The Faculty has published the second edition of 2014, Volume 5 Number 2 of the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series on SSRN.
This issue includes the following articles:
Neil H. Andrews: Nurturing Civil Justice (41/2013)
This article emphasizes the State’s duty as the ultimate trustee of legal values to safeguard civil justice. There are four needs: first, civil justice within the court system must be 'ring-fenced' as a national priority during times of austerity; secondly, each jurisdiction must educate and support a sufficiently strong and large team of honest, talented, and diligent lawyers; thirdly, each nation must maintain a clear and well-adjusted system of procedural rules; they must not be allowed to ossify; and they must be intelligible publicly. Finally, all civilised jurisdictions should promote judicial co-operation between legal systems throughout the world.
Mark Elliott: Law, Rights and Constitutional Politics (55/2013)
In this paper, I reflect on the ongoing debate concerning the protection of human rights in the UK. I attempt to situate that debate within its legal and political context by examining the underlying reasons that might explain why the Act has been the source of so much controversy. Against that background, I assess how the debate is likely to play out over the coming years. I outline the main options for reform, and explain that the possibilities open to lawmakers will vary significantly depending upon whether the UK remains a party to the European Convention on Human Rights or (as some senior Conservatives now openly contemplate) withdraws from it. However, I go on to suggest that those who suppose that ECHR withdrawal would constitute (from the perspective of human-rights sceptics) some sort of panacea may be mistaken, and argue that the common-law doctrine of constitutional rights means that ECHR withdrawal would not necessarily yield a legal blank canvas.
Philip Murray: Natural Justice at the Boundaries of Public Law (3/2014)
This paper considers the ways in which natural justice arguments have historically been invoked in private law proceedings against private bodies. It first appeared on the UK Constitutional Law Blog, and will serve as the basis of a wider paper assessing the historical use of public law principles in private law proceedings.
Alex Sutherland, Ian Brunton-Smith, and Jonathan Jackson: Bridging Structure and Perception: On the Social Ecology of Beliefs and Worries About Neighbourhood Violence in London (4/2014)
Applying in a new setting Robert Sampson’s (2012) work on interdependent spatial patterns, we link structural characteristics of the neighbourhood to public beliefs and worries about neighbourhood violence via two intermediate mechanisms: collective efficacy and neighbourhood disorder. Analysing data from face-to-face interviews of 61,436 individuals living in 4,761 London neighbourhoods, we find that the strength of informal social control and low-level breaches of common standards of behaviour communicates information about the prevalence and threat of violent crime in one’s neighbourhood. Moreover, collective efficacy and disorder partially mediate some of the statistical effects of structural characteristics of the neighbourhood – such as concentrated disadvantage – on beliefs and worries about violent crime. Theoretical implications of the findings are discussed.
Eilis Ferran et al: Response to the European Commission's Report on the Application of the Takeover Bids Directive (5/2014)
This paper contains the European Company Law Experts' response to the report of the European Commission of 28 June 2012 on the application of the Takeover Bids Directive of 2004 and the reform initiatives announced. For evaluating these initiatives the rationale of the mandatory bid rule is relevant (exit rationale, control premium rationale and undistorted choice rationale). On this basis the paper discusses each of the concerns raised by the European Commission: 1) The concept of "acting in concert": The ECLE are of the opinion that a uniform concept for the Takeover Bids Directive, the Transparency Directive and the Acquisition Directive is not useful because of the different objectives of these Directives. As to the Takeover Directive it should be made clear that joint engagement activities of investors should not trigger a mandatory offer. 2) National derogations to the mandatory offer rule differ widely, but there are different types of derogations that pose different concerns. The ECLE recommend that the Directive should provide for a review process with respect to national derogations. 3) The ECLE believe that there are good reasons to close the loopholes against the “creep in” and the “creep on” acquisitions. 4) As to board neutrality and the break-through rule the ECLE believe that the default rules should be changed. The option rights should be given to the shareholders, not to the member states. The reciprocity rule is flawed. 5) The protection of the rights of employees should be addressed in a wider context and should not be taken up specifically for one type of transaction such as takeover bids.
Interested readers can browse the Working Paper Series at SSRN, or sign up to subscribe to distributions of the the e-journal.
