Abstracts of legislation relating to Harvard College governance (manuscript notebook), ca. 1723

Octavo-sized notebook containing handwritten abstracts of Massachusetts General Court legislation between 1650 and August 24, 1723 related to Harvard governance. The volume contains informal notes with extracts and summaries of legislation that established or amended the makeup and power of the Harvard Corporation. The authors of the volume are unidentified, but the notes appear to be in two different hands. The volume was presumably created during the fellowship controversy that erupted in the early 1720s after tutors Henry Flynt, Nicholas Sever, and Thomas Robie presented a memorial to the Board of Overseers calling for the tutors' right of fellowship in the Corporation.

Observations on the courts of law in Nova Scotia, Canada, 1775

Contains a discussion of the organization of the courts in Nova Scotia and recommends changes to allow for greater efficiency and logical administration of cases through the system of justice.

Precedents book of Massachusetts law, 1775

A commonplace book kept by Parsons outling various legal issues including getting a negro with child, slander, deceit, bills of exchange, debt,assault and battery, quantum meruit by a physician, ejectment, covenant, and liberty of the yard. Many of these topics include also forms of declaration.

An Act of Assembly of Barbadoes to regulate sales at outcry and the proceedings of persons executing the office of Provost Marshall General ofthe said island and their under officers, 1763

An Act of Assembly of Barbadoes to regulate sales at outcry and the proceedings of persons executing the office of Provost Marshall General of the said island and their under officers (leaf 1) ; A state of some matters relative to the office of Provost Marshall, and to the passing of this bill (leaf 9) ; Observations drawn up by Jonathan Blenman Esq. his Majestys Atty. Gen. in Barbadoes ... on the Act as it had been first brought in 1761 (leaf 13) ; and two leaves laid in ; Power of attorney, granted to Christopher Scandrett, signed by Francis Reynolds and his son Thomas (25 April 1766) ; Petition of Francis Reynolds to the Lords Commissioners of Trade and Plantations (1766).

Notification from William Cutler to the selectmen of Cambridge, Massachusetts, that Dr. Philip Brukowitz and wife were inhabiting his father's house in Cambridge, 1758 April 25

Single page notification addressed to the selectmen of Cambridge, Massachusetts, dated 25 April 1758, in which William Cutler writes that he took into his father’s Cambridge house as tenants Dr. George Philip Brukowitz and his wife, from Woburn, Massachusetts. After the Boston smallpox epidemic of 1721, the town of Cambridge enacted a requirement in 1723 that no resident would receive or admit any non-resident family into their homes for the space of a month without informing the town selectmen. The penalty for failing to do so was twenty shillings.

Translations of the Ottoman constitutional laws: the Wilayet Administrative Law, the Municipal Law and various other laws

Ottoman constitutional law of the 7th Dhil Hujjah, 1293 AH [December 24, 1876 AD] as amended. -- Regulations of the Chamber of deputies. -- Regulations of the Senate. -- Provisional law of administration of wilayets of the 13th March, 1329 AH [March 26, 1913 AD] as amended. -- Municipal law of the 27th Ramadhan, 1294 AH [October 5, 1877 AD] as amended. -- Law regulating chambers of commerce and industry, dated the 31st May, 1326 AH [June 13, 1910 AD]. -- Provisional law of expropriation on behalf of municipalities dated the 21st Kanun Thani, 1329 AH [February 3, 1914 AD]. -- Regulations of expropriation for public purposes, dated the 24th Tashrin Thani, 1295 AH [December 6, 1879 AD] as amended. -- The Press law of the 16th Tamuz, 1325 AH [July 29, 1910 AD] as amended.

