First Amendment (Un)Exceptionalism: A Comparative Taxonomy of Campaign Finance Reform Proposals in the United States and United Kingdom

There is an urgent conversation happening among the world’s democracies about how to respond to the combined threat of online electioneering and foreign interference in domestic elections. Despite the shadow such activities cast over the 2016 presidential election in the United States, the US has been largely absent from comparative discussions about how to tackle the problem. This is not just because of a recalcitrant president. The assumption that America’s “First Amendment Exceptionalism” – the idea that American freedom of expression law is simply too much of an outlier to warrant useful comparative consideration – is strong on both sides of the Atlantic. This is especially true in regard to the regulation of political campaigns.This article challenges that assumption, and argues that America’s more libertarian approach to the legal regulation of political speech does not pose a barrier to fruitful comparative work in this area. It does so by comparing the law of the US to that of the UK. Specifically, it organizes reform proposals being considered in the US and UK into a common taxonomy, and sets out the legal standard governing each type of proposal in each country. Considering each country’s law through this organizational structure allows us to see that the legal differences between the US and UK, while significant, rarely bar the types of changes being considered in either nation. Indeed, the two countries have much to learn from each other’s efforts in this area, and lawmakers, regulators, and scholars should not hesitate to engage with the experiences of their transatlantic peers.In reaching this conclusion, the paper makes three distinct contributions. First, by clustering reform proposals into a taxonomy, it provides a structure for comparative work that will be useful not just in the US and UK, but in all countries working to bring their election laws fully into the internet era. Second, by providing an in-depth yet accessible guide to the legal structures undergirding election law in the US and UK, it provides a useful tool for scholars attempting to understand these systems. The US system in particular is often quickly dismissed by other nations, but without a deeper understanding of how and why US law has ended up as it has those nations risk inadvertently following in its footsteps. Finally, it identifies several concrete areas where the US and UK can benefit from each other’s expertise, thereby providing a roadmap for regulators, lawmakers, and reform advocates in both countries

Car accidents and credit hire agreements

A motorist whose car is damaged by the negligence of another may recover for the loss suffered, but must take reasonable steps to mitigate that loss. Where a replacement car is hired the charges can be recovered, if the car is needed for use and is similar to the damaged vehicle. Real difficulties arise if the motorist hires on credit. The agreement must comply with regulations applicable to credit agreements and constitute an enforceable contract, and, even then, full recovery of the charges is possible only if the motorist is impecunious. In spite of attempts to calm conflict over these matters, credit hire has prompted a flood of litigation that has often confused issues and created difficult distinctions, which, in turn, have increased tensions in the industry and caused bafflement among motorists

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree - Member States' Indirect Use of Extraordinary Rendition and the EU Counter-Terrorism Strategy. CEPS Working Document, No. 263, 3 April 2007

Recent investigations, not least by the EP Temporary Committee, have shed light on the illegal practice of extraordinary renditions and unlawful detentions by foreign security services on European territory with the alleged involvement of certain member states, which suggests that the line between cooperation and complicity has become blurred. This paper addresses the issue of how EU member states could not resist taking advantage of extraordinary renditions and unlawful detentions and how they still profit from such practice. Recent examples of this kind of profiteering are provided, together with an assessment of their legality. The paper also addresses the issue from an EU perspective and evaluates implications of and for EU counter-terrorism policies, in particular the question of how these policies might be tainted by the counter-terrorism behaviour of member states. A concrete set of policy recommendations is proposed in the last chapter

The Interpretative Influence of International Human Rights Norms on Judicial Reasoning in Thailand: Lessons from the United Kingdom and the United States of America

This research studies and compares the interpretive influence of international human rights norms in Thailand, the UK and the USA. It has found that successive Thai Constitutions have greatly been influenced by international human rights norms, but Thai courts have not made use of such norms in interpretation. This is in contrast to the practices in the UK and the USA where courts have developed advanced theories of interpretation in order to permit influence of international human rights norms in domestic spheres. In order to better understand the underlying reasons for the use of international human rights norms or the absence of such, the research compares not only the interpretive influence of international human rights norms, but also political and constitutional backgrounds, roles of the judiciary – including judicial review and interpretive approaches – and the perceived relationships between international and domestic laws in the three countries. Based on the results of the comparison, it argues that the interpretive influence of international human rights norms is desirable in Thailand and that the Thai legal system is actually more open to such norms than those of the UK and the USA. The research culminates in using experiences of courts in the UK and the USA to formulate a framework for Thai courts to consistently and legitimately use international human rights norms in their judicial reasoning