Land, rights and the gift: the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and the negotiation of citizenship

The Countryside and Rights of Way Act came into force at the end of 2000 with,as part of its content, new provisions relating to public access to the English and Welsh countryside. In this paper we review the main elements of the Act and assess its meaning in relation to citizenship, territoriality and the place of land in English law and society. We invoke Mauss’s (1954)concept of Gift to explain the process of brokerage being made over access and rights in the countryside. In conclusion we reflect on the Act as being indicative of a wider move towards Bromley’s (1998)post-feudal scenario for land and its governance.

Access to the countryside of England and Wales: popular leisure; commodified culture

Risk and uncertainty are, to say the least, poorly considered by most individuals involved in real estate analysis - in both development and investment appraisal. Surveyors continue to express 'uncertainty' about the value (risk) of using relatively objective methods of analysis to account for these factors. These methods attempt to identify the risk elements more explicitly. Conventionally this is done by deriving probability distributions for the uncontrolled variables in the system. A suggested 'new' way of "being able to express our uncertainty or slight vagueness about some of the qualitative judgements and not From its modern origins, associated with the urbanising effect of industrialisation, walking has remained a popular form of outdoor recreation. It has, furthermore, remained an important site of class struggle, with the 'landless' seeking to establish their moral 'citizen' right to roam over open country in contradistinction to the 'landed', who have successfully limited this right to legally-defined public rights of way. In the face of declining farm incomes, however, farmers and landowners have, apparently, modified their attitudes towards public access, but only in return for compensation and management payments under grant schemes such as Countryside Stewardship and the Countryside Premium Scheme. With the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food now seeking to extend paid access arrangements to other grant schemes, as part of its response to the European Union's Agri-Environment Regulations, access 'rights' are assuming an increasingly commodified form, thereby questioning, if not undermining, the former citizen claims. For rather than being a benefit of citizenship, the existence of limited, often poorly maintained and inadequately signposted, public rights of way has tied inextricably the extension of legally-enforceable access to the needs of the landowners and farmers. At a time of falling prosperity in agriculture, therefore, they have now exercised their discretion by annexing the populism of consumer culture to reproduce the bourgeois liberal values of the market as a principal determinant of the extension of citizen rights of access to the countryside.

The Léger ruling as another example of the ECJ’s disappointingly reticent approach to the protection of the rights of LGB persons under EU law

In the 1980s, in the midst of the AIDS epidemic, many countries introduced lifetime bans on blood donations by men who had sexual relations with men (MSM). These blanket bans have, recently, begun to be challenged and, as a result, many countries have either relaxed them or completely abolished them. The case under examination (Léger ) is another instance of questioning the legality of such a ban. In particular, in this case, the European Court of Justice was called on to rule on whether a measure such as the French lifetime exclusion from blood donation of the MSM population that was at issue before the referring court is contrary to EU law. The Court ruled that although discriminatory on the ground of sexual orientation, such a ban may be justified in certain circumstances, and left it to the national court to make the final decision. This article seeks to analyse the case and to explain why, in the author’s view, the Court can be accused of—once more—not going far enough in the protection of lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) rights.

Voting rights of refugees

The book develops a novel legal argument about the voting rights of recognised 1951 Geneva Convention Refugees. The main normative contention is that such refugees should have the right to vote in the political community where they reside, assuming that the political community is a democracy and that its citizens have the right to vote. The basis of this contention is that the right to political participation in some political community is a basic right from the point of view of dignity and the protection of one’s interests. Due to their unique political predicament, 1951 Geneva Convention Refugees are a special category of non-citizen residents. They are unable to participate in elections of their state of origin, do not enjoy its diplomatic protection and consular assistance abroad, and – most fundamentally – are unable or unwilling, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, to return to it; thus, they are in limbo for a potentially protracted period. Refugees, too, deserve to have a place in the world in the Arendtian sense, where their opinions are significant and their actions are effective. Their state of asylum is, for the time being, the only community in which there is any realistic prospect of political participation on their part.

Horses in the countryside: conflict or cooperation?

Recognising the growing significance of sport and recreation in the countryside, this paper seeks to examine the changing demand for, and supply of, opportunities for horse riding in the countryside. It considers the physical problems associated with horse riding, together with the changing social context. The paper considers possible solutions to the issues raised, both within existing rights of way legislation and via new opportunities created by the revisions to agricultural support that have occurred in the last decade. The paper concludes that while the new opportunities have ameliorated some of the problems associated with the supply of land for horse riding, no new rights of access have been conferred. The ability of horse riders to guarantee continued provision will be governed partially by the market but also by future agricultural support policy.

Children, futurity, and value: 'Adventures of Huckleberry Finn'

A recurrent but relatively unquestioned element in the canonisation of Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is that the novel is about securing a meaningful way forward for the American child. The sense is that the novel deserves to live and to have a future because it is about a child, and tied in with the need for the young nation to project and to determine its future. This might seem, to apply the terms of queer debate, to lend weight to ‘reproductive futurism’: the child and ‘American family values’ are to the fore, while sexual minorities and alternative social models are excluded. The present essay re-reads Huckleberry Finn and Twain’s other Huck narratives, using the coordinates of queer theory. The result is a more equivocal picture. Twain does use Huck to assert the rights of the white American family, but he also uses him to explore alternative ideas of social organisation. More fundamentally, Twain increasingly finds that the idea of the child is no longer a sufficient motive for believing in and projecting a future. Rather, his writing leads the reader towards the impossibility of the future, both for the nation and its child.

