Chris D. L. Hunt*
(2009) Oxford U Comparative L Forum 6 at ouclf.law.ox.ac.uk | How to cite this article
(2009) Oxford U Comparative L Forum 6 at ouclf.law.ox.ac.uk | How to cite this article
(2008) Oxford U Comparative L Forum 1 at ouclf.law.ox.ac.uk | How to cite this article
‘the other refuses to disappear: it subsists, it persists, it is the hard bone on which reason breaks its teeth’1
(2008) Oxford U Comparative L Forum 2 at ouclf.law.ox.ac.uk | How to cite this article
(2008) Oxford U Comparative L Forum 3 at ouclf.law.ox.ac.uk | How to cite this article this article
(2008) Oxford U Comparative L Forum 4 at ouclf.law.ox.ac.uk | How to cite this article
In the recent Trihotel case, the German Federal Court of Justice has substantially modified its previous position on lifting the corporate veil, by which shareholders can become liable towards company creditors. The present case note argues that the tort-based new approach will not only afford company creditors with adequate protection but also direct German company law jurisprudence towards a greater regard for fundamental principles of company and insolvency law.
(2007) Oxford U Comparative L Forum 4 at ouclf.law.ox.ac.uk | How to cite this article
(2007) Oxford U Comparative L Forum 3 at ouclf.law.ox.ac.uk | How to cite this article
(2007) Oxford U Comparative L Forum 2 at ouclf.law.ox.ac.uk | How to cite this article
This Article challenges the use of human dignity as an independent free speech justification. The articulation of free speech in human dignity terms carries unwarranted potential consequences that may result in limiting free speech rather than protecting it. This possible outcome makes human dignity inadequate as a free speech justification.
This Article also demonstrates why articulations of the rationales behind the argument from dignity are either superfluous, since they are aptly covered by the argument from autonomy, or simply too broad and speech-restrictive to be considered free speech justifications. As a matter of principle, the nexus between freedom of speech and human dignity should be construed as inherently contentious.
This Article combines theoretical and comparative analyses to demonstrate why European and other Western democracies are more susceptible to the use of human dignity, both in their constitutional doctrines and as a speech-restrictive term. Current American scholarship regarding dignity as a free speech justification neglects to recognize the harms of such discourse in a non-American setting, as well as in the United States. Thus, unintentionally, advocates of free speech may actually promote a justification that eventually will lead to speech restriction. For these reasons, the Article warns that inserting human dignity into the realm of free speech justifications may be analogous to inserting a “Trojan Horse,” with human dignity as “the enemy from within.”
(2007) Oxford U Comparative L Forum 1 at ouclf.law.ox.ac.uk | How to cite this article
This article discusses, by reference to Scotland, the problems of codifying a mixed system of private law, presenting an outline of some parts in a draft civil code. A civil code must resolve divergence between Civil Law and Common Law concepts. Such divergence is demonstrated here by reference to the conceptual conflict between the Scots (Civil) law of error and the English (Common) Law of misrepresentation. The article outlines how codified provisions in this area might be drafted. It discusses the German, French, Swiss and Austrian rules (the last being remarkably similar to Scots law), and offers possible Common Law and Civil Law-style codifications of the Scots law of error. As Scots statutes follow the Common Law drafting style, it is argued that they are unsuitable for comprehensive codification. A code in a Civilian style, on the other hand, requires the adoption of Civilian statutory interpretation, but as this is inconsistent with Scots legal culture, the final question raised is whether codification of Scots private law is desirable at all.
Continue reading
(2006) Oxford U Comparative L Forum 4 at ouclf.law.ox.ac.uk | How to cite this article
Continue reading