Cambridge Law Journal最新文献

{"title":"Data-driven Personalisation in Markets, Politics and the Law. Edited by Uta Kohl and Jacob Eisler. [Cambridge University Press, 2021. xvi + 316 pp. Hardback £85.00. ISBN 978-1-10-883569-5.]","authors":"Aislinn Kelly-Lyth","doi":"10.1017/S0008197322000411","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197322000411","url":null,"abstract":"problems posed by ouster clauses. There must be some question as to whether the decision in Conway deserves the attention which it receives in this volume. A number of authors note that this decision lacks continuing significance. Latham-Gambi points out that it was not an action for judicial review (in terms of a challenge to decision-making) at all, and that this explained why the House of Lords took a different approach: “[r]ather than making the decision-maker reconsider his decision, in Conway the House of Lords assumed responsibility to take the decision itself” (p. 388). Given that Conway is unlikely to be familiar for those reading current administrative law cases and commentary, it may be that emphasis on it could have been reduced. Alternatively, Arvind and Stirton, in their chapter on Conway, could have explained why it has fallen into relative obscurity in practice but nevertheless deserves prominence in research. The analysis in these papers contains much insight and factual interest. One perspective which is lacking is a sectoral approach to the Quartet. Knight says that citation of the Quartet “is almost a signal to say, ‘there’s nothing to see here”’ (p. 314). However, the citation of the Quartet may more accurately be an acknowledgement by an advocate that “I have no context-specific authority for you on this point”. Scott makes the comment that “the application of the rules of natural justice after Ridge is almost infinitely context-dependent” (p. 247). It is a shame that the lengthy volume does not consider how decisions in the Quartet have applied in various sectors subject to administrative law (e.g. the Quartet in environmental law, the Quartet in immigration law). Further, in the introduction, the editors refer (without reference) to “those who view [the ‘break with the past’ reading of the Quartet] as wrong turn which muddied the separation of powers in the UK” (p. 13). This collection might have been better in terms of balance had it included more contributions from a political constitutionalist angle. That said, this is already a rich collection of essays, providing food for thought for even the hungriest scholar of administrative law.","PeriodicalId":46389,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43779620","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Research Handbook on Information Law and Governance. Edited by Sharon K. Sandeen, Christoph Rademacher and Ansgar Ohly. [Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2021. x + 352 pp. Hardback £170.00. ISBN 978-1-78811-991-7.]","authors":"Ann Kristin Glenster","doi":"10.1017/S0008197322000423","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197322000423","url":null,"abstract":"alisation with various social domains and disciplinary discourses” (p. 28). In short, the selective reader is best advised to pick contributions on the basis of title, rather than by reference to the “parts”. In conclusion, the volume presents a collection of voices from diverse fields to tackle a pressing example of personal data being used to shape the world. The application of different lenses highlights the pertinence of a broad range of existing philosophical concepts and legal frameworks. Ultimately, most of the contributions point towards the need for policy changes: as the conclusion highlights, the collection is essentially a “call to understand the potential of law to counter-balance the impact of personalisation on the social order as a whole” (p. 303). The book is therefore recommended for lawyers and policy-makers, but the more abstract contributions should be read alongside the more practical.","PeriodicalId":46389,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47966065","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Executive Decision-making and the Courts: Revisiting the Origins of Modern Judicial Review. Edited by T.T. Arvind, Richard Kirkham, Daithi Mac Sithigh and Lindsay Stirton. [Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2021. xxxvi + 466 pp. Hardback £85.00. ISBN 978-1-50993-033-3.]","authors":"A. Mills","doi":"10.1017/S000819732200040X","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S000819732200040X","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46389,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43855821","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Peacebuilding Paradigms: The Impact of Theoretical Diversity on Implementing Sustainable Peace. Edited by Henry F. Carey. [Cambridge University Press, 2020. xx + 403 pp. Hardback £85.00. ISBN 978-1-108-48372-8.]","authors":"Donáta Szabó","doi":"10.1017/S0008197322000447","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197322000447","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46389,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43527832","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"RECOGNISING STATE BLAME IN SENTENCING: A COMMUNICATIVE AND RELATIONAL FRAMEWORK","authors":"Marie Manikis","doi":"10.1017/S0008197322000198","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197322000198","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Censure, blame and harms are central concepts in sentencing that have evolved over the years to take into account social context and experiential knowledge. Flexibility, however, remains limited as the current analysis in sentencing focuses on the offender while failing to engage with the state's contribution in creating wrongs and harms. This risks giving rise to defective practices of responsibility since the state can also contribute to their production. The following article presents a complementary and additional framework within sentencing to account for state censure, blame and harms. The framework is rooted in communicative theories of punishment that integrate a responsive understanding of censure and a relational account of responsibility.","PeriodicalId":46389,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45449687","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"MUD STICKS: PUBLICATION OF INFORMATION ABOUT PRE-CHARGE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND THE TORT OF MISUSE OF PRIVATE INFORMATION","authors":"Stevie Martin","doi":"10.1017/S0008197322000307","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197322000307","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46389,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"56690630","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"CLJ volume 81 issue 2 Cover and Front