Search Results

Chapter 5 examines the agreement reached at the Colloquy of Regensburg (1541) on justification (including the evaluation of formulations on the doctrine of justification from important preceding colloquies and conferences). This chapter argues that Bucer believed that the evangelical understanding of justification was present in the formulations from Leipzig (1539), Worms (1540–1541), and Regensburg (1541) and that they are compatible with Bucer’s earlier view found in the Romans Commentary. For Bucer reform could not be achieved at the expense of the truth of justification as he understood it.

This chapter contains the Latin text of Article 5, together with a sentence by sentence commentary. This commentary draws upon the six debaters (Bucer, Melanchthon, Pistorius, Gropper, Eck, Pflug), together with Contarini, Calvin, Luther and Pighius. The chapter also compares Article 5 with the Tridentine Decree on Justification. The conclusion asks to what extent Article 5 can be said to retain “the substance of the true doctrine,” from the perspective of either the Protestant or the Catholic party. This flags a number of issues which need to be resolved in the concluding chapter.

This chapter sets out the reactions to Article 5. It starts with contemporary Protestant reactions, focusing especially on Luther, Calvin, and Melanchthon. This section includes an account of all the Protestant objections, which are considered in the remainder of the book. Catholic reactions include Contarini, Eck, Gropper, Pflug, and Pighius, as well as reactions from Rome. The views of Sadolet and (especially) Pole are also considered. The chapter concludes with an account of modern assessments of the article, especially by Protestants. There is a stark contrast between the more positive assessment of Peter Matheson, for example, and the very negative approach of much German scholarship, as with Athena Lexutt.

This chapter aims to resolve the question posed in the title: is Article 5 an inconsistent patchwork or does it retain the substance of true doctrine? A number of issues are considered: doctrines that have not been covered, ambiguities, duplex iustitia, reliance upon the testimony of works, the nature of justifying faith, and the role of fiducia. Then the initial question is asked in turn of Melanchthon, Bucer, Calvin, Contarini, Gropper, and Pflug. The conclusion is that the article does retain the substance of true [Protestant] doctrine. Then it was asked why many Protestants did not recognise this. The article is also assessed from the perspective of the differing concerns underlying Protestant and Catholic doctrines of justification. Article 5 was not a merely political manoeuvre, but represented a genuine meeting of minds between Bucer, Melanchthon, and Pistorius, on the one side, and Contarini, Gropper, and Pflug on the other.

Article 5 of the Claims Settlement Declaration provided the Iran–United States Claims Tribunal with broad discretion in its choices of applicable law. Consequently, it is impossible to define any coherent set of choice of law rules followed by the Tribunal, but there are a few general conclusions that appear to flow from the Tribunal’s practice. Firstly, it is clear that the Tribunal relished the freedom given it by Article 5. Secondly, many of the largest claims before the Tribunal were claims for compensation for properties expropriated by Iran. Thirdly, the references in Article 5 of the Claims Settlement Declaration were used frequently by the Tribunal to justify resort to ‘general principles of law’. Fourthly, whenever the Tribunal could find relevant rules of public international law, it tended to turn to them. Finally, the Tribunal consistently refused to consider itself bound by any national rules of evidence.

This chapter places Article 5 in its wider context. First it considers the colloquies prior to Regensburg. Then it describes the Regensburg Colloquy prior to Article 5, focusing especially on the participants in the debates (Bucer, Melanchthon, Pistorius, Gropper, Eck, Pflug), as well as those who were also present at the Diet (Contarini, Pighius, Calvin). The heart of the chapter is an examination of the process leading to the writing of Article 5, so far as can be ascertained from the brief accounts that we have, together with a description of the various earlier drafts, the texts of which are to be found in the Appendix. Finally, there is a brief account of the further progress and dissolution of the colloquy.

This chapter sets out the ongoing debates over justification in the aftermath of Article 5. From 1541 to 1543 Bucer engaged in a literary controversy over the article with Eck and Pighius. There followed the controversy surrounding the attempted Cologne Reformation, in which Bucer (and to a lesser extent Melanchthon) engaged in a literary exchange with Gropper especially. This involved disputes about the events surrounding Article 5, as well as the theological issues arising from it, such as twofold righteousness and imputed righteousness. Gropper also had to respond to criticisms from the Leuven theology faculty. Gropper continued to hold the ideas he had embraced at Regensburg in the final months of his life. There was a second colloquy of Regensburg, in 1546, also involving Bucer, which involved discussion of Article 5. Finally, the Tridentine Decree on Justification rejected the ideas of twofold righteousness and imputed righteousness.

This chapter looks at debates over whether the charted or ‘actual’ low-water line constitutes the normal baseline in commentary considering the implications of climate-related coastal change for maritime jurisdiction. It suggests that there has been some conflation of legal lines with the geographical objects by reference to which they are constructed or described. This seems to have encouraged the attribution of the natural variability of features of the coastal environment to both cartographic constructs and legal limits. The chapter revisits the text and drafting history of UNCLOS and the 1958 Conventions to explain why the identification of natural objects and qualities with either or both cartographic and legal constructs misunderstands the role of charted geographical features in the law.

In 1541, at the Regensburg Colloquy, three leading Protestant theologians (Melanchthon, Bucer, and Pistorius) and three leading Catholic theologians (Eck, Gropper, and Pflug) debated with the aim of producing a joint statement of belief. The colloquy eventually failed, but it began with a statement on justification by faith agreed by all the parties, “Article 5,” which had led to an initial burst of optimism. But from the beginning there were two contrasting reactions to Article 5. Some, notably Calvin, maintained that it contained the substance of true doctrine; others, notably Luther, called it an inconsistent patchwork. These two rival assessments have both persisted over the centuries. The aim of this book is to decide between them.

The focus of the empirical account of human rights in Part IV is on the suspect’s right to liberty in the context of police custody. In keeping with the style adopted in Part III, the discussion that follows seeks to closely analyse how particular aspects of police practices and decision-making interact with human rights law standards. The aim in this chapter is to explore how the three statutory safeguards established in PACE to protect the suspect’s right to liberty have fared in the face of organizational pressure to detect and ‘clear up’ crime. Using the three due process safeguards established in PACE to form a framework for this chapter’s analysis, the chapter explores how officers apply, dismiss, interpret and reconstruct each of these safeguards in their everyday work. Once again, the richness of this analysis, specifically its appreciation for how law and practice do (or do not) interact, is enhanced by paying close attention to the development of lines of authority in the case law that have, it is argued, watered down the legal standards officers must apply. This analysis of the case law is based on recent judgments from the High Court and Divisional Court of Northern Ireland, as well as from the Court of Appeal in England and Wales.

In the 1990s, Russia’s wars in Chechnya alientated the officials in the Clinton administration, for they deemed the response by the Yeltsin government to be an overreaction to the acts committed by Chechnyan terrorists. However, the Twin Towers attacks in 2001 created a certain common understanding between the two powers. In spite of the contrasting attitudes of the two towards bin Laden and al Qaeda during the Russian invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s, responses to global terrorism put them on the same page in the new century. With the support of NATO’s Article 5, the American decision to invade Afghanstan and dislodge the Taliban met with allied approval and support. However, there was considerable controversy between Moscow and Washington over the Iraq war that America commenced with the Coalition of the Willing in 2003. Russian leaders condemned this invasion as an illustration of an American overreach as well as an inappropriate response to the 9/11 attacks. One commonality in the effort to contain terrorism was considerable administrative centralization within both political systems.