The principle of legal certainty as a principle of economic efficiency

Legal certainty, a feature of the rule of law, constitutes a requirement for the operational necessities of market interactions. But, the compatibility of the principle of legal certainty with ideals such as liberalism and free market economy must not lead to the hastened conclusion that therefore the principle of legal certainty would be compatible and tantamount to the principle of economic efficiency. We intend to analyse the efficiency rationale of an important general principle of EU law—the principle of legal certainty. In this paper, we shall assert that not only does the EU legal certainty principle encapsulate an efficiency rationale, but most importantly, it has been interpreted by the ECJ as such. The economic perspective of the principle of legal certainty in the European context has, so far, never been adopted. Hence, we intend to fill in this gap and propose the representation of the principle of legal certainty as a principle of economic efficiency. After having deciphered the principle of legal certainty from a law and economics perspective (1), we shall delve into the jurisprudence of the ECJ so that the judicial reasoning of the Court as this reasoning proves the relevance of the proposed representation (2). Finally, we conclude in light of the findings of this paper (3).

Policy Solutions and International Perspectives on the Funding of Public Service Media Content for Children: A Report for Stakeholders

This project on Policy Solutions and International Perspectives on the Funding of Public Service Media Content for Children began on 8 February 2016 and concludes on 31 May 2016. Its outcomes contribute to the policy-making process around BBC Charter Review, which has raised concerns about the financial sustainability of UK-produced children’s screen content. The aim of this project is to evaluate different funding possibilities for public service children’s content in a more challenging and competitive multiplatform media environment, drawing on experiences outside the UK. The project addresses the following questions: • What forms of alternative funding exist to support public service content for children in a transforming multiplatform media environment? • What can we learn from the types of funding and support for children’s screen content that are available elsewhere in the world – in terms of regulatory foundations, administration, accountability, levels of funding, amounts and types of content supported? • How effective are these funding systems and funding sources for supporting domestically produced content (range and numbers of projects supported; audience reach)? This stakeholder report constitutes the main outcome of the project and provides an overview and analysis of alternatives for supporting and funding home-grown children’s screen content across both traditional broadcasting outlets and emerging digital platforms. The report has been made publicly available, so that it can inform policy work and responses to the UK Government White Paper, A BBC for the Future, published by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport in May 2016.

You Can't Always Get What You Want: A Gewirthian Model of Rational Autonomy in Abortion

The law regulating the availability of abortion is problematic both legally and morally. It is dogmatic in its requirements of women and doctors and ignorant of would-be fathers. Practically, its usage is liberal - with s1(1)(a) Abortion Act 1967 treated as a ‘catch all’ ground - it allows abortion on demand. Yet this is not reflected in the ‘law’. Against this outdated legislation I propose a model of autonomy which seeks to tether our moral concerns with a new legal approach to abortion. I do so by maintaining that a legal conception of autonomy is derivable from the categorical imperative resulting from Gewirth’s argument to the Principle of Generic Consistency: Act in accordance with the generic rights of your recipients as well as of yourself. This model of Gewirthian Rational Autonomy, I suggest, provides a guide for both public and private notions of autonomy and how our autonomous interests can be balanced across social structures in order to legitimately empower choice. I claim, ultimately, that relevant rights in the context of abortion are derivable from this model.

The Big Society and the conjunction of crises: Justifying welfare reform and undermining social housing

This article considers the idea of the ‘Big Society’ as part of a long-standing debate about the regulation of housing. Situating the concept within governance theory, the article considers how the idea of the Big Society was used by the UK coalition government to justify a radical restructuring of welfare provision. The fundamental rationale for this transformation was that the UK was forced to respond to a conjunction of crises in morality, the state, ideology and economics. Representing a fundamental departure from earlier attempts at welfare reform, the government has undertaken a reform programme which has had a severe effect on the social housing sector. The article argues that the result has been a combination of libertarianism and authoritarianism, alongside an intentionally more destructive combination of stigmatization and fatalism. The consequence is to undermine the principle of social housing which will not only prove detrimental for residents but raises significant dilemmas for those working in the housing sector.