Next Issue
Previous Issue

Table of Contents

Laws, Volume 7, Issue 3 (September 2018)

  • Issues are regarded as officially published after their release is announced to the table of contents alert mailing list.
  • You may sign up for e-mail alerts to receive table of contents of newly released issues.
  • PDF is the official format for papers published in both, html and pdf forms. To view the papers in pdf format, click on the "PDF Full-text" link, and use the free Adobe Readerexternal link to open them.
View options order results:
result details:
Displaying articles 1-8
Export citation of selected articles as:
Open AccessArticle Tax Evasion and Incomplete Tax Transparency
Received: 1 July 2018 / Accepted: 16 July 2018 / Published: 23 August 2018
Viewed by 782 | PDF Full-text (249 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
This article discusses the impact of incomplete tax transparency on tax evasion. While FATCA and CRS address some forms of tax evasion, tax evaders may still use other tax evasion opportunities. Anti-tax evasion measures might not be effective or cost-efficient if tax evaders
[...] Read more.
This article discusses the impact of incomplete tax transparency on tax evasion. While FATCA and CRS address some forms of tax evasion, tax evaders may still use other tax evasion opportunities. Anti-tax evasion measures might not be effective or cost-efficient if tax evaders can continue evading taxes through alternative tax evasion channels. Automatic exchange of information (AEOI) might also exacerbate the social harm from tax evasion if tax evaders take costly actions to avoid reporting. This article explores policy responses that could better address the problems created by incomplete tax transparency. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue International Tax Law and Policy)
Open AccessArticle Towards Changing Compulsory Community Mental Health Treatment in New Zealand: Shining Light on How Community Treatment Orders Are Produced
Received: 5 March 2018 / Revised: 3 August 2018 / Accepted: 6 August 2018 / Published: 14 August 2018
Viewed by 877 | PDF Full-text (1703 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
In this paper, we use a constructed scenario to illustrate making a compulsory community treatment order in the New Zealand context. Drawing on publicly available documentation, we outline the existing mental health law framework that produces community treatment orders and emerging complex problems
[...] Read more.
In this paper, we use a constructed scenario to illustrate making a compulsory community treatment order in the New Zealand context. Drawing on publicly available documentation, we outline the existing mental health law framework that produces community treatment orders and emerging complex problems of their high, increasing and disproportionate use. We provide examples of human rights, indigenous and clinical effectiveness research that appear to be destabilising the existing mental health law framework. We argue assemblage theory (Deleuze & Guattari) is a useful theoretical tool to unpack the making and continued use of compulsory community treatment orders in the context of complex destabilising and stabilising influences. This is followed by an outline of the concept of assemblage with reference to the constructed scenario, focusing on processes, practices, places, types of knowledge, roles, documents and how they connect to produce certain effects that both enable and constrain participants’ actions. In the New Zealand context, we examine the potential for assemblage theory to generate new ways of thinking about compulsory mental health treatment in community settings by challenging perceived limitations and revealing opportunities for participants to act otherwise. We conclude with a proposal for further research shaped by this theory that explores the making of actual community treatment orders to reveal where there is potential to change existing relations towards more positive effects for participants. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Concerns, Contradictions and Reality of Mental Health Law)
Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle Here to Stay: The Evolution of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights in International Human Rights Law
Received: 8 May 2018 / Revised: 18 July 2018 / Accepted: 3 August 2018 / Published: 7 August 2018
Viewed by 680 | PDF Full-text (275 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
Sexual and reproductive health and rights have increasingly been recognized in the international arena, but their evolution and the definition of their scope and content have not been received without controversy. From population control to human rights, from demographers’ competence to governmental prerogative,
[...] Read more.
Sexual and reproductive health and rights have increasingly been recognized in the international arena, but their evolution and the definition of their scope and content have not been received without controversy. From population control to human rights, from demographers’ competence to governmental prerogative, from couples’ rights to universal rights, this article will present an overview of the evolution of sexual and reproductive rights in the international arena. The development of these rights cannot be read in isolation but must be analyzed together with the broader landscape that hosts social and political movements, ideologies, religions, and revolutions. Understanding sexual and reproductive health and rights as historical creations, rather than timeless givens, enables us to devise historically informed instruments and policies that are more likely to succeed. This article contributes to the scholarly literature by providing an overview of past trends and of the conditions under which they occurred. Retracing the history of these rights enables us to clarify the scope of the state’s obligations to realize the right to sexual and reproductive health, to improve monitoring opportunities, and to ensure accountability for violations. This article explores these (and forthcoming) developments contributing to identify the existing obligations, the relevant actors, and the challenges that lie ahead. Full article
Open AccessArticle The Rights Network: 100 Years of the Hohfeldian Rights Analytic
Received: 4 May 2018 / Revised: 10 July 2018 / Accepted: 11 July 2018 / Published: 16 July 2018
Viewed by 569 | PDF Full-text (284 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
This paper sets out to reconsider the Hohfeldian framework of rights in celebration of the centenary anniversary of their original publication. It begins by conceptualizing each of the Hohfeldian incidents or rights before outlining the molecular or complex structure of rights to “things”.
[...] Read more.
