In 1921 representatives of the United Kingdom and of the revolutionary Sinn Féin administration in Ireland signed a conditional agreement that subsequently became a treaty establishing the Irish Free State. Lawyers played an important role on each side, none more so than F. E. Smith (Lord Birkenhead), the then UK Cabinet Secretary. Thomas Jones observed caustically that ‘it is notorious that a lawyer cannot draft his own will clearly’. As regards the ambit of a Boundary Commission proposed by Article 12 to redraw the border created in Ireland in 1920 by the United Kingdom, Irish leaders Arthur Griffith and Michael Collins ultimately relied on British goodwill. Birkenhead depended on his knowledge of legal precedent and the Privy Council. This chapter considers the professional status of lawyers on each side and suggests that a certain ambiguity in the agreement enabled a settlement more readily than any insistence on absolute clarity would have.

Chapter 1 retraces the history of the critical reception of Hegel’s social and political thought, from the publication of the Philosophy of Right to the present. The chapter discusses the charges of conservatism raised by Hegel’s first critics, the liberal rehabilitation of his work in the second half of the twentieth century and the communitarian interpretation introduced in British and American debates from the 1980s. Finally, the chapter focuses on the ‘middle ground’ approach favoured today by most Hegelian scholars, based on a compromise between the liberal and the communitarian positions. This kind of interpretation is undoubtedly a step forward from the one-sided approach of many previous readings. However, by favouring the practical dimension of Hegel’s arguments over their logical or metaphysical foundations (an attitude referred to as methodological pragmatism) and by regarding the social dimension of freedom as an adjective rather than a substantive component of his position (an attitude referred to as structural individualism), this interpretative trend ends up reiterating the liberal framework Hegel seeks to transcend.

For many generations, Indian historians have grappled with the importance of Rammohan Roy (1774–1833) (Figure 1.1) within the histories of print journalism, prose literature, and religious reform in early-nineteenth-century Bengal. For some, he is the “father of modern India,” the progenitor of reforms and progress in these areas, a “Universal Man,” a father of “new learning,” given his emphasis on English-language and Western-style debate, discourse, and thought. For other historians of India, he was a tool of imperial power, who constantly sang the praises of the English Company. World historians have seen him as an Indian-style French revolutionary and, in recent parlance, as a constitutional liberal.

When religion enters the picture, many assess his work according to the success or failure of his various ideas and critiques regarding religion. Rather than approach his writings and intellectual labors through a measure of failure or success from the perspective of post-1830s India, this chapter explores the precise nature of those ideas about religion and the institutions nurtured in the wake of those ideas, with a view toward understanding the significance of his work in the history of religions. Building on the recent work of Brian Hatcher, who emphasizes Rammohan's relationship to polity building and political life, I place him in a history of religion as opposed to a history of nationalism, liberalism, or empire. Questions about universal religion, true religion, and revealed religion, as well as demarcating lines between what constitutes religion and what constitutes a space outside of religion, have animated historical actors within a variety of traditions since at least the seventeenth century.

This chapter argues that the prevalent way for theorizing international organizations cannot properly account for the conceptual relationship between these institutions and states. At closer inspection, the popular treaty/contract versus subject/constitution frameworks for looking at international organizations address only the structural relationship between these institutions and their members. Nevertheless, one cannot simply assume that international organizations count as states for legal purposes just because they enjoy a legal personality that is distinct from their members, or because they share some relevant similarity with them. Equally important problems arise with analysing international organizations as merely another name for their member states acting together, and thus reducing the former to the latter. This view tends to disregard the fact that international organizations are often membered by entities that are neither states nor international organizations. Followed consistently, it also undermines the supposed distinct legal existence of these institutions.

