Old Akkadian inscriptions in Chicago Natural History Museum; texts of legal and business interest / Ignace J. Gelb, Professor of Assyriology, The Oriential Institute, The University of Chicago.

v.44:no.2(1955)

Assessment of current anglo-saxon proposals about criminal justice and the justification of legal punishment: Moore, Duff and Finnis on retribution, and the challenging compatibility with the up-and-coming Restorative Justice

Pendent

Incorporating jurisdiction issues into regional carbon accounts under production and consumption accounting principles

Despite increased public interest, policymakers have been slow to enact targets based on limiting emissions under full consumption accounting measures (such as carbon footprints). This paper argues that this may be due to the fact that policymakers in one jurisdiction do not have control over production technologies used in other jurisdictions. The paper uses a regional input-output framework and data derived on carbon dioxide emissions by industry (and households) to examine regional accountability for emissions generation. In doing so, we consider two accounting methods that permit greater accountability of regional private and public (household and government) final consumption as the main driver of regional emissions generation, while retaining focus on the local production technology and consumption decisions that fall under the jurisdiction of regional policymakers. We propose that these methods permit an attribution of emissions generation that is likely to be of more use to regional policymakers than a full global footprint analysis.

Economic Principles and Determination of Infrastructure Third Party Tariffs in the UK Continental Shelf (UKCS)

NORTH SEA STUDY OCCASIONAL PAPER No. 116

Decision Errors, Legal Uncertainty and Welfare: a General Treatment

This paper provides a general treatment of the implications for welfare of legal uncertainty. We distinguish legal uncertainty from decision errors: though the former can be influenced by the latter, the latter are neither necessary nor sufficient for the existence of legal uncertainty. We show that an increase in decision errors will always reduce welfare. However, for any given level of decision errors, information structures involving more legal uncertainty can improve welfare. This holds always, even when there is complete legal uncertainty, when sanctions on socially harmful actions are set at their optimal level. This transforms radically one’s perception about the “costs” of legal uncertainty. We also provide general proofs for two results, previously established under restrictive assumptions. The first is that Effects-Based enforcement procedures may welfare dominate Per Se (or object-based) procedures and will always do so when sanctions are optimally set. The second is that optimal sanctions may well be higher under enforcement procedures involving more legal uncertainty.

Legal Uncertainty, Competition Law Enforcement Procedures and Optimal Penalties

In this paper we make three contributions to the literature on optimal Competition Law enforcement procedures. The first (which is of general interest beyond competition policy) is to clarify the concept of “legal uncertainty”, relating it to ideas in the literature on Law and Economics, but formalising the concept through various information structures which specify the probability that each firm attaches – at the time it takes an action – to the possibility of its being deemed anti-competitive were it to be investigated by a Competition Authority. We show that the existence of Type I and Type II decision errors by competition authorities is neither necessary nor sufficient for the existence of legal uncertainty, and that information structures with legal uncertainty can generate higher welfare than information structures with legal certainty – a result echoing a similar finding obtained in a completely different context and under different assumptions in earlier Law and Economics literature (Kaplow and Shavell, 1992). Our second contribution is to revisit and significantly generalise the analysis in our previous paper, Katsoulacos and Ulph (2009), involving a welfare comparison of Per Se and Effects- Based legal standards. In that analysis we considered just a single information structure under an Effects-Based standard and also penalties were exogenously fixed. Here we allow for (a) different information structures under an Effects-Based standard and (b) endogenous penalties. We obtain two main results: (i) considering all information structures a Per Se standard is never better than an Effects-Based standard; (ii) optimal penalties may be higher when there is legal uncertainty than when there is no legal uncertainty.

