This is a collection of essays on general and specific topics of comparative private and comparative public law by distinguished legal scholars from every part of the world in honour to the work of Alice Ehr-Soon Tay. The essays demonstrate the changing approach to common law in legal culture and present a body of texts on comparative law problems arching from Asia to Europe to Australia. The volume furthermore indicates that there is no area where comparative law has proved more dominant and useful than in regard to human rights and comparative constitutional analysis. Finally, this book is an outstanding cross-cultural contribution to comparative private law and comparative constitutional law in terms of understanding legal culture and law. It will be invaluable to all those who practise, teach or judge law. Articles by Kim Santow, Saul Fridman, W. M. C. Gummow, J. A. Jolowicz, Hiroshi Matsuo, Ivan Shearer, Christopher Birch, Tom Campbell, Roland Drago, Jennifer Hill, Michael Kirby, Karin Lemercier, Aleksander Peczenik, Robert S. Summers, Albert H.Y. Chen, Jianfu Chen, Edward McWhinney, Eric Smithburn, Klaus A. Ziegert, Margaret Allars, Han Depei, Guenther Doeker-Mach, Hoang Van Hao, Tommy Koh, Adam Lopatka, Gabriel A. Moens, Cao Duc Thai, Wang Gungwu, Peter Wesley-Smith, Murray Gleeson, Julia Horne List of Publications of Alice Erh-Soon-Tay .

The courts and, indeed, the law itself are under assault from both right and left. By analyzing the most pressing controversies of our day, No Litmus Test defends the possibility of principled legal decision-making against the attacks of both the right and the left. From Bush v. Gore to the war in Iraq, No Litmus Test demonstrates that even when the law provides no clear-cut right answers, it offers tools for distinguishing good arguments from bad ones.

In many ways, the United States' post-9/11 engagement with legal rules is puzzling. Officials in both the Bush and Obama administrations authorized numerous contentious counterterrorism policies that sparked global outrage, yet they have repeatedly insisted that their actions were lawful and legitimate. In Plausible Legality, Rebecca Sanders examines how the US government interpreted, reinterpreted, and manipulated legal norms and what these justificatory practices imply about the capacity of law to constrain state violence. Through case studies on the use of torture, detention, targeted killing, and surveillance, Sanders provides a detailed analysis of how policymakers use law to achieve their political objectives and situates these patterns within a broader theoretical understanding of how law operates in contemporary politics. She argues that legal culture--defined as collectively shared understandings of legal legitimacy and appropriate forms of legal practice in particular contexts--plays a significant role in shaping state practice. In the global war on terror, a national security culture of legal rationalization encouraged authorities to seek legal cover-to construct the plausible legality of human rights violations-in order to ensure impunity for wrongdoing. Looking forward, law remains vulnerable to evasion and revision. As Sanders shows, despite the efforts of human rights advocates to encourage deeper compliance, the normalization of post-9/11 policy has created space for future administrations to further erode legal norms.

The study of law and politics is one of the foundation stones of the discipline of political science, and it has been one of the most productive areas of cross-fertilization between the various subfields of political science and between political science and other cognate disciplines. This Handbook provides a comprehensive survey of the field of law and politics in all its diversity, ranging from such traditional subjects as theories of jurisprudence, constitutionalism, judicial politics and law-and-society to such re-emerging subjects as comparative judicial politics, international law, and democratization. The Oxford Handbook of Law and Politics gathers together leading scholars in the field to assess key literatures shaping the discipline today and to help set the direction of research in the decade ahead.

A new moral, ethical, and legal framework is needed for international human rights law. Never in human history has there been such an elaborate international system for human rights, yet from massive disasters, such as the Darfur genocide, to everyday tragedies, such as female genital mutilation, human rights abuses continue at an alarming rate. As the world population increases and global trade brings new wealth as well as new problems, international law can and should respond better to those who live in fear of violence, neglect, or harm. Modern critiques global human rights fall into three categories: sovereignty, culture, and civil society. These are not new problems, but have long been debated as part of the legal philosophical tradition. Taking lessons from tradition and recasting them in contemporary light, Helen Stacy proposes new approaches to fill the gaps in current approaches: relational sovereignty, reciprocal adjudication, and regional human rights. She forcefully argues that law and courts must play a vital role in forging a better human rights vision in the future.

Scholarly and political interest in the work of the controversial twentieth century German thinker Carl Schmitt has exploded in the 20 years since William E. Scheuerman’s important book was first published. However, Scheuerman’s work remains distinctive. Firstly, it focuses directly on Schmitt’s complex ideas about law, situating his views within broader debates about the rule of law and its fate. The volume shows how every facet of his political thinking was decisively shaped by his legal reflections. Secondly, the volume takes Schmitt’s Nazi-era political and legal writings no less seriously. Finally, the volume offers a series of studies on figures in postwar US political thought (Friedrich Hayek and Joseph Schumpeter), demonstrating how Schmitt shaped their own influential theories. This timely second edition underscores how and why the recent growth of interest in Schmitt has been prompted by political developments, for example, debates about counterterrorism and emergency government, and the rise of authoritarian populism.

One of the most private decisions a woman can make, abortion is also one of the most contentious topics in American civic life. Protested at rallies and politicized in party platforms, terminating pregnancy is often characterized as a selfish decision by women who put their own interests above those of the fetus. This background of stigma and hostility has stifled women’s willingness to talk about abortion, which in turn distorts public and political discussion. To pry open the silence surrounding this public issue, Sanger distinguishes between abortion privacy, a form of nondisclosure based on a woman’s desire to control personal information, and abortion secrecy, a woman’s defense against the many harms of disclosure. Laws regulating abortion patients and providers treat abortion not as an acceptable medical decision—let alone a right—but as something disreputable, immoral, and chosen by mistake. Exploiting the emotional power of fetal imagery, laws require women to undergo ultrasound, a practice welcomed in wanted pregnancies but commandeered for use against women with unwanted pregnancies. Sanger takes these prejudicial views of women’s abortion decisions into the twenty-first century by uncovering new connections between abortion law and American culture and politics. New medical technologies, women’s increasing willingness to talk online and off, and the prospect of tighter judicial reins on state legislatures are shaking up the practice of abortion. As talk becomes more transparent and acceptable, women’s decisions about whether or not to become mothers will be treated more like those of other adults making significant personal choices.