Mock answer to an exam question on easements. Note the use of headings to clearly signpost to the examiners, and the way each point of law is explained before applying to the facts.
This paper was written and submitted in February 2012 as an assignment forming part of a LLB in Law. The author’s aim was primarily to attempt to critically analyse the causes of the London Riots of August 2011 through the perception of... more
This paper was written and submitted in February 2012 as an assignment forming part of a LLB in Law. The author’s aim was primarily to attempt to critically analyse the causes of the London Riots of August 2011 through the perception of two criminological theories. The author endeavoured to evaluate the riots within the framework of the developing concepts of the following; firstly, anomie whereupon the competing roles of individuals within society are increasingly moving away from similarity and becoming more characterised by difference. This difference further engenders a division in labour leaving the individual in a position of isolation: thus can exacerbate a feeling of normlessness. Secondly, consideration will be given to the concept of sub-cultural theories relating to youths and gangs that ‘lack of access to socially approved avenues for success could lead to criminal conduct.’
Nonetheless, any theorising only addressed the mere description of such criminological elements against the backdrop of the August London riots. What the paper will fail to achieve is to give a comprehensive explanation of the primary cause of the riots. Such an attempt to explain would be superficial as riots are uncertain creatures of emotional complexity. As E. P. Thompson, British historian socialist writer expounded,
[t]his simple four-letter word can conceal what may be described as a spasmodic view of popular history. These intrusions are compulsive, rather than self-conscious or self-activating: they are simple responses to economic stimuli.
In other words, riots are more multifarious than a simple explanation of cause through any particular social science viewpoint.
Q) ‘Customary international law is… derived primarily from state practice, that is to say, unilateral action by various states, although it frequently draws in turn upon the principles embodied in bilateral and limited multilateral... more
Q) ‘Customary international law is… derived primarily from state practice, that is to say, unilateral action by various states, although it frequently draws in turn upon the principles embodied in bilateral and limited multilateral treaties.’ (Canadian Representative to the 1st Committee of the UN General Assembly 1970) Analyse and discuss.
‘Rawls’s claim seems false; probability calculations are possible in the original position...One is of course barred from basing one’s calculations on...one’s own personal good or bad fortune...for these are unknown to the parties under... more
‘Rawls’s claim seems false; probability calculations are possible in the original position...One is of course barred from basing one’s calculations on...one’s own personal good or bad fortune...for these are unknown to the parties under the veil of ignorance...the parties are assumed to have complete knowledge of theory and of facts that cannot serve special interests...I see no reason why one cannot use such information for calculating the likelihood of one’s having certain natural endowments...I conclude that, despite the veil of ignorance, the parties in the original position can still calculate to maximise general expectations, which Rawls admits is generally the most natural approach...It is therefore, difficult to see why they would opt for the maximin rule, and not naturally incline towards utilitarianism.’ David Lyons cited in John Rawls: Critical Assessments of Leading Political Philosophers at page 286.
In light of the above statement, this assignment paper critically examines whether any paradoxes subsist within the principles of John Rawls ‘Theory of Justice’ which can legitimise such claims that, given the choice, people in the original position would opt for the principle of utility in preference to Rawls’ preferred ‘maximin’ rule.
“Primitive, tribal societies appear…to lack ‘law’ in the form that it exists in so-called advanced societies. The apparent absence of the institutions that we normally associate with legal systems – courts, law enforcement authorities,... more
“Primitive, tribal societies appear…to lack ‘law’ in the form that it exists in so-called advanced societies. The apparent absence of the institutions that we normally associate with legal systems – courts, law enforcement authorities, prisons, legal codes – [has] led to the conclusion that these communities were governed by custom rather than law.”
(Understanding Jurisprudence R Wacks 2nd Edition [2009], p.244)
To accept the statement acephalous societies lack law in the form that exists within an institutionalised state society one has to draw a conclusion from not only the divergence between custom and law but also several competing schools of thought within the field of anthropology. This paper will examine briefly the importance of legal anthropology when applying a cross-cultural approach to find a universal definition against the ethnocentricity of one-system-fits-all, the concept of social mobility, and different validations of law and laws as rules. A critical evaluation will be drawn of the variance between function as opposed to form of a custom, customary law and law itself. Further examination will consider, by probing different anthropological viewpoints, if reciprocal economic obligation as a method of internalised self-regulation is an important mechanism to a stateless society as a norm of compromise as opposed to the external regulation of force. Deducing from the evidence, concluding remarks will consider the statement that face-to-face communities were governed by custom rather than law as either an affirmative or negative.
For years academics theorised whether there truly is a breakdown of the boundaries between contract and tort. Competing opinions disseminate whether there is a need for unification to the law of obligations or whether the divisions... more
For years academics theorised whether there truly is a breakdown of the boundaries between contract and tort. Competing opinions disseminate whether there is a need for unification to the law of obligations or whether the divisions remain distinct but just blurred. Whichever opinion is held proffers judicial interpretation has muddied the waters between these two distinct areas of obligations, creating uncertainty within the law.
Consequently this paper will first appraise the prescribed approach of deciding cases on categorisation of founded principles set down by previous decisions to attain certainty: hence formalistic adherence encumbered unjustly law’s advancement through its rigidity. Secondly consider the increased use of tort of negligence through the development of physical damage identifying inconsistent judicial interpretation. Thirdly explore pure economic loss and the judiciary’s willingness to develop new doctrines to fill lacunas within other categories of law so to remove inequitable principles overlooked by societal changes. Fourthly conclude unification is not possible due to inconsistent decision-making which obfuscates the law.
The object of this LLM assignment-based paper was to briefly explore the extent to whether the current voluntary concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR), of pursuing shared social values between business and society is a fair and... more
The object of this LLM assignment-based paper was to briefly explore the extent to whether the current voluntary concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR), of pursuing shared social values between business and society is a fair and just system or whether it lacks governmental legitimacy and adequate accountability mechanisms.
Historically corporate social responsibility’s (CSR) is a moot point amidst business entities, governments and academics that are still unable to agree on how the concept should be defined. Nevertheless critics on both sides of the argument do accept CSR by its nature is voluntary. The United Kingdom (UK) government in line with Europe distinguishes CSR as a voluntary exercise business takes above and beyond the minimum legal requirements to enhance and manage their economic, environmental and societal impact. Therefore by its very nature the definition of the concept of CSR has been precluded from the legislative agenda. This in itself has led to dissention to the effectiveness of corporate voluntarism and self-regulation over governmental mandatory regulation to manage and enhance societal needs. The core divergence is ostensibly whether entrepreneurial corporations in search of corporate self-interest and profit can also embrace morality through a strategic approach to integrate shared values for business and society without government intervention. With India paving the way as the first country to mandate CSR activities and expenditure should the United Kingdom (UK) alter their voluntary position and align their legislation accordingly.
Over the past decade the courts have been incrementally developing a law of privacy underpinned by ancestral academic opinion and case law dating back to the nineteenth century. However, the courts have been reluctant to declare a... more
Over the past decade the courts have been incrementally developing a law of privacy underpinned by ancestral academic opinion and case law dating back to the nineteenth century. However, the courts have been reluctant to declare a distinct common law tort of privacy though the judicial language suggests otherwise. Such language has seemingly blurred the boundaries within the doctrine of confidence. To further muddy the waters since the introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998 there have been claims a separate action of a tort of privacy now exists. Therefore this paper examines such claims.
