The visibility of environmental rights in the EU legal order: eurolegalism in action?

The current article responds to a key puzzle and a question. First, why, given the potential for ‘rights talk’ that has been seen in other countries and other policy areas, have environmental rights in the EU legal order been relatively invisible until recently? And second, with Daniel Kelemen’s influential work on Eurolegalism arguing that the EU has become much more reliant on US-style adversarial legalism, including a shift towards rights-based litigation, do EU environmental rights fit the picture Kelemen has painted, or are they an exception? The article explores the visibility of EU environmental rights at EU level and then seeks to explain the possible reasons for visibility/invisibility

On a clear day you can see forever : integrating values and skills in sex offender treatment

The topic of sex offender rehabilitation frequently evokes fierce reactions, ranging from strident demands for harsher sentences contrasted with calls for more imaginative and compassionate sentencing options. There seems to be a polarization of positions centred on the question of offenders\u27 moral standing: are they moral strangers or fellow travellers? This fundamental disagreement about offenders\u27 moral status is at the core of a number of independent, although related current practice and research issues confronting the field, namely: (1) risk management versus strength-based treatment approaches; (2) the utility of utilizing individually tailored versus manual-based programmes for offenders; (3) focusing on the technical aspects or therapy as opposed to relationship and therapist factors (what has been called process issues); and (4) the conflict between protecting the community versus promoting the interests of offenders. In this paper I suggest that an approach to sex offender treatment based on a combination of human rights theory (an ethical resource) and strengths-based approaches can help us navigate our way through the above dilemmas in a way that addressees both the needs of offenders and those of the community

Safety, fairness, and inclusion: transgender athletes and the essence of Rugby

In this paper, I link philosophical discussion of policies for trans inclusion or exclusion, to a method of policy making. I address the relationship between concerns about safety, fairness, and inclusion in policy making about the inclusion of transwomen athletes into women’s sport. I argue for an approach based on lexical priority rather than simple ‘balancing’, considering the different values in a specific order. I present justifying reasons for this approach and this lexical order, based on the special obligations of International Federations such as World Rugby. As a result, I provide a justificatory framework for the WR Guidelines that exclude transwomen from the women’s game in WR competitions. Finally, I give an account of a maximally safe, maximally fair and maximally inclusive form of sex categorisation in sport

No Exit? Withdrawal Rights and the Law of Corporate Reorganizations

Bankruptcy scholarship is largely a debate about the comparative merits of a mandatory regime on one hand and bankruptcy by free design on the other. By the standard account, the current law of corporate reorganization is mandatory. Various rules that cannot be avoided ensure that investors’ actions are limited and they do not exercise their rights against specialized assets in a way that destroys the value of a business as a whole. These rules solve collective action problems and reduce the risk of bargaining failure. But there are costs to a mandatory regime. In particular, investors cannot design their rights to achieve optimal monitoring as they could in a system of bankruptcy by free design. This Article suggests that the academic debate has missed a fundamental feature of the law. Bankruptcy operates on legal entities, not on firms in the economic sense. For this reason, sophisticated investors do not face a mandatory regime at all. The ability of investors to place assets in separate entities gives them the ability to create specific withdrawal rights in the event the firm encounters financial distress. There is nothing mandatory about rules like the automatic stay when assets can be partitioned off into legal entities that are beyond the reach of the bankruptcy judge. Thus, by partitioning assets of one economic enterprise into different legal entities, investors can create a tailored bankruptcy regime. In this way, legal entities serve as building blocks that can be combined to create specific and varied but transparent investor withdrawal rights. This regime of tailored bankruptcy has been unrecognized and underappreciated and may be preferable to both mandatory and free design regimes. By allowing a limited number of investors to opt out of bankruptcy in a particular, discrete, and visible way, investors as a group may be able to both limit the risk of bargaining failure and at the same time enjoy the disciplining effect that a withdrawal right brings with it

Regulating Consent to Organ and Embryo Donation

As rational adults, we are free to elect what is (or is not) done to our bodies. However, this strong freedom does not extend to the borders of life. Control over the uses of our biological material is constrained and uncertain at law. Our article examines the legal condition of embryos and organs: how law conceptualises them and regulates their uses.Ngaire Naffine and Bernadette Richard

Being ethical psychologists in correction settings

Drafters of codes recognize at least three principles, but they often subdivide them into more principles and use different nomenclature to describe them. This chapter structures the author\u27s overview of the principles by distinguishing between eight overlapping principles; namely, responsibility, respect for humanity, respect for autonomy, justice, non‐maleficence, beneficence, integrity, and fidelity. Both law and ethics recognize the non‐maleficence principle, and psychologists generally find it easy to relate to this principle that requires them to avoid doing reasonably foreseeable harm to others. Psychologists confronted with moral (i.e., right and good) issues in their professional practice should search for solutions among the standards of their codes and, if necessary, apply the ethical principles. Many psychologists\u27 moral uncertainty comes from their personal values. People\u27s unique experiences, personalities, and learning, and external (e.g., cultural) influences shape their values and, though they mostly operate at an unconscious level, they influence people\u27s automatic and deliberate decision‐making