Arguing about matters of public policy is ubiquitous in democracies. The ability to resolve conflicts through peaceful contestation is a measure of any well-ordered society. Arguing is almost as ubiquitous in international affairs, yet it is not viewed as an important element of world order. In The Power of Deliberation: International Law, Politics and Organizations, Ian Johnstone challenges the assumption that arguing is mere lip service with no real impact on the behavior of states or the structure of the international system. Johnstone focuses on legal argumentation and asks why, if the rhetoric of law is inconsequential, governments and other international actors bother engaging in it.
Johnstone joins the efforts of international relations scholars and democracy theorists who consider why argumentation occurs beyond nation states. He focuses on deliberation in and around international organizations, drawing on various strands of legal, political and international relations theory to identify common features of legal argumentation and deliberative politics. Johnstone's central claim is that international organizations are places where "interpretive communities" coalesce, and the quality of the deliberations these communities provoke is a measure of the legitimacy of the organization.

This book addresses a seemingly paradoxical situation. On the one hand, nationalism from Scotland to the Ukraine remains a resilient political dynamic, fostering secessionist movements below the level of the state. On the other, the competence and capacity of states, and indeed the coherence of nationalism as an ideology, are increasingly challenged by patterns of globalisation in commerce, cultural communication and constitutional authority beyond the state. It is the aim of this book to shed light on the relationship between these two processes, addressing why the political currency of nationalism remains strong even when the salience of its objective - independent and autonomous statehood - becomes ever more attenuated. The book takes an interdisciplinary approach both within law and beyond, with contributions from international law, constitutional law, constitutional theory, history, political science and sociology. The challenge for our time is considerable. Global networks grow ever more sophisticated while territorial borders, such as those in Eastern and Central Europe, become seemingly more unstable. It is hoped that this book, by bringing together areas of scholarship which have not communicated with one another as much as they might, will help develop an ongoing dialogue across disciplines with which better to understand these challenging, and potentially destabilising, developments.

Intellectual property law is built on constitutional foundations and is underpinned by the twin freedoms of freedom of expression and freedom of economic enterprise. In this thoughtful evaluation, Gustavo Ghidini offers up a reconstruction of the core features of each intellectual property paradigm, including patents, copyright, and trademarks, suggesting measures for reform to allow intellectual property to become socially beneficial for all. Rethinking Intellectual Property is a deeply reflective conceptualisation of the modern principles of intellectual property law at both a national and an international level. The first chapter investigates conflicts of interests relating to intellectual property and guiding principles for their resolution within its constitutional framework. Ghidini then moves on to examine the reshaping of patent protection, and the way that the exercise of patent rights goes hand-in-hand with the competitive dynamics of technological innovation. In chapter 3, he analyses the copyright paradigm from an industrial perspective, focusing particular attention to the online distribution of material. Chapter 4 moves on to examine trademark protection, and the protection of entrepreneurial identity and brand value. Finally, he addresses the complex intersection between intellectual property law and competition law. This book will be invaluable reading for anyone interested in the conceptual foundations of intellectual property law, and challenges the reader to re-examine their understanding of the field.

More than the story of one man's case, this book tells the story of entire generations of people marked as "mixed race" in America amid slavery and its aftermath, and being officially denied their multicultural identity and personal rights as a result. Contrary to popular misconceptions, Plessy v. Ferguson was not a simple case of black vs. white separation, but rather a challenging and complex protest for U.S. law to fully accept mixed ancestry and multiculturalism. This book focuses on the long struggle for individual identity and multicultural recognition amid the dehumanizing and depersonalizing forces of American Negro slavery-and the Anglo-American white supremacy that drove it. The book takes students and general readers through the extended gestation period that gave birth to one of the most oft-mentioned but widely misunderstood landmark law will cases in U.S. history. It provides a chronology, brief biographies of key figures, primary documents, an annotated bibliography, and an index all of which provide easy reading and quick reference. Modern readers will find the direct connections between Plessy's story and contemporary racial currents in America intriguing.

What will happen to American democracy? The nation's past holds vital clues for understanding where we are now and where we are headed. In The Cycles of Constitutional Time, the eminent constitutional theorist Jack Balkin explains how America's constitutional system changes through the interplay among three cycles: the rise and fall of dominant political parties, the waxing and waning of political polarization, and alternating episodes of constitutional decay and constitutional renewal. If America's politics seems especially fraught today, it is because we are nearing the end of the Republican Party's political dominance, at the height of a long cycle of political polarization, and suffering from an advanced case of what he calls "constitutional rot." In fact, when people talk about constitutional crisis, Balkin explains, they are usually describing constitutional rot-the historical process through which republics become less representative and less devoted to the common good. Brought on by increasing economic inequality and loss of trust, constitutional rot threatens our constitutional system. But Balkin offers a message of hope: We have been through these cycles before, and we will get through them again. He describes what our politics will look like as polarization lessens and constitutional rot recedes. Balkin also explains how the cycles of constitutional time shape the work of the federal courts and theories about constitutional interpretation. He shows how the political parties have switched sides on judicial review not once but twice in the twentieth century, and what struggles over judicial review will look like in the coming decades. Drawing on literatures from history, law, and political science, this is a fascinating ride through American history with important lessons for the present and the future.

