The Simplification Game

 The principle of stare decisis has only been a relatively recent legal development, with its core roots being formed in the 18th century . Courts now bind themselves to the judgements of the past in order to adjudicate in the future. Assuming that a reason why precedent is followed is that it provides the reasoning necessary to pass judgement in current cases , it must follow that courts are able to look beyond their national borders and adopt the judgements (and the reasoning it contains) in order to decide cases. Nevertheless, this essay will argue that the use of foreign precedents will give judges too much power and disrupt the ability of an individual to obey the law. Firstly, judges will have too much power should they be allowed to use foreign precedents. Currently, the only room judges have to manoeuvre around a precedent set by previous judgements is through proving that those precedents have no relevance to the case on trial . They would otherwise be bound to make decisi...

Effectiveness and validity are two distinct metrics by which to evaluate law; while they seem to be part and parcel of each other, one asks how successful it would be in shaping the conduct of individuals while the other asks whether it is legally binding. However, for the sake of efficiency, this essay will assume that the perception of a legal system as unjust or illegitimate will mean the same thing: that the legal system is “wrong”. This essay will approach validity and effectiveness individually, and concluding that while the perception of a legal system being unjust or illegitimate is unlikely to influence the validity of the laws it produces, those perceptions are likely to render the law ineffective.  On validity The first view to evaluate is the positivist one. This sees a philosophy of law that emphasises how law is socially constructed; formal criteria of law’s origin, law enforcement and legal effectiveness are all sufficient for social norms to be considered law. I...

Should users of social media be allowed to own the personal data they produce through expressing their preferences on social media?  It is important to define what it means for users to be viewed as property owners. Firstly, it means recognising that they have property rights or interests in the data that they produce. This can happen through existing structures like the “bundle of rights” formulation (Jeremy Waldron, ‘What is Private Property?’). Secondly, it is important to note that this bundle of rights is malleable, and the state has the ability to shift the extent of these rights by either limiting the ability to sell or exclude others from use (Radin, ‘Property and Personhood; Mosk J in Moore).  This essay will deal with the presumption of the value of these datasets before forwarding three arguments in support of the recognition of property rights.  Firstly, the essay presumes that data is a valuable asset. However, the caveat to this claim is that it is d...

 Should the law allow for the ownership and the commodification of organs and other useful body parts?           This essay will tackle the issues of ownership and commodification simultaneously, as these two concepts tend to be part and parcel of each other. Ownership is the premise on which commodification can exist, as commodification can only exist under the presumption that people have property rights in their organs and other useful body parts. This is because legal recognition of ownership creates liabilities and obligations (Honoré, ‘Ownership’), which would also allow for claims in courts. Therefore, the justifications for commodification must also justify ownership. With that clarified, this essay will answer the question in two ways. Firstly, it will deal with the practical concerns of organ commodification, according to Kate Greasley’s ‘A legal market in organs: the problem of exploitation’, by answering that the alternative to the lega...