Your search
Results 51 resources
-
In this article, I propose a model for understanding the concept of ownership that I call the ‘exclusivity model.’ Like many of the contemporary critics of the ‘bundle of rights’ approach to ownership, I insist that ownership is a legal concept with a well-defined structure. I differ from most of them, however, in the model of ownership that I believe to be at work in property law. Most of these critics propose a model of ownership that emphasizes the owner's right to exclude non-owners from the owned thing as the central defining feature of ownership. I call this the ‘boundary approach’ to highlight its fixation on the owner's power to decide who may cross the boundaries of the owned thing. But this, I argue, makes it impossible for the boundary approach to explain adequately the many subsidiary rights in things that coexist with the rights of owners. Indeed, I argue that when we look more closely at the structure of ownership in property law, its central concern is not the exclusion of all non-owners from the owned thing but, rather, the preservation of the owner's position as the exclusive agenda setter for the owned thing. So long as others – whether they be holders of subsidiary property rights or strangers to the property – act in a way that is consistent with the owner's agenda, they pose no threat to the owner's exclusive position as agenda setter.
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
The Universal Declaration on Human Rights was pivotal in popularizing the use of ‘dignity’ or ‘human dignity’ in human rights discourse. This article argues that the use of ‘dignity’, beyond a basic minimum core, does not provide a universalistic, principled basis for judicial decision-making in the human rights context, in the sense that there is little common understanding of what dignity requires substantively within or across jurisdictions. The meaning of dignity is therefore context-specific, varying significantly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and (often) over time within particular jurisdictions. Indeed, instead of providing a basis for principled decision-making, dignity seems open to significant judicial manipulation, increasing rather than decreasing judicial discretion. That is one of its significant attractions to both judges and litigators alike. Dignity provides a convenient language for the adoption of substantive interpretations of human rights guarantees which appear to be intentionally, not just coincidentally, highly contingent on local circumstances. Despite that, however, I argue that the concept of ‘human dignity’ plays an important role in the development of human rights adjudication, not in providing an agreed content to human rights but in contributing to particular methods of human rights interpretation and adjudication.
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
Interdisciplinary family mediation as carried on in Québec leads to the drafting of an agreement dealing with all facets of a couple’s separation. It covers the sharing of parental responsibilities (children custody), partaking in property and financial contributions (support), while favouring the continuity of a functional parental relationship. While the government promotes access to mediation in the case of spouses with children, the legal effects of agreements issuing from family mediation are uncertain and give rise to numerous doctrinal and jurisprudential controverses. The authors first begin by presenting family mediation as it was implemented in Québec. They then demonstrate on the basis of jurisprudential and doctrinal analyses of the legal value of agreements issuing from family mediation, that the law falls short of adapting itself to this means of conflict resolution. In the end, there results uncertainty and disagreement on the legal effects of agreements resulting from such proceedings.
-
Life without parole is examined as a form of death penalty, namely, death by incarceration as distinct from death by execution. Original interviews with a sample of prisoners (condemned prisoners and life-without-parole prisoners) and prison officers are used to develop a picture of the experience of life under sentence of death by incarceration. It is argued that offenders sentenced to death by incarceration do not pose a special danger to others in the prison world or in the free world and that the suffering they experience is comparable to the suffering endured by condemned prisoners. Life without parole thus emerges as a viable alternative to the capital punishment.
-
Neil Duxbury examines how precedents constrain legal decision-makers and how legal decision-makers relax and avoid those constraints. There is no single principle or theory which explains the authority of precedent but rather a number of arguments which raise rebuttable presumptions in favour of precedent-following. This book examines the force and the limitations of these arguments and shows that although the principal requirement of the doctrine of precedent is that courts respect earlier judicial decisions on materially identical facts, the doctrine also requires courts to depart from such decisions when following them would perpetuate legal error or injustice. Not only do judicial precedents not 'bind' judges in the classical-positivist sense, but, were they to do so, they would be ill suited to common-law decision-making. Combining historical inquiry and philosophical analysis, this book will assist anyone seeking to understand how precedent operates as a common-law doctrine.
Explore
Resource type
- Book (10)
- Book Section (3)
- Journal Article (38)