The Application of the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in Freedom of Expression and Public Morality Cases

This paper discusses whether or not Strasbourg organs have created principled criteria governing the use of the doctrine within the context of free speech and public morals. The first part of the paper gives an overview of the doctrine and further examines how the doctrine has evolved within the European context. Part II focuses on the rationale behind the doctrine and discusses the legitimacy of the doctrine in light of its application to various forms of free speech. Part III covers one of the most problematic applications of the doctrine in matters concerning public morality, where Contracting States have a wide margin of appreciation. This part will discuss whether or not the “lack of European consensus” criterion is an elusive concept that might create a risk of abuse in the application of the doctrine. The paper concludes that while margin of appreciation today serves as a flexible instrument between the local necessities and the universal application of human rights, the imprecise and contradictory points might lead to its potential abuse that might endanger its future existence.

Bernard Mandeville and the doctrine of laissez-faire

The view of Mandeville as a pioneer of laissez-faire is difficultto reconcile with his repeated insistence that private vices were turnedinto public benefits by the ‘dexterous management of the skilfulpolitician’. Even if references to the skilful politician are regarded asshorthand for a legal and institutional framework, there remains thequestion of whether such a framework is a spontaneous order or theproduct of purposeful experiment as Mandeville thought? Mandevillewarned about the harmful effects of meddling but his complaint wasabout the actions of fashionable do-gooders rather than government. Heunderstood that the voluntariness of a transaction could be regarded asa defence against complaints of unfairness but he was quick to pointout the limitations of voluntariness especially in the market for labour.Mandeville’s objective was to teach people what they are not what theyshould be. He pointed to the strengths of the emerging market systembut was not afraid to expose its faults.

The Exclusive Brethren ‘Doctrine of Separation’: An Anthropology of Theology

Why do the Exclusive Brethren attend church ten times a week? Why do they shun excommunicated members, including immediate family? Why do they refuse to eat with outsiders? Why will they employ outsiders in their businesses, but never be employed by them? Why do they reject modern media as “pipelines of filth”? Why do they refuse to vote, while simultaneously campaigning for Conservative Party candidates? Why do they only live in detached houses, and build churches entirely without windows? How, in other words, do the Exclusive Brethren try to live good lives? And what can we learn anthropologically from these models of ‘the good’, and from the objections they provoke? Drawing inspiration from Keane’s (2014) suggestion that ‘we shouldn’t decide in advance what ethics will look like’, this paper seeks to critically contribute to new scholarship within the anthropology of morality and detachment by constructing, in a very literal sense, an anthropology of theology via an analysis of the Exclusive Brethren ‘doctrine of separation’.

Is there any room for the doctrine of fundamental rights of states in today's international law?

This article serves as a general substantive introduction to the special issue on the fundamental rights of states in international law. It introduces the concept in theoretical and doctrinal terms, and lays out the questions that will be addressed by the contributions to the special issue. These questions include: 1) What do attributes like ‘inherent’, ‘inalienable’ and ‘permanent’ mean with regard to state rights?; 2) Do they lead to identifying a unitary distinct category of fundamental rights of states?; 3) If so, what is their source and legal character?; 4) What are their legal implications, eg, when they come into conflict with other obligations of the right holder or with the actions of other states and international organisations?; and ultimately, 5) Is there still room in today’s international law for a doctrine of ‘fundamental’ rights of states? The article reviews the fundamental rights of states in positive law sources and in international legal scholarship, and identifies the reasons for a renaissance of attention for this doctrine.

Recueil périodique de législation, de doctrine et de jurisprudence en matière de procédure civile, commerciale, criminelle et administrative / publié par MM. Rodolphe Rousseau,... Laisney,...

1900 (A21).

Recueil périodique de législation, de doctrine et de jurisprudence en matière de procédure civile, commerciale, criminelle et administrative / publié par MM. Rodolphe Rousseau,... Laisney,...

1916 (A37).

Recueil périodique de législation, de doctrine et de jurisprudence en matière de procédure civile, commerciale, criminelle et administrative / publié par MM. Rodolphe Rousseau,... Laisney,...

1892 (A13).

Recueil périodique de législation, de doctrine et de jurisprudence en matière de procédure civile, commerciale, criminelle et administrative / publié par MM. Rodolphe Rousseau,... Laisney,...

1913 (A34).

Recueil périodique de législation, de doctrine et de jurisprudence en matière de procédure civile, commerciale, criminelle et administrative / publié par MM. Rodolphe Rousseau,... Laisney,...

1899 (A20).

Recueil périodique de législation, de doctrine et de jurisprudence en matière de procédure civile, commerciale, criminelle et administrative / publié par MM. Rodolphe Rousseau,... Laisney,...

1880 (A1).

Recueil périodique de législation, de doctrine et de jurisprudence en matière de procédure civile, commerciale, criminelle et administrative / publié par MM. Rodolphe Rousseau,... Laisney,...

1896 (A17).