'Leaving Nothing to Chance'?: Joint Tenancies, The 'Right' of Survivorship and Unilateral Severance

The joint tenancy with its inherent right of survivorship is the most prevalent form of co-ownership in the common law world today. Most couples will be joint tenants of a family home, while relations (such as siblings) who purchase property together may opt for this arrangement. Inter vivos acquisitions aside, the huge intergenerational transfer of wealth within families on death can result in a joint tenancy, and it may also be a convenient estate planning device. The fact that property automatically vests in the surviving joint tenants on death is the reason why many people choose this form of co-ownership. However, there is one serious disadvantage. A joint tenancy is an inflexible form of landholding where relationships sour or family circumstances change over time, and co-owners want their respective `shares' of the property to pass to someone else on death. Where consensual severance is not possible, one joint tenant can sever unilaterally. The latter mechanism is vital in terms of giving effect to the wishes of the severing joint tenant, especially in situations of discord or a breakdown in relations with their fellow co-owners. However, unilateral severance also has serious implications for the non-severing joint tenant(s) who expected to inherit property through survivorship, and can impact significantly on ownership of the home and other family property. This article looks at unilateral severance as a means of subverting the right of survivorship. The focus is on personal and inter-family relationships, and the various legal issues and policy considerations associated with unilateral severance across the common law jurisdictions of Britain, Ireland, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. It assesses the various methods of effecting unilateral severance and proposes specific measures, as well as considering novel arguments for preventing unilateral severance based on contractual agreements to the contrary and proprietary estoppel.

Reflexivity, Scientificity and the Sociology of Religion: Pierre Bourdieu in Debate

This paper explores the relevance of Pierre Bourdieu’s ‘epistemic reflexivity’ for the sociology of religion, in particular by examining his neglected address to the French Association for the Sociology of Religion in 1982. Whilst sociologists of religion have addressed some issues of reflexivity in their practice, less attention has been paid to the crucial scientific requirement, highlighted by Bourdieu, to break from the ‘illusio’ of that field and thus avoid alignments with positions taken by religious actors themselves. As a result, many sociologists inevitably participate in religious contestations and stakes, whether or not they affirm or deny their own religious identification with those they study. Although Bourdieu’s address was a response to a particular national and historical form of the sociology of religion, we argue that it retains much significance today and may lead to fruitful debate within the discipline.

The right of access to a lawyer in terrorist cases

This is a survey of the applicable international human rights standards concerning the right which alleged terrorists have to access a lawyer.

Reva Siegel and the Role of Religion in Constructing the Meaning of ‘Human Dignity

The “religious understanding” of dignity is a topic of considerable complexity and is the subject of extensive scholarship. In this paper, I consider understandings of dignity that are currently under discussion in Roman Catholic circles, not least because Catholic discussions of dignity are often seen as influential in public policy and legal interpretation, directly and indirectly. I shall focus on one relatively neglected issue in legal scholarship: how scholars go about the task of identifying what a particular religion’s understanding of human dignity involves.
To illustrate the methodological problems that such an enterprise raises, I shall take one attempt by a scholar writing in the field of secular legal scholarship to describe Catholic understandings of dignity in the context of abortion and same-sex marriage. The discussion is that of Reva Siegel, an academic lawyer at Yale University; her recent analysis of differing understandings of dignity illustrates some of the issues that arise when the secular scholarly community addresses religious understandings of dignity.

A “Child’s Rights Perspective”: The “Right” of Children and Young People to Participate in Health Care Research

As all human beings are consumers of health care provision across the life span and in receipt of care delivered by accountable health care professionals, all should have the right to be involved in shaping the future of their own health care. Rights-based participation, when applied successfully, has the potential to inform and influence the delivery of child health care, the child’s experience of health care, plus children’s nursing education (Coyne & Gallagher, 2011). The “right” of every child and young person to participate in research that relates to their own health care is also sustained by the author’s lead position as a Senior Lecturer in Higher Education for pre-registration children’s nursing in Northern Ireland and the appreciation of their voice when practicing as a registered children’s nurse and ward sister. The report provides an insight into seminal work on human and child rights; the historical context of children in Western society, and the evolution of children’s nursing amid the child’s right to participate in shaping their own health care.