发布求助
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献

Oxford Journal of Legal Studies最新文献

筛选
英文 中文
Brexit and the Constitutional Absence of England: Revisiting the English Question. 英国脱欧与英格兰宪法缺失：重新审视英国问题。
IF 1.4 2区 社会学
Oxford Journal of Legal Studies Pub Date : 2026-02-26 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI: 10.1093/ojls/gqag011
Darryn Nyatanga
{"title":"Brexit and the Constitutional Absence of England: Revisiting the English Question.","authors":"Darryn Nyatanga","doi":"10.1093/ojls/gqag011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqag011","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article re-examines the English Question in light of Brexit and the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (DCEB). It argues that Brexit transformed England's long-standing constitutional absence from a manageable anomaly into a source of acute constitutional strain. With the external disciplines associated with EU membership removed, the UK's internal asymmetries have been exposed with greater force, revealing how England's lack of distinct institutional representation weakens domestic accountability and complicates the operation of territorial governance. Through an analysis of the DCEB-the most ambitious attempt yet to rationalise England's subnational governance-the article assesses whether recent reforms move England from administrative delegation towards constitutional accommodation. Applying four constitutional tests-identity, entrenchment, fiscal autonomy and voice-it concludes that while the DCEB enhances coherence and makes England's subnational architecture more visible within the Union, it stops short of devolution in any meaningful constitutional sense. England's governance remains derivative of Westminster authority, its institutions empowered yet fiscally dependent, politically included yet constitutionally insecure. The result is a more orderly form of constitutional absence: a settlement that manages England's diversity without providing a collective locus of representation, which leaves unresolved the deeper question of how the largest nation in the Union can be governed without being constitutionally acknowledged. More fundamentally, it leaves unresolved how the Union can remain stable when its largest constituent nation is governed through undifferentiated state institutions rather than recognised channels of self-government.</p>","PeriodicalId":47225,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Journal of Legal Studies","volume":"46 3","pages":"565-596"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2026-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13553201/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148921318","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
'Singapore on Thames' Metropolitan Dreams and Planning Regimes. “泰晤士河畔的新加坡”都市梦想与规划制度。
IF 1.4 2区 社会学
Oxford Journal of Legal Studies Pub Date : 2026-02-12 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI: 10.1093/ojls/gqag008
Justin Lim
{"title":"'Singapore on Thames' Metropolitan Dreams and Planning Regimes.","authors":"Justin Lim","doi":"10.1093/ojls/gqag008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqag008","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Singapore has frequently been idealised as a metropolitan financial hub that the UK should aspire to by adopting similar models of deregulation and executive control. This article brings attention to the role of planning laws in enabling or obstructing this goal. Planning regimes are responsible for facilitating a city's infrastructural transformation, but are also emblematic of a state's legal approach to its political goals. Comparing the planning regimes of the UK and Singapore will reveal how, despite originating from similar systems, their modern forms create vastly different pathways towards their metropolitan dreams. 'Singapore on Thames' reform in the planning context must thus be questioned as the legal histories and frameworks of the planning regimes also speak to irreconcilable legal cultures. In particular, differences in accountability mechanisms, the ways political authorities and their laws are legitimated and the role of law should warn against simplistic calls for deregulation or technocratic executive control. This comparative study of English and Singaporean planning regimes thus sheds light on how divergent approaches to planning may secure different outcomes, warns against legal reform that fails to account for the features of local legal culture and concludes by rethinking the concept of 'Singapore on Thames'.</p>","PeriodicalId":47225,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Journal of Legal Studies","volume":"46 2","pages":"477-507"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2026-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13312957/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148353906","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Election Defined. 选举的定义。
IF 1.4 2区 社会学
Oxford Journal of Legal Studies Pub Date : 2026-02-02 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI: 10.1093/ojls/gqag003
Matthew Frey
{"title":"Election Defined.","authors":"Matthew Frey","doi":"10.1093/ojls/gqag003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqag003","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In contract law, an 'election' conventionally refers to certain finally binding choices exercised outside of court-including to rescind or affirm and to terminate or affirm a contract. This article proposes a new analysis of 'election', as a choice between mutually exclusive powers which destroy one another. One power (eg the power to rescind/terminate) changes the power holder's legal relations with respect to another by destroying a primary set of rights and the other power. The other power (eg the power to affirm) destroys the former power without affecting any pre-existing set of primary rights. This 'two power model' explains why affirmation is binding, and thereby gives the concept of 'election' some explanatory value.</p>","PeriodicalId":47225,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Journal of Legal Studies","volume":"46 2","pages":"338-356"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2026-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13312954/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148354308","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Gross Negligence in Bank Payments Law. 银行付款法中的重大过失。