In the digital economy, quality is increasingly becoming the predominant variable of competition. Markets are expected to seek out that state of affairs in which product quality rather than efficiency is maximized. But an effective conceptual resolution of what constitutes product quality is more complex and elusive than previously thought, and there has been a widespread repudiation of the notion that dominant online platforms can be held accountable for failing to deliver something that a single descriptive standard would command them to produce. Furthermore, microeconomic theory provides little guidance for evaluating how adjustments in the level of competition in a market have a bearing on product quality. This chapter suggests that claims relating to product quality can best be resolved by underscoring loyalty. Product quality, viewed from this perspective, provides a framework for assessing the behavior of digital platforms while at the same time legitimizing the manner in which zero-price markets operate. The issue is most prominent with regard to search engine rankings, privacy, and the sale of goods in online marketplaces.

Given the long history of beer production and distribution, the application of general unfair competition or fair trade practices law is not specific to beer but cases centre around traditions connected to locations and brewing methods in advertising and marketing and mirror the cultural importance of as well as conflicts with health and morals around beer. The goal of protecting consumers as well as competitors ultimately serves the purpose of preserving the competitive process with respect to the notion of its fairness. The cases mentioned show an effort to protect the quality of the production of beer. Beyond that, while beer-related cases can be found in any section of unfair competition law, the focus is on sanctioning geographical deceptions as a supplement to the application of trademark law.

As is commonly known, both Ptolemaic and Seleucid rulers in the wake of Alexander the Great claimed divine worship. This phenomenon was also reflected in ancient Jewish literature. In the first part, this chapter aims at describing the time of Antiochus IV (175–164 bc) as the historical framework in which a specific confrontation with the Hellenistic ruler ideology is evident. In the second part, the chapter uses 2 Macc 9 (‘the death of Antiochus IV’) and the Book of Judith as examples as to how selected deuterocanonical writings (e.g. 2 Maccabees and Judith) have dealt with the encounter with the Hellenic ruler cult in a narrative discourse. Both cases demonstrate God’s help and power, which becomes obvious through the cruel death of the ruler who claimed for himself divinity.

This chapter turns from the question of the Gospels’ literary form to that of their literary formation. According to David Strauss, no preceding understanding of the Gospels shared closer proximity to the emerging “mythical point of view” than “ancient allegorical interpretation” – an astonishing claim left unexamined since his Life of Jesus was first published. Strauss’s comparison of the mythical and allegorical views cuts closer to the heart of Origen’s sense of the figurative nature of the Gospels than any other account of early criticism of the Gospels. Nevertheless, I challenge Strauss’s final charge of unrestrained interpretive “arbitrariness” resulting from Origen’s view. I show instead that Origen locates the formation of the Gospel narratives in the Evangelists freely “making use” of the traditions they had received for their own purposes, freedom reflected in the distinctive (even discordant) characteristics of their narratives, which differ according to how the authors sought, “each in his own way,” to “teach what they had perceived in their own mind by way of figures.” Thus, for Origen, the Evangelists themselves were “figurative readers” of the life of Jesus.

Academic plagiarism norms enable successful scholars to monopolize ideas. The New Brandeis School in antitrust has sought to expand antitrust’s scope and ought, therefore, to support antitrust action against enforcers of plagiarism rules. However, the New Brandeis School includes many scholars, writers, and other creatives and has tended to support monopolization of intellectual output by creatives. For example, New Brandeisians have called for expansion of intellectual property laws to include news and for the non-enforcement of the antitrust laws against cartels of musicians. As a result, it is unlikely that this School will champion antitrust action against plagiarism norms.

The term art and part in Scots law refers to a form of derivative liability. This doctrine extends criminal liability to individuals who may not have committed the actus reus and, in some cases, may not have had the mens rea. Our understanding of the legal developments associated with this doctrine is limited. This chapter therefore examines the historical evolution of the concept, tracing its roots through selected early sources of Scots and English law. It investigates the extent of legislative reform in the sixteenth century and evaluates, through selected homicide prosecutions from 1580 to 1650, the impact of these reforms on the administration of justice and the prosecution of art and part.