Sins of the Flesh: Zola, Naturalism and the Madeleine Redemption Narrative in Nineteenth-Century France

Mary Magdalene has endured over the centuries as a powerful icon for the redemption of the so-called sins of the flesh. In arguing that her appeal to writers was experienced no more keenly than in nineteenth-century France, this article reflects on the political, ideological and gender assumptions that are woven into the Madeleine narrative of redemption. It goes on to propose that, with the rise of the naturalist novel, relying on pseudo-scientific theories of pre-determination, the Madeleine myth is radically rewritten in Zola’s Madeleine Férat, an often neglected novel in which the Calvinist doctrine of original sin and predestination not only challenges the very notion of redemption from sexual waywardness, but inflects some of the defining principles of naturalism.

‘The Problem of the Future in Nineteenth-Century Spain’

This article examines the problems and paradoxes in the representation of the future in three nineteenth-century Spanish works: El futuro Madrid (1868) by Fernández de los Ríos, ‘Madrid en el siglo xxi’ (1847) by Neira de Mosquera, and Ni en la vida ni en la muerte by Juan Bautista Amorós (Silverio Lanza). While these texts demonstrate Spain’s participation in the general movement towards using the future as a setting for literary works, they do not corroborate the theory that the nineteenth century was a time of optimism and belief in the doctrine of Progress. Concepts derived from discussions of the future in the history of ideas, such as historia magistra vitae, are shown to be relevant to discussion of these futuristic fictions, in sometimes unexpected ways.

Legal liability of coaches: a UK perspective

Attracting more coaches is fundamental to achievement of the European dimension in sport and the further promotion of sport in the European Union. Given the emerging relationship between the law and sports coaching, recruitment of such volunteers may prove problematic. Accordingly, this article critically considers the legal liability of sports coaches. To inform this debate, the issue of negligent coaching is critically scrutinised from a UK perspective, uncovering a number of distinct legal vulnerabilities facing volunteer coaches. This includes the inherent limitations of ‘objective reasonableness’ when defining the standard of care required in the particular circumstances. More specifically, fuller analysis of the justification of customary practice, and the legal doctrine of in loco parentis, reveals important ramifications for all organisations providing training and support for coaches. In short, it is argued that proactively safeguarding coaches from professional liability should be a priority for national governing bodies, and, following the recently published EU Work Plan for Sport for 2014–2017, the Expert Group on Human Resource Management in Sport. Importantly, given the EU’s supporting, coordinating and supplementing competence in developing the European dimension in sport, a Commission funded project to address the implications of the ‘compensation culture’ in sport is also recommended.

Murray v McCullough (as Nominee on Behalf of the Trustees and on Behalf of the Board of Governors of Rainey Endowed School) [2016] NIQB 52

Considers the Northern Ireland Queen’s Bench Division ruling in Murray v McCullough concerning the duty of care incumbent upon the school with regard to the wearing of mouth guards by pupils when playing hockey. Comments on the limitations of the legal doctrine of in loco parentis in cases of professional negligence and, how ‘sports law’ jurisprudence might prove instructive in sports negligence cases.

Promises, Promises...Family Farms and Estoppel (Again)

Family farms are a fertile source of litigation, especially when it comes to succession planning and inter-generational transfers. The problems are obvious: large value assets, emotional ties to the land, a lack of retirement planning and the ‘older’ generation’s unwillingness to relinquish control, and managing the expectations of siblings or others who have worked on the farm. Recent years have seen a spate of estoppel cases involving farms in both Northern Ireland and England and Wales, brought by children, nephews, close friends and long-term partners who were promised or had expected to inherit farms. The recent decision of the English Court of Appeal in Davies v Davies is another example, this time involving an adult daughter who had worked on her parents’ farm for years in the belief that it would pass to her. When her parents changed their minds, this particular daughter brought a successful proprietary estoppel claim. The issue then turned to satisfying the claim, and what financial remedy the daughter was entitled to.

'American hegemony after September 11: Allies, rivals and contradictions'

11 September heralded and provided a pretext for a more aggressive but increasingly contradictory American hegemony. Some of the consequences are contrary to the United States' own interests. Its new doctrine of 'preemptive strike' against other sovereign states encourages similarly belligerent behaviour by other governments, and yet more terrorism by nonstate actors, the very threats which were to be eradicated by a re-asserted US hegemony. This essay focuses on three partly overlapping themes: different strategies towards allies - multilateral and unilateral; different forms of power - civil and military; and different ideologies of globalisation - neoliberal and neo-conservative. It argues that while US policy may oscillate between such poles, it often combines the different elements. The overall strategy of the Bush administration is best characterised as unilateral multilateralism. The main issue for US hegemonists is the ways in which their hegemony might best be exercised, maintained and strengthened vis à vis allies and rivals. But for a safer, more democratic world, the choice does not lie between one faction of US hegemonists and another: we need other alternatives such as cosmopolitan democracy and a genuine internationalist movement which would give it some much-needed substance.

