University of Cambridge Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series最新文献

{"title":"Conversation with Professor Sir John Laws: First interview (15 June 2017)","authors":"Lesley Dingle, Daniel Bates","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3288523","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3288523","url":null,"abstract":"Professor Laws was interviewed on 15 June 2017, at the Goodhart Lodge. A complete entry for Professor Laws, including an audio recording of this interview, is available in the Eminent Scholars Archive.","PeriodicalId":106924,"journal":{"name":"University of Cambridge Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"173 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124233099","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Conversations with Professor Sir John Hamilton Baker Part 3: Published works","authors":"Lesley Dingle, Daniel Bates","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3288540","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3288540","url":null,"abstract":"This is the third interview with the twenty-fifth personality for the Eminent Scholars Archive. Professor Sir John Baker is Emeritus Downing Professor of the Laws of England at the University of Cambridge.","PeriodicalId":106924,"journal":{"name":"University of Cambridge Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126153274","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Conversations with Professor Sir John Hamilton Baker Part 2: Later Academic Career","authors":"Lesley Dingle, Daniel Bates","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3288534","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3288534","url":null,"abstract":"This is the second interview with the twenty-fifth personality for the Eminent Scholars Archive. Professor Sir John Baker is Emeritus Downing Professor of the Laws of England at the University of Cambridge.","PeriodicalId":106924,"journal":{"name":"University of Cambridge Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129451973","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Conversations with Professor Sir John Hamilton Baker - Part 1: Early Life and Career","authors":"Lesley Dingle, Daniel Bates","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3288526","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3288526","url":null,"abstract":"This is an interview with the twenty-fifth personality for the Eminent Scholars Archive. Professor Sir John Baker is Emeritus Downing Professor of the Laws of England at the University of Cambridge.","PeriodicalId":106924,"journal":{"name":"University of Cambridge Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"148 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133065298","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Survival of the Secret Treaty: Publicity, Secrecy and Legality in the International Order","authors":"M. Donaldson","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3076515","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3076515","url":null,"abstract":"This article offers the first detailed history of the norm of treaty publication as it has evolved over the last century. Drawing on both public debates and archives of foreign ministries, it traces how, and why, secret treaties have persisted, even in liberal democracies. It challenges assumptions of ever-greater transparency over time, and complicates the associations made — by interwar reformers and international lawyers today — between the norm of treaty publication and ideals of legality in the international order.","PeriodicalId":106924,"journal":{"name":"University of Cambridge Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121969213","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Systemic Integration: An Instrument for Reasserting the State's Control in Investment Arbitration?","authors":"R. Yotova","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3020166","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3020166","url":null,"abstract":"A. Systemic Integration under General International Law It is only in the last two decades that the so-called principle of systemic integration became the object of scholarly and judicial debate. This is unusual, given that the principle forms part of the general rule of interpretation set out in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT). Systemic integration is an integral and indeed obligatory part of the general rule on interpretation. The unity of the rule is underlined by the International Law Commission (ILC) Commentary on the provision highlighting that ‘the provisions of the article form a single, closely integrated rule’. Notably, the principle is different from paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 31 in that it requires the taking into account of an element extrinsic both to the text and to the context of the treaty. This is probably the reason why, unlike the other aspects of the general rule of interpretation, it is not formulated as outcome determinative. According to the ILC Commentary, the wording of Article 31(3)(c) was intended to ‘state only the broad principle and not attempt define its results’. This stands in contrast with the formulae used in Article 31(1) and (2), respectively. This is due to the extrinsic elements in paragraph 3 underlying the intention to leave much broader scope for discretion to the interpreter, further reinforced by the generality of the reference to ‘any relevant rules of international law’, also left open for determination. The precise meaning and scope of Article 31(3)(c) remain controversial. Scholars disagree on the criteria for assessing ‘relevance’ in this context. For instance, Linderfalk favours a broad interpretation where relevant are those rules which ‘govern the state of affairs, in relation to which the interpreted treaty is examined’. Villiger constructs relevance more narrowly, as a reference to rules which ‘concern the subject-matter of the treaty term at issue’. Gardiner takes the middle ground, arguing that relevance refers to rules ‘touching