IF 1.4 2区 社会学
Oxford Journal of Legal Studies Pub Date : 2026-02-02 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI: 10.1093/ojls/gqag002
Jo Braithwaite
{"title":"Gross Negligence in Bank Payments Law.","authors":"Jo Braithwaite","doi":"10.1093/ojls/gqag002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqag002","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The law's allocation of responsibility for disputed bank payments is important not only for banks and customers, but also, given the volume and value of payments, for the economy more broadly. This article examines loss allocation under common law, EU-UK regulation and the UK's 'world-first' scheme for 'authorised push payment' frauds, showing that the gross negligence standard of customer conduct is a common feature. Indeed, this 'slippery concept' sits at critical junctures, providing, in practice, the most relevant limitation to a bank's liability to refund payments. The article analyses what this standard means in English common law and in its regulatory contexts, and highlights the important connection between the two. It then draws upon decisions by the UK's Financial Ombudsman Service, amongst other sources, to explore how evaluating bank customer conduct works in practice, concluding that it is time for regulators to rethink the status quo.</p>","PeriodicalId":47225,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Journal of Legal Studies","volume":"46 2","pages":"308-337"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2026-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13312964/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148354371","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Taking International Law Seriously? Interpretation of the 1998 Belfast/Good Friday Agreement in the Context of Article 2(1) of the Windsor Framework. 认真对待国际法？在温莎框架第2(1)条的背景下解释1998年贝尔法斯特/耶稣受难日协议。
IF 1.4 2区 社会学
Oxford Journal of Legal Studies Pub Date : 2026-02-02 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI: 10.1093/ojls/gqag006
Katie A Johnston
{"title":"Taking International Law Seriously? Interpretation of the 1998 Belfast/Good Friday Agreement in the Context of Article 2(1) of the Windsor Framework.","authors":"Katie A Johnston","doi":"10.1093/ojls/gqag006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqag006","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article analyses the approach of the Northern Ireland courts to interpretation of the 1998 Belfast/Good Friday Agreement in the context of the 'no diminution of rights' obligation in article 2(1) of the Windsor Framework. It advances an alternative approach to the interpretation of the 1998 Agreement that is consistent with international law and provides a more robust basis for rights protection. The article sets out the sources of the rules of treaty interpretation in international law and their application in article 2(1) cases, and analyses the nature of the multi-party agreement part of the 1998 Agreement. It is argued that the multi-party agreement is neither a free-standing treaty nor an integral part of a treaty, and the rules of treaty interpretation do not apply to that instrument. The multi-party agreement, including its Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity part, should nevertheless be interpreted using a 'generous and purposive' approach. In accordance with existing precedents in UK constitutional law, the multi-party agreement should be interpreted generously and purposively due to its nature as a constitution for Northern Ireland.</p>","PeriodicalId":47225,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Journal of Legal Studies","volume":"46 2","pages":"414-443"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2026-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13312958/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148354095","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Defective Buildings Are a Nuisance. 有缺陷的建筑令人讨厌。
IF 1.4 2区 社会学
Oxford Journal of Legal Studies Pub Date : 2026-02-02 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI: 10.1093/ojls/gqag005
Victoria Evans, Jodi Gardner
{"title":"Defective Buildings Are a Nuisance.","authors":"Victoria Evans, Jodi Gardner","doi":"10.1093/ojls/gqag005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqag005","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article highlights the potential for nuisance to provide another avenue to leaseholders of defective buildings who want to seek remediation. The Supreme Court's decision in <i>Fearn v Tate Gallery</i> expanded the scope of nuisance, focusing on whether there was substantial interference with property use, without the need for physical invasion. Unsafe cladding and fire safety defects diminish the amenity and utility of leasehold flats, so that many are unsafe and unsellable. Landlords, as freeholders, can be considered 'neighbours' under nuisance law and therefore held liable for failing to remediate hazards. Applying nuisance to defective premises could allow leaseholders the remedy of an injunction, therefore allowing remediation. Unlike the criticised <i>Fearn</i>, which prioritised the interests of wealthy occupiers of the Neo Bankside apartments over the general public, this article explores the possibility of using nuisance for public good through the remediation of buildings with potentially life-threatening defects.</p>","PeriodicalId":47225,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Journal of Legal Studies","volume":"46 2","pages":"388-413"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2026-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13312961/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148354320","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Loss Counterfactuals. 反设事实损失。
IF 1.4 2区 社会学
Oxford Journal of Legal Studies Pub Date : 2026-01-22 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI: 10.1093/ojls/gqag001
Benjamin Teng
