Capitalising on the conceptual divide: access to public and private justice in children's proceedings

This article argues that the concept of a public/private divide is inappropriate in the context of children's proceedings in Northern Ireland. It highlights the problem by examining policy proposals in respect of legal aid/services, which have been structured and validated by the concept. A spectral model for understanding children's proceedings is proffered by way of a proposed replacement.

Display At Your Own Risk: An experimental exhibition of digital cultural heritage

Display At Your Own Risk is a research-led exhibition experiment concerned with the use and reuse of digital surrogates of public domain works of art produced by cultural heritage institutions of international repute. This publication is issued in conjunction with the open source exhibition, available at: displayatyourownrisk.org.

Display At Your Own Risk

Display At Your Own Risk (DAYOR) is a research-led exhibition experiment featuring digital surrogates of public domain works of art produced by cultural heritage institutions of international repute. The project includes a gallery exhibition, an open source version of that exhibition intended for public use, and two online publications: the Exhibition Catalogue, and a companion Metadata Book.

Introduction: dispersed minorities and non-territorial autonomy

The concept of non-territorial autonomy gives rise to at least two important questions: the range of functional areas over which autonomy extends, and the extent to which this autonomy is indeed non-territorial. A widely used early description significantly labelled this ‘national cultural autonomy’, implying that its focus is mainly on cultural matters, such as language, religion, education and family law. In many of the cases that are commonly cited, ‘autonomy’ may not even extend this far: its most visible expression is the existence of separate electoral registers or quotas for the various groups. Part of the dilemma lies in the difficulty of devolving substantial power on a non-territorial basis: to the extent that devolved institutions are state-like, they ideally require a defined territory. Ethnic groups, however, vary in the extent to which they are territorially concentrated, and therefore in the degree to which any autonomous arrangements for them are territorial or non-territorial. This article explores the dilemma generated by this tension between ethnic geography (pattern of ethnic settlement) and political autonomy (degree of selfrule), and introduces a set of case studies where the relationship between these two features is discussed further: the Ottoman empire and its successor states, the Habsburg monarchy, the Jewish minorities of Europe, interwar Estonia, contemporary Belgium, and two indigenous peoples, the Sa´mi in Norway and the Maori in New Zealand.

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.