Conflicting obligations: Pufendorf, Leibniz and Barbeyrac on civil authority

Barbeyrac's republication of and commentary on Leibniz' attack on Pufendorf's natural-law doctrine is often seen as symptomatic of the failure of all three early moderns to solve a particular moral-philosophical problem: that of the relationship between civil authority and morality. Making use of the first English translation of Barbeyrac's work, this article departs from the usual view by arguing that here we are confronted by three conflicting constructions of civil obligation, arising not from the common intellectual terrain of moral philosophy, but from divergent religious and political cultures. If this approach makes the three constructions less susceptible to theoretical reconciliation, then it opens them to a more revealing historical investigation, in terms of the particular religious and political circumstances in which they arose, and which they were designed to address. The result is that these early modern struggles over the nature of civil obligation confront us again as unfinished historical business.

Disclosure of proxy voting information by Australian managed investment schemes

The US Securities and Exchange Commission requires registered management investment companies to disclose how they vote proxies relating to portfolio securities they hold. The primary purpose of this rule is to enable fund investors to monitor the role of institutional shareholders in the corporate governance practices of public companies. In Australia, despite reform proposals, there are no regulations requiring institutional investors to report proxy voting procedures and practices. There is little evidence of voluntary disclosure of proxy voting by Australian managed investment schemes in equities, indicating that there are costs involved in such disclosure.

Consumer credit code disclosure: Does it work?

Since 1996 all consumer credit transactions in Australia have been regulated by the Consumer Credit Code. The principal means by which the Code purports to protect consumers and prevent market failure is a detailed and prescriptive disclosure regime. There has been little empirical work done on whether or not such disclosure actually improves consumers’ understanding of their credit contracts. By exposing participants to typical consumer credit documents, this research discovered quite poor comprehension of important features of the relevant transactions. Most significantly, there appeared to be little difference in comprehension when the consumers read contracts which complied with the disclosure requirements of the Code, and when they read contracts which did not. These results cast doubt on the effectiveness of the Code disclosure regime.

The role of avoidance coping in the disclosure of trauma

Little research has been undertaken to examine the empirical basis of commonly applied methods of posttrauma intervention. We propose that Pennebaker's work on structured disclosure of trauma provides a suitable analogue to explore questions of interest. The present study asks whether avoidance coping is likely to interfere with abbreviated disclosure of traumatic experiences. Subjects were 118 college students randomly allocated to either a one-session or four-session written trauma-disclosure condition. At 2 months postdisclosure, subjects with high avoidance coping within the one-session condition exhibited significantly more trauma-specific and physical symptoms than all other subjects. Avoidance coping significantly predicted trauma-specific symptoms at 2 months. These findings suggest that single session traumatic disclosure may not be useful for individuals with an avoidance style of coping.

Logic of Violations: A gentzen systems for reasoning with contrary-to-duty obligations

In this paper we present a Gentzen system for reasoning with contrary-to-duty obligations. The intuition behind the system is that a contrary-to-duty is a special kind of normative exception. The logical machinery to formalise this idea is taken from substructural logics and it is based on the definition of a new non-classical connective capturing the notion of reparational obligation. Then the system is tested against well-known contrary-to-duty paradoxes.