Common Mistake in Contract Law

English law has long struggled to understand the effect of a fundamental common mistake in contract formation. Bell v Lever Brothers Ltd [1932] AC 161 recognises that a common mistake which totally undermines a contract renders it void. Solle v Butcher [1950] 1 KB 671 recognises a doctrine of 'mistake in equity' under which a serious common mistake in contract formation falling short of totally undermining the contract could give an adversely affected party the right to rescind the contract. This article accepts that the enormous difficulty in differentiating these two kinds of mistake justifies the insistence by the Court of Appeal in The Great Peace [2003] QB 679 that there can be only one doctrine of common mistake. However, the article proceeds to argue that where the risk of the commonly mistaken matter is not allocated by the contract itself a better doctrine would be that the contract is voidable.

Yeats's Eugenical and Psychical Aesthetics

It should never be forgotten that Yeats is perfectly capable of contradicting himself even about some of his most cherished speculations. Nevertheless, the theoretical aspect of his later work exhibits a marked internal coherence: it is not possible to separate his ideas about society, his theories about the spirit world, his doctrine of the image, his cyclical theory of history. It is for this reason that I have referred, in brief, to “Eugenical and Psychical Aesthetics.”

Commentary on Gyles v. Wilcox (1741)

Case in which Lord Hardwicke introduces the concept of the ‘fair abridgement', and which is generally regarded as the forerunner to the broader doctrine of ‘fair use' developed in the courts throughout the nineteenth century. The document includes two different reports of the decision, as well as an essay by Samuel Johnson on the right to abridge an author's work.
The commentary describes the background to the case, in particular the nature of periodical publication throughout the eighteenth century, the rise of the magazine format in the 1730s, as well as relevant case-law both prior to, and following, the decision. The commentary suggests that while the decision in Gyles can be understood as one guided by public interest arguments similar to those informing the rationale behind the Statute of Anne 1710 (that is, the encouragement of learning and production of useful books) (uk_1710), it can equally be regarded as one in which the court, in effect, expanded the rights of the copyright owner beyond the protections provided by the legislation.

The Application of the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in Freedom of Expression and Public Morality Cases

This paper discusses whether or not Strasbourg organs have created principled criteria governing the use of the doctrine within the context of free speech and public morals. The first part of the paper gives an overview of the doctrine and further examines how the doctrine has evolved within the European context. Part II focuses on the rationale behind the doctrine and discusses the legitimacy of the doctrine in light of its application to various forms of free speech. Part III covers one of the most problematic applications of the doctrine in matters concerning public morality, where Contracting States have a wide margin of appreciation. This part will discuss whether or not the “lack of European consensus” criterion is an elusive concept that might create a risk of abuse in the application of the doctrine. The paper concludes that while margin of appreciation today serves as a flexible instrument between the local necessities and the universal application of human rights, the imprecise and contradictory points might lead to its potential abuse that might endanger its future existence.

'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.

The Future of Preventive Wars: The Case of Iraq

Eight years have past since the devastating September 11 attacks, and the USA has engaged in two wars in the name of uprooting global ‘terrorism’ and providing security to American citizens. The Bush administration bequeathed a legacy of two ongoing wars and growing threats emerging from ‘terrorist’ acts. This article analyses the future of the preventive war doctrine, formulated by the Bush administration, under international law. The article thus explores whether the preventive war doctrine has the potential to set a customary precedence, or whether it merely constitutes a breach of international law.

The Contours of the Right to Self-defence: Is the Requirement of Imminence Merely a Translator for the Concept of Necessity?

The right to self-defence has lately been subjected to intense academic controversy, both at the domestic and international level. The debate is focused on the question of whether or not the requirement of imminence is merely a translator for the notion of necessity. At the domestic level, the debate has mainly been kindled by feminist scholars, who, in the context of the 'battered woman', argue that the requirement of imminence should be discarded from the contours of the self-defence doctrine. The purpose of this article is to prove the necessity of the imminence requirement as a litmus test to detect possible abuses of the self-defence doctrine.