Explore the vast range of titles available.

In recent years, British courts have treated constitutional statutes differently from ordinary statutes. This article sets outs to explain: (i) how courts have treated constitutional statutes differently from ordinary statutes; (ii) what a constitutional statute is; and (iii) why constitutional statutes should be treated differently from ordinary statutes. Courts have made it harder for ordinary statutes to repeal constitutional statutes by implication, and easier for constitutional statutes to repeal ordinary statutes by implication. A constitutional statute is a statute which regulates state institutions, and which possesses importance of a particular type that we describe. The nature of a constitutional statute largely—but not entirely—justifies the special treatment they have been given. These conclusions have wider implications, including for proposals to codify the British constitution.

This article considers some of the legal issues which will frame the Brexit negotiations. It examines who can trigger Article 50 in the light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Miller and whether the Article 50 process can be stopped. It also looks at the domestic side of the process of leaving the EU, considering some of the issues raised by the Great Repeal Bill.

The law of slavery is still good law. In the twenty-first century, American judges and lawyers continue to cite case law developed in disputes involving enslaved people. These cases provide law for a wide variety of subject areas. Judges cite slavery to explicate the law of contracts, property, evidence, civil procedure, criminal procedure, statutory interpretation, torts, and many other fields. For the most part, judges cite these cases without acknowledging that the cases grew out of American slavery and without considering that a case's slave origins might lessen its persuasive authority. Nor do they examine the dignitary harms that the citation of slavery may impose. In citing slavery, lawyers thus demonstrate a myopic historical perspective that creates legal harms and reveals the ethical limitations of their profession. This Article illustrates the benefits a broader historical perspective can bring to bear on contemporary doctrinal issues. At a time when American groups and institutions from businesses to universities are coming to grips with the legacy of slavery, the legal profession has an obligation to do the same.

Witnesses the rallies by nurses, kaiāwhina, and Māori health providers, doctors and public health advocates in Auckland and Wellington held to protest against the new Government’s shock decision to repeal Smokefree Aotearoa laws. Source: National Library of New Zealand Te Puna Matauranga o Aotearoa, licensed by the Department of Internal Affairs for re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 New Zealand Licence.

This article discusses the repeal of Singapore's Section 377A, the anti-gay sex law, which was announced by Prime Minister (PM) Lee Hsien Loong during the 2022 National Day Rally. I contend that the declaration by PM Lee demonstrates the possibilities and limits of advocacy coalition-building in Singapore. Utilizing the concept of calibrated social liberalization, I postulate that the repeal of Section 377A was the government's response to shifting societal attitudes and years of strategic and adroit advocacy coalition- building. However, predicated upon this success is that LGBT issues are not critical to the People's Action Party's (PAP) legitimacy, which is why it is willing to allow for contestations in this sphere. The PAP engages in social liberalization, without significant political liberalization; even then, the cultural liberalization is not absolute, as the government attempts to strike a political-electoral compromise with conservatives. Ultimately, calibrated social liberalization occurs in areas where there is significant public support, and on issues regarding which the government has no clear ideological predispositions.