster on gender recognition and the creation of civil partnerships and the statute currently in progress on assisted reproduction. The various reforms are assessed, using the criteria of equality, respect for diversity, empowerment and protection.

This paper examines some aspects of the boundary between law and fact in the common law. Part 1 looks at relevant procedural developments in English law from the medieval period to the nineteenth century. Part 2 discusses the contrasting views of Thayer and Holmes as to the roles of jury and judge in applying the law to the facts. Part 3 adverts to the consequences of the decline of the use of juries in civil cases in many jurisdictions.

This discussion paper deals with a well-known question in modern day international law: Can Western corporations be held accountable before civil courts in Western States for breaches of human rights taking place in States which lack effective protection of human rights and labour rights? It looks at the problem from a strictly European perspective and in this context deals with three questions. The first deals with the problem of classifying breaches of human rights which take place within a labour relation. The second focuses on the role the ECHR may play in establishing civil liability in European courts. How does international law in general and the Convention in particular affect international private law jurisdiction and applicable law in cases of transnational social liability? The third and final question concerns the recent adoption of the Rome II Regulation on the law applicable to non-contractual liability and its effect on transnational corporate liability.

Law and order ranks high among the values the State is thought to achieve. Civil disobedience is often condemned because it is held to threaten law and order. Several senses of 'order' are distinguished, which make clear why 'law' and 'order' are so often linked. It is then argued that the connection cannot always be made since the legal system may itself create disorder. Civil disobedience may contribute to greater order and a more stable legal system by helping to remove these causes of disorder. Thus, civil disobedience is sometimes justifiable in terms of its contribution to law and order.

This Article will demonstrate how, throughout the 20th century, American scholarship on Russian law has not progressed as a steady accumulation of facts, but instead has been driven by changing American political anxieties and hopes regarding Russia's political place in the world. Although such politicization might have been excusable when Russia lay closed to the West, it is unacceptable today, as there are now unprecedented opportunities to engage in empirical research on Russian law. To facilitate a more empirical and accurate understanding of Russian law, this Article will propose the creation of an ideal type model for Russia law that will operate much the way the civil law and common law ideal types do in classifying and comparing Western European and North American legal systems. Scholars should begin the construction of this ideal type by exploring whether Russian law is sufficiently different from the civil law family to merit another ideal type. This ideal type approach will normalize our understanding of Russian law, encouraging us to ask the same questions of Russia's legal system as we do of other European legal systems. Such normalization will also help us better understand contentious debates surrounding Russian law, including whether it is a Western style legal system, the effectiveness of rule of law promotion, and suitability of western legal transplants in the region.

Compared with scholarship in other conflicts topics, less attention has been paid to the interrelationship of jurisdiction and choice of law. It is generally agreed that as a matter of principle jurisdiction and choice of law are distinct issues and need different processes. The conceptual dichotomy is the foundation of the contemporary conflicts system, including the European harmonisation of private international law. The European jurisdiction rules in civil and commercial matters are contained in the Brussels regime, including Council Regulation 44/2001 and the Lugano Convention; the European choice of law in contracts is harmonised by the Rome Convention, which has been undergoing a process to be converted into a Council Regulation ("Rome I"). Although the legislators have held the willingness to create a systematic and congruent conflicts system, a close scrutiny of the texts of both regimes suggests insufficient consideration has actually been given to the implications of the development of one upon the other. This article aims to focus on the interrelationship of jurisdiction and choice of law in contracts by examining some key issues arising out of the current European context.