{"title":"Loss Counterfactuals.","authors":"Benjamin Teng","doi":"10.1093/ojls/gqag001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqag001","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Private law uses counterfactual reasoning to determine if loss-for which compensatory damages may be awarded-has been suffered because of a wrong: is the claimant in a worse position than it would have been in without the wrong? Counterfactual reasoning is, therefore, an essential part of private law. Yet, it is far from clear what this counterfactual for determining loss <i>is</i>. Different counterfactuals seem to be used, depending on the claim and the claim's circumstances. Counterfactuals remain, in general, an undertheorised concept. This article proposes a new, principled theory, and conceptualisation, of counterfactuals in private law. Its central claim is that, as a rule, the counterfactual for determining loss is, and should be, 'what would have happened without the wrong', but that there are, and should be, exceptions to this rule, if normatively justifiable.</p>","PeriodicalId":47225,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Journal of Legal Studies","volume":"46 2","pages":"280-307"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2026-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13312965/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148353884","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Examining Mitigation in the Law of Damages and the Limits of the Compensatory Principle. 论损害赔偿法中的减轻与赔偿原则的限度。
IF 1 2区 社会学
Oxford Journal of Legal Studies Pub Date : 2025-12-02 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI: 10.1093/ojls/gqaf039
David Winterton
{"title":"Examining Mitigation in the Law of Damages and the Limits of the Compensatory Principle.","authors":"David Winterton","doi":"10.1093/ojls/gqaf039","DOIUrl":"10.1093/ojls/gqaf039","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In <i>Causation in the Law</i>, Hart and Honoré famously argued that the attribution of responsibility for outcomes within the law is broadly consistent with the ordinary person's non-legal judgments about responsibility, whilst simultaneously drawing an important distinction between 'causal' and non-causal' rules of responsibility attribution. In <i>Mitigation in the Law of Damages</i>, Andrew Summers argues that the theory of 'common-sense causation' Hart and Honoré advanced also persuasively explains the English law of mitigation. In addition to considering the continuing relevance of this analysis today, and noting the need for an improved understanding of legal responsibility's non-causal limits, the present article critically evaluates Summers's descriptive claims. It is argued that while Summers offers a generally compelling rationalisation of the avoidable loss rule, his analysis of the authorities concerned with the relevance of consequential benefits derived from the wrong when assessing damages following civil wrongdoing is substantively incomplete.</p>","PeriodicalId":47225,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Journal of Legal Studies","volume":"46 1","pages":"201-222"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2025-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13017295/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147575862","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Legitimating Corporate Power: Shareholderism versus Stakeholderism. 公司权力合法化：股东主义与利益相关者主义。
IF 1 2区 社会学
Oxford Journal of Legal Studies Pub Date : 2025-11-22 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI: 10.1093/ojls/gqaf037
Heikki Marjosola
{"title":"Legitimating Corporate Power: Shareholderism versus Stakeholderism.","authors":"Heikki Marjosola","doi":"10.1093/ojls/gqaf037","DOIUrl":"10.1093/ojls/gqaf037","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article assesses the legitimising strategies of 'shareholderism' and 'stakeholderism' through the dual lenses of input and output legitimacy widely used in political theory. Here, output legitimacy evaluates corporate decision making by its contribution to societal welfare, whereas input legitimacy requires that corporate decisions reflect the preferences of its legitimate stakeholders. On both fronts, shareholderism and stakeholderism offer incomplete strategies to legitimise corporate authority. Shareholderism, although firmly grounded in state-derived legitimacy, fails to address certain structural problems, such as corporate political power and the geographic mismatch between jurisdictions and capital. Most stakeholderists, by contrast, would have corporate leaders make distributive judgments in place of the majoritarian, yet ineffective, political process. In terms of output legitimacy, their alternative is plausible, but they fail to engage with the participatory requirements of input legitimacy. The emerging proceduralist agenda, drawing on principles such as transparency and stakeholder engagement, offers a thin basis for corporate legitimacy.</p>","PeriodicalId":47225,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Journal of Legal Studies","volume":"46 1","pages":"141-170"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2025-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13017770/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147575829","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Unnecessary Self-defence. 不必要的自卫。
IF 1 2区 社会学
Oxford Journal of Legal Studies Pub Date : 2025-11-12 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI: 10.1093/ojls/gqaf035
James Manwaring
{"title":"Unnecessary Self-defence.","authors":"James Manwaring","doi":"10.1093/ojls/gqaf035","DOIUrl":"10.1093/ojls/gqaf035","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Self-defence is traditionally said to contain a <i>necessity requirement</i>, according to which defensive force is lawful only if it is necessary. But the necessity requirement is formulated inconsistently, and these inconsistencies substantially alter the scope of the defence. This article explains these inconsistencies. It concludes that it would be preferable to abandon the necessity requirement altogether. This would not leave a problematic gap in the law, because necessity would remain an important consideration when judging whether any use of force was reasonable.</p>","PeriodicalId":47225,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Journal of Legal Studies","volume":"46 1","pages":"87-110"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2025-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13016743/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147522361","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
首页 上一页 下一页 尾页
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整，为了账户安全，请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
相关产品
×
本文献相关产品
联系我们：info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务，方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号：604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书