For decades, administrations of both political parties have used cost-benefit analysis to evaluate and improve federal policy in a variety of areas, including health and the environment. Today, this model is under grave threat. In Reviving Rationality, Michael Livermore and Richard Revesz explain how Donald Trump has destabilized the decades-long bipartisan consensus that federal agencies must base their decisions on evidence, expertise, and analysis. Administrative agencies are charged by law with protecting values like stable financial markets and clean air. Their decisions often have profound consequences, affecting everything from the safety of workplaces to access to the dream of home ownership. Under the Trump administration, agencies have been hampered in their ability to advance these missions by the conflicting ideological whims of a changing cast of political appointees and overwhelming pressure from well-connected interest groups. Inconvenient evidence has been ignored, experts have been sidelined, and analysis has been used to obscure facts, rather than inform the public. The results are grim: incoherent policy, social division, defeats in court, a demoralized federal workforce, and a loss of faith in government's ability to respond to pressing problems. This experiment in abandoning the norms of good governance has been a disaster. Reviving Rationality explains how and why our government has abandoned rationality in recent years, and why it is so important for future administrations to restore rigorous cost-benefit analysis if we are to return to a policymaking approach that effectively tackles the most pressing problems of our era.

In this provocative new study, Iain McLean argues that the traditional story of the British constitution does not make sense. It purports to be both positive and normative: that is, to describe both how people actually behave and how they ought to behave. In fact, it fails to do either; it is not a correct description and it has no persuasive force. The book goes on to offer a reasoned alternative.
The position that still dominates the field of constitutional law is that of parliamentary sovereignty (or supremacy). According to this view, the supreme lawgiver in the United Kingdom is Parliament. Some writers in this tradition go on to insist that Parliament in turn derives its authority from the people, because the people elect Parliament. An obvious problem with this view is that Parliament, to a lawyer, comprises three houses: monarch, Lords, and Commons. The people elect only one of those three houses.
This book aims to show, contrary to the prevailing view, that the UK exists by virtue of a constitutional contract between two previously independent states. Professor McLean argues that the work of the influential constitutional theorist A.V. Dicey has little to offer those who really want to understand the nature of the constitution. Instead, greater understanding can be gleaned from considering the 'veto plays' and 'credible threats' available to politicians since 1707. He suggests that the idea that the people are sovereign dates back to the 17th century (maybe the 14th in Scotland), but has gone underground in English constitutional writing. He goes on to show that devolution and the UK's relationship with the rest of Europe have taken the UK along a constitutionalist road since 1972, and perhaps since 1920. He concludes that no intellectually defensible case can be made for retaining an unelected house of Parliament, an unelected head of state, or an established church.
The book will be essential reading for political scientists, constitutional lawyers, historians, and politicians alike.

Federalism remains a highly contentious issue in the United Kingdom, but however suspect the 'F' word may be, a substantial amount of devolution has already become part of the local landscape and more may yet follow. With the competence for a number of policies thus shifting from Westminster to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and in future perhaps even within England itself, foreign experience with federal and regional structures becomes a valuable source of ideas. In a series of contributions, distinguished experts from a wide range of legal systems including Canada, the United States, Germany, South Africa and the European Union present their experience, criticisms, and views concerning, inter alia, the distribution of power, judicial review and human rights protection in federalised and regionalised states. The book contains the papers from a conference jointly organised by the Institute of Global Law (UCL) and the Institute of Transnational Law (The University of Texas at Austin).

Reprint of the third and final edition. "Having observed in the Course of our English History many Attempts made (by the Ministers of some artful and designing Princes) to weaken and undermine the ancient, legal, and fundamental Rights, Liberties, and Privileges of the City and Citizens of London: i thought myself obliged to Endeavor to collect and ascertain such Laws, Customs, and Usages of the said City, Wherein the Original Constitution and Foundation of its Government seem to have been laid; and whereby its Happiness, Opulency, and Glory do (under God and his present Majesty) evidently subsist." (Preface). Though little is known about him personally, Bohun was an attorney and prolific author who published well-received treatises on legal education, pleading, ecclesiastical law and other subjects.

Precedent is an important tool of judicial decision making and reasoning in common law systems such as the United States. Instead of having each court decide cases anew, the rule of precedent or stares decisis dictates that similar cases should be decided similarly. Adherence to precedent promotes several values, including stability, reliability, and uniformity, and it also serves to constrain judicial discretion. Yet while adherence to precedent is important, there are some cases where the United States Supreme Court does not follow it when it comes to constitutional reasoning. Over time the US Supreme Court under its different Chief Justices has approached rejection of its own precedent in different ways and at varying rates of reversal. This book examines the role of constitutional precedent in US Supreme Court reasoning. The author surveys the entire history of the US Supreme Court up until 2020, keying in on decisions regarding when it chose to overturn its own constitutional precedent and why. He explores how the US Supreme Court under its different Chief Justices has approached constitutional precedents and justified its reversal and quantifies which Courts have reversed the most constitutional precedents and why. Constitutional Precedent in US Supreme Court Reasoning is essential reading for law professors and students interested in precedent and its role in legal reasoning. Law libraries which will find this book of importance to their collections on legal reasoning and analysis.