Bayesian Networks for Probabilistic Inference and Decision Analysis in Forensic Science

Continuing developments in science and technology mean that the amounts of information forensic scientists are able to provide for criminal investigations is ever increasing. The commensurate increase in complexity creates difficulties for scientists and lawyers with regard to evaluation and interpretation, notably with respect to issues of inference and decision. Probability theory, implemented through graphical methods, and specifically Bayesian networks, provides powerful methods to deal with this complexity. Extensions of these methods to elements of decision theory provide further support and assistance to the judicial system. Bayesian Networks for Probabilistic Inference and Decision Analysis in Forensic Science provides a unique and comprehensive introduction to the use of Bayesian decision networks for the evaluation and interpretation of scientific findings in forensic science, and for the support of decision-makers in their scientific and legal tasks. Includes self-contained introductions to probability and decision theory. Develops the characteristics of Bayesian networks, object-oriented Bayesian networks and their extension to decision models. Features implementation of the methodology with reference to commercial and academically available software. Presents standard networks and their extensions that can be easily implemented and that can assist in the reader's own analysis of real cases. Provides a technique for structuring problems and organizing data based on methods and principles of scientific reasoning. Contains a method for the construction of coherent and defensible arguments for the analysis and evaluation of scientific findings and for decisions based on them. Is written in a lucid style, suitable for forensic scientists and lawyers with minimal mathematical background. Includes a foreword by Ian Evett. The clear and accessible style of this second edition makes this book ideal for all forensic scientists, applied statisticians and graduate students wishing to evaluate forensic findings from the perspective of probability and decision analysis. It will also appeal to lawyers and other scientists and professionals interested in the evaluation and interpretation of forensic findings, including decision making based on scientific information.

Looming signals reveal synergistic principles of multisensory integration.

Multisensory interactions are a fundamental feature of brain organization. Principles governing multisensory processing have been established by varying stimulus location, timing and efficacy independently. Determining whether and how such principles operate when stimuli vary dynamically in their perceived distance (as when looming/receding) provides an assay for synergy among the above principles and also means for linking multisensory interactions between rudimentary stimuli with higher-order signals used for communication and motor planning. Human participants indicated movement of looming or receding versus static stimuli that were visual, auditory, or multisensory combinations while 160-channel EEG was recorded. Multivariate EEG analyses and distributed source estimations were performed. Nonlinear interactions between looming signals were observed at early poststimulus latencies (∼75 ms) in analyses of voltage waveforms, global field power, and source estimations. These looming-specific interactions positively correlated with reaction time facilitation, providing direct links between neural and performance metrics of multisensory integration. Statistical analyses of source estimations identified looming-specific interactions within the right claustrum/insula extending inferiorly into the amygdala and also within the bilateral cuneus extending into the inferior and lateral occipital cortices. Multisensory effects common to all conditions, regardless of perceived distance and congruity, followed (∼115 ms) and manifested as faster transition between temporally stable brain networks (vs summed responses to unisensory conditions). We demonstrate the early-latency, synergistic interplay between existing principles of multisensory interactions. Such findings change the manner in which to model multisensory interactions at neural and behavioral/perceptual levels. We also provide neurophysiologic backing for the notion that looming signals receive preferential treatment during perception.

The Security Council and the Legitimacy of the Use of Force: Legal, Normative, and Social Aspects.

Tal i com estableix la Carta de les Nacions Unides, el Consell de Seguretat determina l’existència d’una amenaça a la pau, un trencament de la pau o un acte d’agressió i decideix les mesures que han de fer-se servir per restaurar la pau i seguretat internacionals, també l’ús de la força. L’objectiu d’aquest article és explorar la legitimitat d’aquest ús de la força. Amb aquest objectiu, el text parteix d’una definició centrada en les seves dimensions legal, normativa i social. En segon lloc, s’analitzarà com aquestes dimensions estan representades als debats del Consell de Seguretat de la guerra d’Irak de 2003, un dels usos de la força més controvertits i que més debat ha generat als darrers anys. Finalment, l’anàlisi proposat permet treure algunes conclusions sobre les bases canviants de la legitimitat de l’ús de la força.