matter","authors":"","doi":"10.1017/s0008197322000496","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0008197322000496","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46389,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43681991","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"THE CORNERSTONE OF OUR LAW: EQUALITY, CONSISTENCY AND JUDICIAL REVIEW","authors":"Michael P. Foran","doi":"10.1017/S000819732200023X","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S000819732200023X","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Equality before the law is a foundational principle of the common law and is of particular importance for administrative law, given the connection between judicial review and the rule of law. Analysis as to the precise requirements of this principle can help us better to understand the role that obligations to act consistently play within judicial review. This article will examine whether consistency ought to be classed as a separate ground of review and argue that this is unnecessary. Examination of the role that legal equality plays within common law reason generally will shed light on the role that it plays within administrative law in particular. Consistency is best conceived as a background principle, informed by the value of legal equality, housed within reasonableness review and not as a separate ground of review that could elide the distinction between review and appeal.","PeriodicalId":46389,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48256579","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Mergers, Acquisitions and International Financial Regulation: Analysing Special Purpose Acquisition Companies. By Daniele D'Alvia. [London: Routledge, 2021. 258 pp. Hardback £120.00. ISBN 978-0-36760-986-3.]","authors":"Bobby V. Reddy","doi":"10.1017/S0008197322000435","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197322000435","url":null,"abstract":"will recognise how such a proprietary right would be highly problematic and would fly in the face of the foundational doctrinal principle of intellectual property law. This takes me to the third lingering question that runs throughout this volume: the difficult concept of property, particularly in relation to information, data and trade secrets. As the editors have chosen to label this a Handbook on Information Law and not Intellectual Property Law, classic intellectual property law doctrine does not necessarily apply. The result is an inevitable hodgepodge of usage, where terms such as “commodity”, “ownership” and “owner” of data are scattered throughout the chapters. The difficulty in pinning down the terminology also illustrates the uncertainty that exists regarding information law’s relationship to traditional property doctrine, misappropriation and competition law. Part III of the Handbook is dedicated to trade secrecy, and Part IV to data protection, privacy and cybersecurity. While focusing most of the book on the US, UK and EU, two of the chapters are dedicated to a non-Western jurisdiction: a chapter by Tatsuhiro Ueno on recent legislative reform in Japan regarding copyright and trade secrets (Chapter 6, “Big Data in Japan”), and a chapter by Henrike Weiden and Kensaku Takase on the reception of European data protection law in Japan (Chapter 14, “Data Privacy in Europe and Its Reception Under Japanese Law”). The discussions of legal issues and emerging technologies are dispersed throughout the volume, with a few dedicated chapters at the end, such as Margot E. Kaminski’s chapter on the right to explainability in EU data protection law (Chapter 15, “The Right to Explanation, Explained”), and Faye Fangfei Wang’s chapter on artificial intelligence and cybersecurity (Chapter 17, “Legislative Developments on Cybersecurity in the EU in the Age of Artificial Intelligence”), engaging with the frontiers of the academic debates in these areas of law. This Handbook is undoubtedly a good resource for anyone interested in the foundational tenets of many areas of information law. However, the heavy focus on established intellectual property scholarship begs the question whether its authors are ready to embrace this field as a new branch of law, as argued for in Nathenson’s first chapter, or simply stretch the intellectual property umbrella even wider. Cognisant that any volume can only represent a small fraction of a field, the omission of many of the new areas of information law suggests that there is room for the publisher’s Information Law Series to continue to make salient contributions to this growing literature for quite some time.","PeriodicalId":46389,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42809031","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"TRUST AS A CORE PRINCIPLE OF THE CONSTITUTION","authors":"H. Hooper","doi":"10.1017/S0008197322000290","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197322000290","url":null,"abstract":"assumptions” (at [41]–[42]). One of such assumptions – derived from R. v Secretary of State for Social Security, ex parte Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants [1996] EWCA Civ 1293, [1997] 1 W.L.R. 275 – was that “statutory rights are not to be cut down by subordinate legislation passed under the vires of a different Act” (at [34], [39], [41]–[42]). The court stressed that when the decision maker was empowered by the 2014 Act to set the level of the fee, there was no express “criterion of affordability”. Rather, she was allowed to set the fee in a way that (inter alia) “subsidised the wider immigration and nationality system” (at [45]– [46], [49]). The “appropriateness of imposing the [impugned] fee” was a “question of policy which is for political determination”, but not that for the court (at [51]). This reasoning seemed to have ignored the abovementioned assumption in statutory interpretation. The 2014 Act states that the impugned fee may go beyond the costs for processing the application, but the question of affordability does not seem to have been directly addressed. The 2014 Act does not expressly rule out the potential relevance of affordability, when (say) the decision maker examines the “fees charged by or on behalf of governments of other countries in respect of comparable functions”: see the 2014 Act, s. 68(9)(e). There are two ways to read this legislative silence: either the decision maker can impose any fee she wants, or she must impose it in a way that must not be entirely unaffordable, albeit exceeding the costs for processing the application. The absence of an express criterion of affordability (per Lord Hodge) is logically consistent with either reading. Critically, the abovementioned assumption would suggest that the latter reading should be taken, and this matter should not be reduced to purely one of political determination.","PeriodicalId":46389,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45736117","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}