This paper sets out to reconsider the Hohfeldian framework of rights in celebration of the centenary anniversary of their original publication. It begins by conceptualizing each of the Hohfeldian incidents or rights before outlining the molecular or complex structure of rights to “things”. I adopt a broad use of the term of “right” and apply it to Legal, Moral, Equitable and Human conceptions and constructions. It sets out an argument in favor of a further definitional model—in addition to Hohfeld’s scheme of opposites and correlatives—which focuses on the function of these conceptual rights. Finally, it sets out to provide a model of rights as forming a network within a given community and the exponential growth of “rights-connections” within an expanding community. This is used to frame responses to common criticisms of “rights talk” and the balance of benefits and burdens on account of such a rights network. Ultimately, this paper seeks to demonstrate the benefit, and indeed necessity, of the Hohfeldian model in any discussion of rights. Without it “rights talk” is debased and impoverished. Full article
Open AccessArticle Donald Trump and Institutional Change Strategies
Received: 5 April 2018 / Revised: 16 June 2018 / Accepted: 18 June 2018 / Published: 6 July 2018
Viewed by 588 | PDF Full-text (262 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
This article integrates three fields of study: the “regime politics” paradigm in law and courts, the “institutional change” approach in public policy, and the “unilateral presidency” literature. In doing so, we show how law, politics, and public policy are inextricably linked, and that
[...] Read more.
This article integrates three fields of study: the “regime politics” paradigm in law and courts, the “institutional change” approach in public policy, and the “unilateral presidency” literature. In doing so, we show how law, politics, and public policy are inextricably linked, and that researchers can borrow assumptions, methods, and theories from a variety of fields. We use Donald Trump’s early presidency to show how political actors (especially presidents) can use four different change strategies. In the case of Trump, we highlight: shifting of decision-making authority via insurrectionary displacement; the elimination of the individual mandate via subversive layering; a change in drone use policy via opportunistic conversion; and a gradual desensitization and change in school choice education policy via symbiotic drift. We conclude by offering lessons for all three literatures we incorporate, as well as a way forward for studying a presidential administration that many find difficult to analyze. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Intersection between Law, Politics and Public Policy)
Open AccessArticle Paradigm Shift or Paradigm Paralysis? National Mental Health and Capacity Law and Implementing the CRPD in Scotland
Received: 4 April 2018 / Revised: 15 June 2018 / Accepted: 18 June 2018 / Published: 29 June 2018
Viewed by 813 | PDF Full-text (233 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) highlights the need to actively remove obstacles to, and promote, the full and equal enjoyment of human rights by persons with disabilities. This is challenging us to revisit existing conceptions about
[...] Read more.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) highlights the need to actively remove obstacles to, and promote, the full and equal enjoyment of human rights by persons with disabilities. This is challenging us to revisit existing conceptions about what is genuine equal and non-discriminatory enjoyment of human rights by persons with cognitive, intellectual and psychosocial disabilities and to accept that a real and fundamental culture change is required in order to achieve this. Whilst many states are seeking to address CRPD requirements in law and policy, including those identified in its Article 12, it is arguable that these do not go far enough in order to secure this culture change. This article considers three issues that need to be resolved as part of the process of achieving this paradigm shift, namely capacity assessments as thresholds for involuntary interventions, authorising involuntary interventions and support for the exercise of legal capacity, both generally and in the particular context of Scotland’s mental health and capacity laws. In doing so, it argues that it is debatable whether the CRPD paradigm shift can be realistically achieved by simply adapted or supplementing current legal and policy models. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Concerns, Contradictions and Reality of Mental Health Law)
Open AccessConference Report A Primer on Disability Discrimination in Higher Education
Received: 15 March 2018 / Revised: 31 May 2018 / Accepted: 25 June 2018 / Published: 28 June 2018
Viewed by 635 | PDF Full-text (281 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
This article provides an overview of key issues and a focus on some of the most significant and important recent developments that should be given a high priority by university attorneys and higher education administrators and policymakers. It emphasizes the role that administrators
[...] Read more.
This article provides an overview of key issues and a focus on some of the most significant and important recent developments that should be given a high priority by university attorneys and higher education administrators and policymakers. It emphasizes the role that administrators responsible for facilitating or coordinating disability services on campus can play in ensuring that faculty members, staff members, and other administrators have the knowledge and tools to ensure access and also to avoid liability to the institution. Major changes in the Trump administration and Congress may signal changes that could affect disability discrimination issues on campus. These changes include changed regulatory guidance, reduced appropriations (including ripple effects from funding for veterans and vocational rehabilitation), and enforcement approaches. While repeal of the ADA is unlikely, regulatory activities might affect its impact. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Law and Higher Education)
Open AccessArticle Copyright User Rights and Remedies: An Access to Justice Perspective
Received: 19 April 2018 / Revised: 31 May 2018 / Accepted: 11 June 2018 / Published: 27 June 2018
Viewed by 703 | PDF Full-text (301 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
In contemporary copyright law, there is an ongoing debate around the nature and scope of the rights users should have to copyright works, exacerbated by ongoing technological developments. Within that debate, this article queries the value of looking at the remedies users may
[...] Read more.
In contemporary copyright law, there is an ongoing debate around the nature and scope of the rights users should have to copyright works, exacerbated by ongoing technological developments. Within that debate, this article queries the value of looking at the remedies users may have against copyright holders restricting their legitimate uses of works, as a means to further elucidate the nature and scope of user rights. While there is some value in looking at remedies to situate copyright user rights, an access to justice perspective to rights and remedies suggests that such approach may be too limiting with respect to the position of potential claimants in a legal system. On that basis, this paper identifies structural deficiencies of copyright user rights and proposes an analytical framework towards achieving greater “justice for users” both in the realm of public law and private law. Full article
Back to Top