Wiley-Blackwell: Modern Law Review最新文献_第8页

Ignorance of the Criminal Law, and Duties to Avoid it 对刑法的无知及规避刑法的义务

Wiley-Blackwell: Modern Law Review Pub Date : 2011-01-07 DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2230.2010.00834.x

A. Ashworth

{"title":"Ignorance of the Criminal Law, and Duties to Avoid it","authors":"A. Ashworth","doi":"10.1111/j.1468-2230.2010.00834.x","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2010.00834.x","url":null,"abstract":"Ignorance of the law is no defence, so we are told from an early stage in our legal studies. Or, to be more accurate, ignorance of the criminal law is no defence to a criminal charge. That appears to be the rule in this country, apart from a couple of well?established exceptions and another possible one. I will argue that it is a preposterous doctrine, resting on insecure foundations within the criminal law and on questionable propositions about the political obligations of individuals and of the State. In developing these arguments, I will draw attention to the differing problems of ignorance of the criminal law in three broad areas regulatory offences, serious crime, and offences of omission with a view to suggesting that there is a great deal more that the State needs to do if the issue of ignorance of the criminal law is to be dealt with adequately and fairly. I begin by scrutinising the relevant rule of English criminal law and the justifications offered for it. I then go on to situate the ignorance-of-law doctrine in the context of the principle of legality and the rule of law, those bastions of liberal criminal law theory. Part three then explores the three broad areas of the criminal law, and parts four and five carry the debate into the political obligations of individuals and of the State in these matters.","PeriodicalId":426546,"journal":{"name":"Wiley-Blackwell: Modern Law Review","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129865896","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}

引用次数: 16

What Conversation? Free Speech and Defamation Law 交谈什么?言论自由和诽谤法

Wiley-Blackwell: Modern Law Review Pub Date : 2010-08-24 DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2230.2010.00815.x

A. Kenyon

引用次数: 13

Section 199 of the Equality Act 2010: How Not to Abolish the Presumption of Advancement 2010年《平等法》第199条:如何不废除晋升推定

Wiley-Blackwell: Modern Law Review Pub Date : 2010-08-24 DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2230.2010.00819.x

J. Glister

引用次数: 1

Special Advocates, Control Orders and the Right to a Fair Trial 特别辩护律师，控制令和公平审判权

Wiley-Blackwell: Modern Law Review Pub Date : 2010-08-24 DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2230.2010.00821.x

Aileen R. Kavanagh

引用次数: 23

Copyright and Parody: Taking Backward the Gowers Review? 版权与戏仿:回顾高尔斯评论?

Wiley-Blackwell: Modern Law Review Pub Date : 2010-08-24 DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2230.2010.00818.x

R. Deazley

引用次数: 21

Trust, Distrust and Reassurance: Diversion and Preventive Orders Through the Prism of Feindstrafrecht 信任、不信任与保证:从联邦防卫工事的角度看转移与预防命令

Wiley-Blackwell: Modern Law Review Pub Date : 2010-08-24 DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2230.2010.00816.x

Daniel Ohana

引用次数: 12

An American Future? Contingency Fees, Claims Explosions and Evidence from Employment Tribunals 美国的未来?意外费用，索赔爆炸和就业法庭证据

Wiley-Blackwell: Modern Law Review Pub Date : 2010-08-17 DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2230.2010.00817.x

R. Moorhead

引用次数: 7

Deportation of Suspected Terrorists with ‘Real Risk’ of Torture: The House of Lords Decision in Abu Qatada 驱逐有酷刑“真正风险”的恐怖分子嫌疑人:上议院在阿布卡塔达的决定

Wiley-Blackwell: Modern Law Review Pub Date : 2010-07-01 DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2230.2010.00811.x

M. Garrod

引用次数: 2

Joint Criminal Enterprise 联合犯罪企业

Wiley-Blackwell: Modern Law Review Pub Date : 2010-07-01 DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2230.2010.00809.x

Beatrice Krebs

引用次数: 10

The European Commission's Guidance on Article 102TFEU: From Inferno to Paradiso? 欧盟委员会对第102条tfeu的指导:从地狱到天堂?

Wiley-Blackwell: Modern Law Review Pub Date : 2010-07-01 DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2230.2010.00810.x

P. Akman

{"title":"The European Commission's Guidance on Article 102TFEU: From Inferno to Paradiso?","authors":"P. Akman","doi":"10.1111/j.1468-2230.2010.00810.x","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2010.00810.x","url":null,"abstract":"The European Commission has for the first time issued a document expressing its official position on the enforcement of Article 102TFEU which prohibits the abuse of a dominant position on the Common Market. The Commission Guidance on enforcement priorities in applying Article 102TFEU to exclusionary abuses (adopted in December 2008) has ended a review of about four years. Given the increased enforcement of Article 102TFEU at the European level and the fact that many national provisions in the EU on unilateral conduct are modelled after Article 102TFEU, how the Commission intends to enforce Article 102TFEU is crucial for the application of competition law and the undertakings subject to it under European and/or national laws. The review period was preceded by severe criticisms of the Commission's approach to Article 102TFEU for protecting competitors instead of competition and for being insufficiently grounded in modern economic thinking. At the heart of the review and the discussions surrounding it lay the question of the objective of Article 102TFEU. Some, including the Directorate General for Competition claimed the objective to be ‘consumer welfare’, whereas some argued that ‘consumer welfare’ cannot be adopted as the objective at the expense of the protection of the competitive process. This article critically reviews the Commission Guidance, with an eye to assessing the ultimate objective of and the test of harm under Article 102TFEU. After discussing whether the Guidance indeed sets priorities, it examines the general approach of the Guidance to exclusionary conduct. It points out that despite there being some welcome novelties in the Guidance, there are also suggestions therein whose legitimacy and legality are questionable. Reflecting on the Guidance as a soft-law instrument, the article argues that although regarding the objective of Article 102TFEU, the Commission's apparent tendency towards ‘consumer welfare’ is not unlawful, the reform of Article 102TFEU to bring it more in line with modern economic and legal thinking seems to be far from complete.","PeriodicalId":426546,"journal":{"name":"Wiley-Blackwell: Modern Law Review","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116039633","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}

引用次数: 3