The Faculty has published Volume 7 Number 6 of the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series on SSRN.
This issue includes the following articles:
Lorand Bartels: Policy Coherence for Development Under Article 208 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union - Towards a Complaints Mechanism (18/2016)
This paper analyses Article 208(1) TFEU, which establishes what is commonly called 'policy coherence for development' as both an objective and an obligation for the EU's development cooperation policy. It argues that, as an obligation, Article 208(1) TFEU requires the EU – meaning each institution – to take into account development objectives in the formulation and implementation of any policy likely to affect developing countries. Should it fail to do so, any measure adopted by the EU is liable to annulment. In addition, the EU can be required to act if its omission violates a duty to act under Article 208(1). On the other hand, Article 208(1) TFEU does not contain an obligation of result. So long as the relevant EU institution has duly considered development objectives, it will have discharged its duty. The paper also discusses the ways in which the EU institutions can meet this obligation, including conducting impact assessments. It argues that, seen in light of the principle of proportionality, EU measures that are not based on a process that has taken into account development objectives are vulnerable to annulment. Finally, it discusses the enforcement of Article 208(1) TFEU: in other words, what can be done if the EU fails to take development objectives into account in its decision-making, especially in connection with the EU's substantive external human rights obligations under Article 21(3) TEU.
Sara Kendall and Sarah Nouwen: Speaking of Legacy: Toward an Ethos of Modesty at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (20/2016)
This paper is the longer version of an article that will appear in a Symposium in the American Journal of International Law on the legacy of the ad hoc tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.
Even before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda had closed down, there was already much talk about its legacy. This article demonstrates a sharp contrast between the ambiguities of what is and can be known about the Tribunal's legacy and the certainty of the assertions made in the field and by the Tribunal itself about what it will have been. Building on social theorist Zygmunt Bauman's work on "bids for immortality", we identify the phenomenon of "legacy talk": attempts to consolidate a set of interpretations about the substance and value of what is left prior to the departure of the legator.
Matthew H. Kramer: In Defense of the Interest Theory of Right-Holding: Rejoinders to Leif Wenar on Rights (22/2015)
In two quite recent essays, Leif Wenar (2008; 2013) has impugned my version of the Interest Theory of right-holding and has proposed a theory which he commends as an alternative to mine. In this paper I rebut Wenarʼs objections to my version of the Interest Theory, and I contest his view that his own theory is a promising alternative to mine.
David Fox: The Reception of Roman Law into the Anglo-American Common Law of Mixed Goods (23/2016)
This article considers the development of the common law of mixed goods from the middle of the fifteenth century through to the late twentieth. It is a neat example of a Roman legal doctrine being directly received into the common law. That the reception happened when it did – late in the eighteenth and early in the nineteenth centuries – testifies to the state of the English and American high legal culture at the time, and to the intellectual interests of the legal writers, judges and practitioners who brought about this instance of "Romanisation" in common law doctrine.
The study explains much about the modern state of the law governing mixtures of money and goods. The study also underscores some fundamental similarities and differences in common law and civil law analyses of property, their approach to evidential uncertainty, and the relationship between actions and substantive rights.
Interested readers can browse the Working Paper Series at SSRN, or sign up to subscribe to distributions of the the e-journal.
