Why Law Matters argues that public institutions and legal procedures are valuable and matter as such, irrespective of their instrumental value. Examining the value of rights, public institutions, and constitutional review, the book criticises instrumentalist approaches in political theory, claiming they fail to account for their enduring appeal.
Privatisation has occupied the attention of theorists of different disciplines. Yet, despite the multiplicity of perspectives, the typical arguments concerning privatisation are instrumental, relying heavily on comparing the performance of a public functionary with that of its private counterpart. This article challenges this approach for leaving unaddressed other important consequences of shifting responsibilities to private entities. More specifically, privatisation cuts off the link between processes of decision-making and the citizens, and therefore erodes political engagement and its underlying notion of shared (...) responsibility. The effects of privatisation are not restricted to the question of whether public prison is better or worse qua prison than its private counterpart or whether private forestry is better or worse qua forestry than its public counterpart. Rather, they extend to whether stripping the state of its responsibilities erodes public responsibility. For privatisation is not only the transformation of detention centres, trains, tax inquiry offices, forestry operations and so on, considered one service at a time. It is also the transformation of our political system and public culture from ones characterised by robust shared responsibility and political engagement to ones characterised by fragmentation and sectarianism. (shrink)
The state has a duty to protect individuals from violations of their basic rights to life and liberty. But does the state have a duty to criminalize such violations? Further, if there is a duty on the part of the state to criminalize violations, should the duty be constitutionally entrenched? This paper argues that the answer to both questions is positive. The state has a duty not merely to effectively prevent violations of our rights to life and liberty, but also (...) to criminalize such violations. Further, the duty to criminalize ought to be constitutionally entrenched. In the absence of criminal prohibitions on violations of the right to life and liberty individuals live ‘at the mercy’ of others. In the absence of a constitutional duty to criminalize, life and liberty of individuals is contingent upon the judgments and inclinations of the legislature. In both cases citizens’ rights are ‘at the mercy of others’. I also show that the decisions of the German Constitutional Court concerning abortion can be justified on such grounds. (shrink)
Criminal sanctions are typically inflicted by the state. The central role of the state in determining the severity of these sanctions and inflicting them requires justification. One justification for state-inflicted sanctions is simply that the state is more likely than other agents to determine accurately what a wrongdoer justly deserves and to inflict a just sanction on those who deserve it. Hence, in principle, the state could be replaced by other agents, for example, private individuals. This hypothesis has given rise (...) to recent calls to reform the state's criminal justice system by introducing privately inflicted sanctions, for example, shaming penalties, private prisons, or private probationary services. This paper challenges this view and argues that the agency of the state is indispensable to criminal sanctions. Privately inflicted sanctions sever the link between the state's judgments concerning the wrongfulness of the action and the appropriateness of the sanction and the infliction of sufferings on the criminal. When a private individual inflicts punishment, she acts on what she and not the state judges to be a justified response to a criminal act. Privately inflicted sanctions for violations of criminal laws are not grounded in the judgments of the appropriate agent, namely the state. It is impermissible on the part of the state to approve, encourage, or initiate the infliction of a sanction on an alleged wrongdoer on the basis of a private judgment. Such an approval grants undue weight to the private judgment of the individual who inflicts the sanction. (shrink)
Why Law Matters examines various legal and political institutions and procedures and argues that the desirability of these institutions and procedures is not contingent and does not hinge on the prospects that these institutions are conducive to the realization of valuable ends. Instead, various legal institutions and legal procedures that are often perceived as contingent means to facilitate the realization of valuable ends matter as such.