The "European model" of international law and its significance for Asia. Some critical reflections. EU Centre in Singapore Working Paper No. 7, June 2012

There is a certain arrogance in the affirmation that a “European model” of regional integration and of compliance with international law should be adopted anywhere in the world, and in Asia in particular. This article argues on the contrary that Asia and Europe are in fundamentally different situations vis-à-vis international law. Based on an analysis of recent events and latest legal developments in Europe, it puts the “European model” of regional integration and the European selective compliance with international law in perspective with regard to the Asian context. Without denying that “civilizations” should learn from one another and that the European experience may be relevant to some extent in Asia, this article concludes that the tools developed in Europe should be used differently in Asia.

Subsidiarity between Law and Economics. Research Papers in Law, 1/2005

From the Introduction. The present contribution is an attempt to raise awareness between the 'trenches' by juxtaposing the two approaches to subsidiarity. Subsequently, I shall set out why, in economics, subsidiarity is embraced as a key principle in the design and working of the Union and how a functional subsidiarity test can be derived from this thinking. Throughout the paper, a range of illustrations and examples is provided in an attempt to show the practical applicability of a subsidiarity test. This does not mean, of course, that the application of the test can automatically "solve" all debates on whether subsidiarity is (not) violated. What it does mean, however, is that a careful methodology can be a significant help to e.g. national parliaments and the Brussels circuit, in particular, to discourage careless politicisation as much as possible and to render assessments of subsidiarity comparable throughout the Union. The latter virtue should be of interest to national parliaments in cooperating, within just six weeks, about a common stance in the case of a suspected violation of the principle. The structure of the paper is as follows. Section 2 gives a flavour of very different approaches and appreciation of the subsidiarity principle in European law and in the economics of multi-tier government. Section 3 elaborates on the economics of multi-tier government as a special instance of cost / benefit analysis of (de)centralisation in the three public economic functions of any government system. This culminates in a five-steps subsidiarity test and a brief discussion about its proper and improper application. Section 4 applies the test in a non-technical fashion to a range of issues of the "efficiency function" (i.e. allocation and markets) of the EU. After showing that the functional logic of subsidiarity may require liberalisation to be accompanied by various degrees of centralisation, a number of fairly detailed illustrations of how to deal with subsidiarity in the EU is provided. One illustration is about how the subsidiarity logic is misused by protagonists (labour in the internal market). A slightly different but frequently encountered aspect consists in the refusal to recognize that the EU (that is, some form of centralisation) offers a better solution than 25 national ones. A third range of issues, where the functional logic of subsidiarity could be useful, emerges when the boundaries of national competences are shifting due to more intense cross-border flows and developments. Other subsections are devoted to Union public goods and to the question whether the subsidiarity test might trace instances of EU decentralisation: a partial or complete shift of a policy or regulation to Member States. The paper refrains from an analysis of the application of the subsidiarity test to the other two public functions, namely, equity and macro-economic stabilisation.2 Section 5 argues that the use of a well-developed methodology of a functional subsidiarity test would be most useful for the national parliaments and even more so for their cooperation in case of a suspected violation of subsidiarity. Section 6 concludes.

European Criminal Law and General Principles of Union Law. Research Papers in Law, 5/2005

From the Introduction. The European Court of Justice, partly followed in this by the European legislator, has regulated Community law and policy through a set of general principles of law. For the Community legal order in the first pillar, general legal principles have developed from functional policy areas such as the internal market, the customs union, the monetary union, the common agricultural policy, the European competition policy, etc., which are of great importance for the quality and legitimacy of Community law. The principles in question are not so much general legal principles of an institutional character, such as the priority of Community law, direct effect or Community loyalty, but rather principles of law which shape the fundamental rights and basic rights of the citizen. I refer to the principle of legality, of nulla poena, the inviolability of the home, the nemo tenetur principle, due process, the rights of the defence, etc. Many of these legal principles have been elevated to primary Community law status by the European Court of Justice, often as a result of preliminary questions. Nevertheless, a considerable number of them have also been elaborated in the context of contentious proceedings before the Court of Justice, such as in the framework of European competition law and European public servants law.