Access to the countryside of England and Wales: public/private partnership or the privatisation of public rights?

This paper examines the evolution of public rights of access to private land in England and Wales. Since the Eighteenth Century the administration and protection of these rights has been though a form of public/private partnership in which the judiciary, while maintaining the dominance of private property, have safeguarded de facto public access by refusing consistently to punish simple trespass. While this situation has been modified, principally by post-World War II legislation, to allow for some formalisation of access arrangements and consequent compensation to landowners in areas of high recreational pressure and low legal accessibility, recent policy initiatives suggest that the balance of the partnership has now shifted in favour of landowners. In particular, the new access payment schemes, developed by the UK Government in response to the European Commission's Agri-Environment Regulations, locate the landowner as the beneficiary of the partnership, financed by tax revenue and justified on the spurious basis of improved 'access provision'. As such the state, as the former upholder of citizen rights, now assumes the duplicitous position of underwriting private property ownership through the commodification of access, while proclaiming a significant improvement in citizens' access rights.

The experiences and priorities of young people who care for their siblings in Tanzania and Uganda

This report presents key findings from a small-scale pilot research project that explored the experiences and priorities of young people caring for their siblings in sibling-headed households affected by AIDS in Tanzania and Uganda. Qualitative and participatory research was conducted with 33 young people living in sibling-headed households and 39 NGO staff and community members in rural and urban areas of Tanzania and Uganda. The report analyses the ways that young people manage transitions to caring for their younger siblings following their parents’ death and the impacts of caring on their family relations, education, emotional wellbeing and health, social lives and their transitions to adulthood. The study highlights gendered- and age-related differences in the nature and extent of young people’s care work and discusses young people’s needs and priorities for action, based on the views of young people, NGO staff and community members. Meeting the basic needs of young people living in sibling-headed households, listening to young people’s views, fostering peer support and relationships of trust with supportive adults, raising awareness and advocacy emerge as key priorities to safeguard the rights of children and young people living in sibling-headed households and challenge the stigma and marginalisation they sometimes face.

Who owns the copyright of architectural works and designs?

Copyright protects the rights and interests of authors on their original works of authorship such as literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works including architectural works and designs. It is automatic once a tangible medium of expression in any form of an innovative material, which conforms the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA 1988), is created. This includes the building, the architectural plans and drawings. There is no official copyright registry, no requirements on any fees need to be paid and they can be published or unpublished materials. Copyrights owners have the rights to control the reproduction, display, publication, and even derivation of the design. However, there are limitations on the rights of the copyright owners concerning copyrights infringements. Infringement of copyright is an unauthorised violation of the exclusive rights of the copyright author. Architects and engineers depend on copyright law to protect their works and design. Copyrights are protected on the arrangements of spaces and elements as well as the overall form of the architectural design. However, it does not cover the design of functional elements and standard features. Although copyright law provides automatic protection to all original architectural plans, the limitation is that copyright only protects the expression of ideas but not the ideas themselves. It can be argued that architectural drawings and design, including models are recognised categories of artistic works which are protected under the copyright law. This research investigates to what extent copyrights protect the rights and interests of the designers on architectural works and design.

Redefining the outer boundaries of EU Law: the Zambrano, McCarthy and Dereci trilogy

In its three recent rulings in the cases of Zambrano, McCarthy, and Dereci, the Court appears to have been determined to redefine the external boundaries of EU law, in cases involving the family reunification rights of Union citizens.These three judgments can be read as an indication that for Article 20 TFEU to apply, there is no longer a requirement of a cross-border element on the facts of the case, and that it is sufficient if the contested national measure has the effect of ‘depriving citizens of the Union of the genuine enjoyment of the substance’ of their rights (the ‘Zambrano principle’).The cases can, at the same time, also be read as a confirmation that the free movement provisions do – still – require a cross-border element and, in particular, the exercise of inter-State movement, in order to apply. Though the result in these cases has not been entirely unexpected, especially in the aftermath of the Rottmann ruling, it is rather problematic in that, although it is obvious that the Court wishes to redraw the line dividing the national and EU spheres of competence, it does not make it entirely clear where this line now lies and leaves many essential questions unanswered, which will obviously require some time to be resolved. EU lawyers are consequently, once more, left with having to decipher as best as they can the real intentions of the Court in this new line of case-law, which has been further complicated by the fact that what the Court seems to have given with one hand in Zambrano (and before that in Rottmann), has taken it back to a large extent through its rulings in McCarthy and Dereci, which appear to confine the former two cases to their own exceptional facts.6 Moreover, the ‘reverse discrimination Pandora’s box’, the opening of which appears to have been the real target of these references, remains untouched: instead of providing a direct solution to this problem, the Court has chosen to – once again – broaden the scope of the Treaty provisions in order to include within it as many situations as possible and, thus, prevent the emergence of this type of differential treatment on a case-by-case basis.As will be explained, nonetheless, this is by no means an appropriate solution to the reverse discrimination conundrum.