Law

This book describes the encounter between the common law legal system and the tribal peoples of North America and Australasia. It is a history of the role of anglophone law in managing relations between the British settlers and indigenous peoples. That history runs from the plantation of Ireland and settlement of the New World to the end of the 20th century. The book begins by looking at the nature of British imperialism and the position of non-Christian peoples at large in the 17th and 18th centuries. It then focuses on North America and Australasia from their early national periods in the 19th century to the modern era. The historical basis of relations is described through the key, enduring, but constantly shifting questions of sovereignty, status and, more latterly, self-determination. Throughout the history of engagement with common law legalism, questions surrounding the settler-state's recognition — or otherwise — of the integrity of the tribe have recurred. These issues were addressed in many and varied imperial and colonial contexts, but all jurisdictions have shared remarkable historical parallels which have been accentuated by their common legal heritage. The same questioning continues today in the renewed and controversial claims of the tribal societies to a distinct constitutional position and associated rights of self-determination. The author examines the political resurgence of aboriginal peoples in the last quarter of the 20th century. A period of ‘rights-recognition’ was transformed into a second-generation jurisprudence of rights-management and rights-integration. From the 1990s onwards, aboriginal affairs have been driven by an increasingly rampant legalism.

This book seeks illumination of three aspects of Anglo-American criminal law by the philosophy of action. These are, first, the general requirement that an accused perform some voluntary act before he can be convicted of crime; second, that that voluntary act have the properties marking it as one of the kinds of acts prohibited by statute, what lawyers call the ‘actus reus’ of crimes; and third, the double jeopardy requirement that no one should be prosecuted or punished more than once for doing but one act instantiating but one offence. These three requirements are seen as part of the ‘general part’ of the criminal law, the part that applies to all crimes and that gives the criminal law a unified structure. As such they aid both the efficient drafting of a criminal code by the legislature and the application/interpretation of criminal codes by courts. The theory of action defended in the book – and from which illumination of the criminal law is sought – in a version of the family of theories known as causal theories of action. The thesis is that actions are those bodily movements caused by volitions when those volitions have those movements as their object, and nothing else. The criminal law's voluntary act requirement is then seen as the requirement that there be such an act. Omissions, states a person is in, thoughts, and involuntary bodily movements such as reflex reactions, are not acts by such a causal theory. The criminal law's actus reus requirement is seen as the requirement that a voluntary act must possess those causal or other properties definitive of the types of action prohibited by a criminal code. And the criminal law's double jeopardy requirements is seen as a conjunctive requirement: first, that no one be punished for the same kind of action, where the identity of act-types is governed by the kinds of acts morality makes wrong; unless the actor did that act more than once, where the identity of act-tokens is governed by the theory of action defended throughout the book. The philosophy of action illuminates the criminal law in these three ways because of certain moral theses, which the book also defends; that criminal liability both does and should track moral responsibility; that moral responsibility exists principally for what we do rather than for who we are, what we think, or what we fail to prevent; that actions causing harms are more blameworthy than actions that only risk or attempt such harms; and that punishment should be in proposition to the number and degree of wrong(s) done.

This revised edition of one of the classic works of modern legal philosophy, first published in 1979, represents the author's contribution which has had an enduring influence on philosophical work on the nature of law and its relation to morality. The new edition includes two previously uncollected essays and a new introduction from the author.

This collection of original essays from distinguished legal philosophers offers a challenging assessment of the nature and viability of legal positivism, an approach to legal theory that continues to dominate contemporary legal theoretical debates. To what extent is the law adequately described as autonomous? Should legal theorists maintain a conceptual separation of law and morality?

This book develops ideas on some of the central questions in practical philosophy: legal, political, and moral. It provides an overview of the author's work on jurisprudence and the nature of law in the context of broader questions in the philosophy of practical reason. The book opens with a discussion of methodological issues, focusing on understanding the nature of jurisprudence, asking how the nature of law can be explained, and how the success of a legal theory can be established. The book then addresses central questions on the nature of law, its relation to morality, the nature and justification of authority, and the nature of legal reasoning. It explains how legitimate law, while being a branch of applied morality, is also a relatively autonomous system, which has the potential to bridge moral differences among its subjects. The book offers responses to some critical reactions to the author's theory of authority, adumbrating and modifying the theory to meet some of them. The final part of the book brings together for the first time the author's work on the nature of interpretation in law and the humanities. It includes a new chapter explaining interpretive pluralism and the possibility of interpretive innovation.