This two-volume set investigates the concept, institutionalization, models and mechanism of mediation, an important form of alternative dispute resolution within China’s legal system. Grounded in traditional dispute resolution practices throughout Chinese history, mediation is born out of the Chinese legal tradition and considered to be “Eastern� in nature. Seeking to explore how mediation has developed in order to function in a modernized society, the first volume looks into the legal foundations of Chinese mediation as well as paths to the institutionalization and professionalization of mediation. The second volume examines the development of diversified dispute resolution via the elucidation of eight major types of mediation in China. By reviewing its history and enquiring into trends and prospects, the authors seek to establish a mediation system that incorporates diversified models, institutionalized and noninstitutionalized approaches, changing contexts, and a range of dimensions for society. This title will serve as a crucial reference for scholars, students and related professionals interested in alternative dispute resolution, civil litigation, and especially China’s dispute resolution policy, law, and practice.

The Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM), United States (2012 Edition) updates the MCM (2008 Edition). It is a complete reprinting and incorporates the MCM (2008 Edition), including all amendments to the Rules for Courts-Martial, Military Rules of Evidence (Mil. R. Evid.), and Punitive Articles made by the President in Executive Orders (EO) from 1984 to present, and specifically including EO 13468 (24 July 2008); EO 13552 (31 August 2010); and EO 13593 (13 December 2011). See Appendix 25. This edition also contains amendments to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) made by the National Defense Authorization Acts for Fiscal Years 2009 through 2012. Some of the significant changes are summarized and listed below. This summary is for quick reference only and should not be relied upon or cited by practitioners in lieu of the actual provisions of the MCM that have been amended. The MCM (2012 Edition) includes unique changes warranting attention. Discussion has been added or amended to address changes in practice resulting from United States v. Campbell, 71 M.J. 19 (C.A.A.F. 2012); United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2011); and United States v. Jones, 68 M.J. 465 (C.A.A.F. 2010). See R.C.M. 307(c)(3); R.C.M. 307(c)(4); R.C.M. 906(b)(12); R.C.M. 907(b)(3)(B); R.C.M. 910(a)(1); R.C.M. 918(a)(1); R.C.M. 1003(c)(1)(C); and in Part IV of this Manual, paragraph 3b, paragraph 60c(6)(a), and the discussion at page IV-1. The Discussion added in 2012 was a short-term solution intended to address recent, broad changes in the law. Although it may describe legal requirements derived from other sources, the Discussion does not have the force of law. It is in the nature of a treatise, and may be used as secondary authority. The Discussion will be revised from time to time as warranted by changes in applicable law. See Composition of the Manual for Courts-Martial in Appendix 21 of this Manual. Practitioners are advised that the Mil. R. Evid. will be amended after the publication of this Manual and will take effect only after the President signs the relevant EO. Once approved, the revised Mil. R. Evid. will exist outside of this Manual until its next complete reprinting. Practitioners are also advised that Article 120 has been amended by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, Public Law 112-81, 31 December 2011. The amended version of Article 120 creates three separate sexual offense statutes: Article 120 for adult offenses; Article 120b for child offenses; and Article 120c for other sexual offenses. Article 120a remains unchanged. As of 2012, there are now three versions of Article 120, and each version is located in a different part of this Manual. For offenses committed prior to 1 October 2007, the relevant sexual offense provisions are contained in Appendix 27. For offenses committed during the period 1 October 2007 through 27 June 2012, the relevant sexual offense provisions are contained in Appendix 28. For offenses committed on or after 28 June 2012, the relevant sexual offense provisions are contained in Part IV of this Manual (Articles 120, 120b, and 120c).

This open access book explains why a democratic reckoning will start when European societies win the fight against COVID-19. Have democracies successfully mastered the challenges of the pandemic? How has the coronavirus impacted democratic principles, processes and values? At the heels of the worst public health crisis in living memory, this book shines an unforgiving light on the side-lining of parliaments, the ruling by governmental decrees and the disenfranchisement of the people in the name of fighting COVID-19. Pandemocracy in Europe situates the dramatic impact of COVID-19, and the fight against the virus, on Europe's democracies. Throughout its 17 contributions the book sets the theoretical stage and answers the democratic questions engaged by health emergencies. Seven national case studies - UK, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Hungary, Switzerland, and France - show, each time with a pronounced focus on a particular element of democracy, how different states reacted to the pandemic. The book also shifts the analytical gaze beyond the nation state towards international settings, looking at the effects on the European Union and considering the impact on populist movements. Bridging disciplines and uniting a stellar cast of scholars on democracy, rule of law and constitutionalism, the book provides contours and nuances to a year of debates in political science, international relations and law on the impact of the virus on democracies. In times of uncertainty, Pandemocracy in Europe provides analysis and answers to the democratic challenges of the coronavirus. The ebook editions of this book are available under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 licence on www.bloomsburycollections.com.