on the same subject matter as the treaty provision or provisions being interpreted or which in any way affect that interpretation’. Pauwelyn adopts a functional test where a rule is relevant if it ‘sheds light on the meaning of the [treaty] term’ under interpretation. This approach is persuasive in linking relevance to the actual term of the treaty under interpretation, which is in line with the wording of the VCLT.","PeriodicalId":106924,"journal":{"name":"University of Cambridge Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130777642","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Immorality and Patents: The Exclusion of Inventions Contrary to Ordre Public and Morality","authors":"K. Liddell","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2865820","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2865820","url":null,"abstract":"Ethical issues implicitly permeate all aspects of patent doctrine, including definitions of invention, novelty, inventive step, utility, disclosure and so forth. Interestingly, and in addition, many patent systems allow explicit ethical objections. This is most notable in the European Patent Convention (‘EPC’) which states at Article 53(a) that: ‘European patents shall not be granted in respect of inventions the commercial exploitation of which would be contrary to “ordre public” or morality.’In broad terms, this provision means that patent protection is denied to immoral inventions, no matter how novel or inventive the invention may be. Intriguingly, it requires lawyers (including patent examiners and judges) to define morality. Recent cases concerned the morality of commercially exploiting mammals genetically programmed to develop cancer (Harvard Oncomouse) and stem cells obtained from human embryos (WARF and Brustle). These raised difficult questions about genetic engineering, animal experimentation, the moral status of embryos, the morality of patenting animals and parts of the human body. With such troubling ethical issues in the frame, it is not surprising that Article 53(a) itself has proven highly controversial. The principal difficulty is how to implement such a rule. How does a patent examiner or court assess whether an invention is immoral to the point that, unlike other inventions, it should not be granted patent protection? It is a question that runs headlong into the complex intersection of law and morality or, put another way, the intersection of intellectual property and philosophy. Section III explains some of the contentious issues in the interpretation of Article 53(a). In light of these issues, many authors and patent practitioners have thrown their hands in the air in frustration, suggesting that the problems are insurmountable and that patent law would be better off abandoning the explicit morality exclusion. In the meantime they tend to interpret the provisions in a highly legalistic and usually narrow way, dissecting the words of the statute in fine detail. Often the words might be ascribed more than one meaning, but alternative interpretations are swept away for a legally plausible, but normatively doubtful, reason leaving the decisions mired in controversy and cast adrift in interpretative uncertainty. In contrast there is very little discussion of what might be the jurisprudential underpinnings of a morality exclusion in the patent system. This is considered briefly in Section IV and leads into the main contention of this chapter.The principal argument is that a better appreciation of the nature and purpose of the immorality exclusion provides some vital clues as to how it should be interpreted (Section V). More specifically, it will be argued, building upon Burk and Lemley’s seminal paper in 2003, that the explicit morality exclusion is a ‘policy lever’, similar to the thirteen already identified in their paper, which ","PeriodicalId":106924,"journal":{"name":"University of Cambridge Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"45 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125514254","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A Conversation with Professor Cheryl Saunders","authors":"Lesley Dingle, D. Bates","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3288541","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3288541","url":null,"abstract":"Professor Saunders is Laureate Professor Emeritus at Melbourne Law School, and Founding Director of the Centre for Comparative Constitutional Studies at the University of Melbourne.","PeriodicalId":106924,"journal":{"name":"University of Cambridge Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121137176","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Conversation with Professor Anthony Terry Hanmer (Tony) Smith: Part 2","authors":"Lesley Dingle, Daniel Bates","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3288543","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3288543","url":null,"abstract":"This is the second interview with the eleventh personality for the Eminent Scholars Archive. Professor Tony Smith is an incumbent of the Arthur Goodhart Visiting Professor of Legal Science and a Professor of Law at Victoria University, Wellington.","PeriodicalId":106924,"journal":{"name":"University of Cambridge Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"61 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122558273","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A Conversation with Professor Anthony Terry Hanmer (Tony) Smith: Part 1","authors":"Lesley Dingle, Daniel Bates","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3288542","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3288542","url":null,"abstract":"This is the second interview with the eleventh personality for the Eminent Scholars Archive. \u0000Professor Tony Smith is an incumbent of the Arthur Goodhart Visiting Professor of Legal Science and a Professor of Law at Victoria University, Wellington.","PeriodicalId":106924,"journal":{"name":"University of Cambridge Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117280711","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}