The series Criminalization is a set of volumes arising from an interdisciplinary investigation into criminalization, focussing on the principles and goals that should guide decisions about what kinds of conduct are to be criminalized, and the forms that criminalization should take. Developing a normative theory of criminalization, the six volumes in this series aim to tackle the key questions at the heart of issue: By reference to what principles and goals should legislations decide what to criminalize? How should criminal wrongs be classified and differentiated? And how should law enforcement officials apply the law's specification of offences? This book is the first book in this series examining the scope and boundaries of the criminal law. Investigations into the scope of the criminal law have often focused on the harm principle, the principle that conduct can be justifiably criminalized only if it is harmful, or other master principles that might determine the proper scope of the criminal law. These chapters aim to make significant advances in the development of a broader range of ideas that might inform criminalization decisions. A range of issues are discussed, including the significance for criminalization of ideas of moral wrongdoing and of using a person as a means, the distinction between criminal law and other forms of legal regulation, the role of new technology in our understanding of the evolving scope of the criminal law, and the role of criminal justice officials in decision-making about criminalization. The chapters draw on legal and philosophical sources, and also on history, sociology, and social psychology in their investigations.

Judges spend their public lives in courtrooms. They speak to the public through their judgments. But senior judges are frequently invited to contribute to professional, judicial, or academic conferences or publications, on whatever topic engages the attention of the audience at the time. This book contains a selection of the essays and addresses written or given by the present Senior Law Lord (as a Queen's Bench judge, Lord Justice of Appeal, Master of the Rolls, and the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales) over the last 15 years or so, touching on a wide range of legally related topics.

This book explores the canon law of the Roman Catholic Church from a comparative perspective. The Introduction to the book presents historical examples of antinomian and legalistic approaches to canon law. It discusses these approaches as threats to the rule of law in the Church, and describes the concept of the rule of law in the thought of various Anglo-American legal theorists. Chapter One offers an overview of canon law as the “home system” in this study. The remaining chapters consider antinomian and legalistic approaches to the rule of law in light of three specific issues: the sexual abuse crisis, ownership of church property, and the denial of Holy Communion to Catholic public officials. Chapters Two and Three discuss the failure of the rule of law as a result of antinomian and legalistic approaches to the sexual abuse crisis. Chapters Four and Five compare the concept of property in canon law with that of liberal political theory; they discuss the ownership of parish property in light of diocesan bankruptcies, the relationship between church property and the law of the secular state, and the secularization of Catholic institutions and their property. Chapters Six and Seven raise the indeterminacy claim with regards to canon law and the arguments for and against the denial of Holy Communion to Catholic public officials. Although the three issues arise in the context of the United States, they raise broader theoretical issues about antinomianism, legalism, and the rule of law.

This book is about the role causation plays in the attribution of both moral responsibility and legal liability (in the law of crimes, torts, and to a lesser extent, contracts). The book strips away many of the usages of the word ‘causation’ in law and legal theory, on the grounds that such usages have little to do with causation itself. What remains is the law's use of ‘causation’ to name a natural relation that is at the heart of both ordinary and scientific explanations of the world. Some normative defense is offered as to why causation in this sense is a proper basis for assessing degrees of both culpability and permissibility in morality and also in law. A more extended metaphysical defense is also offered, as to the nature of the causal relation and as to the nature of the things related by the causal relation. This normative and metaphysical analysis is used as the springboard from which to critique much of what the law currently says about causation, including the law's counterfactual test for cause in fact, its notions of intervening cause, foreseeability, harm within the risk, accomplice liability, the causal status of omissions and of non-omissive allowings, and more besides. The result is a rethinking of causation's nature and role in our legal and moral practices of assigning blame and responsibility.

This text is an updated and extended second edition supporting the findings of its well-known predecessor which claimed that courts employ common-sense notions of causation in determining legal responsibility.