This paper investigates whether Palestinians have an interest in return rather than a mere interest in settling within the territory of a state that provides them with civil rights and economic opportunities. The paper establishes the following three claims. First, Palestinians have some interests in return to the territory of Palestine-Israel. Second, many of these interests can be satisfied by establishing an independent Palestinian state in part of historical Palestine. Third, some of these interests are similar to the interests that (...) may justify an analogous right of return for Jews to the same land. (shrink)
Some goods and services seem to be fundamentally public, such as legislation, criminal punishment, and fighting wars. By contrast, other functions, such as garbage collection, do not. This volume brings together prominent scholars from a range of academic fields - including law, economics, philosophy, and sociology - to address the core question of what makes a certain good or service fundamentally public and why. Sometimes, governments and other public entities are superior because they are more likely to get at the (...) right decisions or follow fair procedures. In other instances, the provision of goods and services by public entities is intrinsically valuable. By analyzing the these answers, the authors also explore the nature of the state and its authority. This handbook explores influential arguments for and against privatization and also develops a number of key studies explaining, justifying, or challenging the legitimacy and the desirability of public provision of particular goods and services. (shrink)
The standard opinion is that the force of the constitution hinges on the fact that it is willingly endorsed by the people or, at least representative of the people. This Article challenges this view. More specifically, I differentiate between two types of legitimation: representational legitimation and non-representational or reason-based legitimation. While representational legitimation rests on the fact that the constitution is representative of who the people are or what they want, reason-based constitutions are based on the judgement that the constitution (...) is just or, at least grounded in reason. I also show that some of the puzzles in constitutional theory can be resolved by acknowledging the significance of the latter type of legitimation. For instance, I illustrate that constitutions that were not adopted freely by the nations and could not have been characterized as representative of the people such as the German Constitution can still be legitimate. To put it provocatively: the legitimation of a constitution need not rest on the conviction that it represents the people whom it governs; it may simply rest on the belief that it is a good or just constitution. Representational legitimacy is only one form of legitimacy but not the only one. (shrink)
This book is a collection consisting of an introduction and nine essays that explore foundational aspects of criminal law. As the introduction makes clear, the book is eclectic and the essays can be classified under three main headings. The first group of essays explores the political constitution of criminal law as part of the institutional structure of the state. The second group of essays investigates the question of the authority of criminal law and its potential to create reasons for action. (...) The third group deals with transnational and international criminal law. The essays are primarily normative but they also contain historical and sociological discussions. The book will therefore be of interest to criminal lawyers, political and legal philosophers, political scientists and policy-makers. I will review separately some of the essays.Nicola Lacey’s essay, “What Constitutes Criminal Law?,” touches upon the fundamental question of criminal law: the question of legitimation. Lacey ap .. (shrink)
This paper investigates the accusation that judicial review is undemocratic. It argues that the alleged tension between judicial review and democracy fails to account for the fact that the content of rights and their scope depends on societal convictions and moral judgments of the public. Such dependence suggests that rights-based judicial review can be described as an alternative form of democratic participation.
This Paper explores the justifications for regulating modesty-related practices in liberal societies and uses two examples of modesty-related practices— the practice of wearing the hijab and the practice of separating men and women in buses—in order to demonstrate that modesty-related practices often rest on different rationales. Some of these rationales are oppressive and discriminatory while other are benign or even autonomy-enhancing. The multiplicity of meanings associated with modesty-related practices is a challenge to the policy maker. The Paper proposes that sometimes (...) it is possible to transform the social meaning of modesty-related practices without transforming the practices themselves. (shrink)
In his admirable book Dimensions of Dignity, 1 Jacob Weinrib develops a comprehensive dignity-based theory of public law. Weinrib's ‘unified theory’ of public law rests on dignity; dignity, under h...
This paper provides an economic justification for the exemption from liability for omissions in torts and for the exceptions to this exemption. It interprets the differential treatment of acts and omissions under tort law as a proxy for a more fundamental distinction between harms caused by multiple injurers, where each one can single-handedly prevent the harm, and harms caused by a single injurer. Since the overall cost to which a group of injurers is exposed is constant, attributing liability to many (...) injurers reduces the part each has to pay and, consequently, reduces each one’s incentives to take precautions. Broad exemption from liability for omissions is a way of carving a simple, practical rule to distinguish between the typical cases in which an agent can be easily selected and provided with sufficient incentives and cases in which there is a serious problem of dilution of liability. The exceptions to the rule exempting from liability for omissions are explained in terms of efficiency. The imposition of liability for omissions depends on the ability to identify a salient agent, i.e., to single out one or few liable agents and differentiate their role from that of others. Tort law designs three types of "salience rules." It either creates salience directly, or it can exploit salience created "naturally," or it can induce injurers to create salience voluntarily. (shrink)
