To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This article makes the case for recognizing the connection between the Poor Law and the Adoption of Children Act 1926. A child who received welfare under the Poor Law could be de facto adopted by the guardians as early as the late-nineteenth century. Very little is known about this type of de facto adoption which is a significant gap because over 10,000 children were adopted in this way, and it provided the basis for latter de jure adoption. This article initiates the process of filling this gap by exploring archival resources to determine why children were de facto adopted under the Poor Law before the introduction of de jure adoption in 1926. Understanding this form of de facto adoption is important because it was justified as a mechanism of child protection, but this article contends it was another form of punishment designed for families experiencing material deprivation which directly influenced the law on de jure adoption in England. By establishing the connection between the 1926 Act and its Poor Law predecessor, the de jure adoption framework can be contextualized within its wider social history which is embedded in class conflict and distrust toward impoverished families.
From a comparative perspective, this paper argues that early Chinese empires lacked the concept of talion or tort law when malicious violence or intent became factors. Instead, wrongdoers were required to pay fines to the government or received punishment as hard labor for the state. Victims not only could not receive compensation but were sometimes punished along with the offender if their loss was perceived as a loss to the empire. I argue that the absence of corrective justice in criminal cases can be traced back to the philosophical underpinnings of the body politic, a prominent discourse in early China that viewed the emperor and the people as a single, organic entity. When people were conceived of as constituting a unified, singular entity, criminal actions against an individual were interpreted as damage to the empire. Therefore, punishments for offenders were designed to compensate the empire, not the individual. Furthermore, in the context of the body politic, the suffering of both victims and offenders was regarded as metaphysically equal, which justified frequently pardoning culprits on a large scale to secure harmony within the empire. Originally, the body politic was employed to admonish and criticize the throne, urging the emperor to align his interests with the well-being of his people, but in practice, it compromised the practice of justice.
France ceded territorial claims to Newfoundland to Britain in the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht, but French fishermen retained rights to operate seasonal cod fisheries along a stretch of coastline known as the French Shore. The treaty was one of several laws formalizing the property regime based on the commons that emerged among European fishermen in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Several demographic and geopolitical changes converged after the Seven Years’ War (1756–63) to raise the question of whether French fishing rights on the French Shore were exclusive or concurrent with British fishing rights on that coast. Treaty and customary law seemed at odds on this question, forcing fishermen, merchants, naval officers, and ministers to articulate what constituted property and how property should be conceived if an interimperial commons were to work. The conflicts that transpired highlighted how they answered these questions differently. Agents of the state tended to promote the commons while some British subjects tried to create a real property regime from below. Disputes over real property formation on the French Shore show another dimension of the early modern enclosure process, demonstrating both the role of the commons in empire and the challenges of resource management in an interimperial space.
Michael Willrich’s American Anarchy is at once an extraordinary history of ideas about anarchism and the rule of law, a history of lawyering, and a history of the simultaneous emergence of a capacious administrative state alongside a robust set of judicially protected civil liberties. While Willrich tells a rich and intricate story of illiberal border administration, American Anarchy also shows radical immigrants at work over decades in New York, with the border and its oppressive administrative apparatus little more than a dim memory. This essay explores how the book is more than a history of the border—it’s a history of immigrants, of how people and their ideas become distinctively American, a process that happens not through the formal rules of immigration law, but through a host of other legal processes—through contract and labor, through paying rents and acquiring property, through discrimination and the formal and informal rules of race, and through political participation, expression, and assembly. With Beth Lew-Williams and others, Willrich is part of a new wave of legal historians who are looking beyond the border to understand not just the administrative processes of immigration but its substantive transformations, and ultimately the role of law in shaping American identity.
Melina Constantine Bell (2021) argues that J. S. Mill's harm principle permits society to coercively interfere with the use of bigoted insults, since these insults are harmful on “a more expansive, modern, conception of harm.” According to Bell, these insults are harmful in virtue of their contributing to detrimental objective states like health problems. I argue that people with illiberal dispositions might have intense and sustained negative subjective reactions to behavior that the harm principle ought to protect, reactions intense enough to affect their health or other objective interests. Bell's way of thinking about harm therefore has illiberal implications. Yet I agree with her that bigoted insults should be regarded as harmful. I therefore propose an alternative way of understanding harm according to which subjective pain is a harm when it is intentionally caused.
This paper reports the results of a cross-sectional study investigating the acquisition of the syntactic properties associated with the null subject (meso-)parameter in English as a second language (L2) among Hebrew-speaking youngsters (18-year-olds). The two languages differ concerning these properties, with Hebrew allowing null subjects and related properties (although inconsistently) and English disallowing these properties altogether. One hundred four intermediate learners and 97 English-speaker controls provided grammaticality judgments and corrections concerning constructions involving expletive and referential null subjects, post-verbal subjects, and complementizer-trace sequences. The results reveal limited evidence for transfer from the learners’ mother tongue (first language [L1]) and indicate that learners have met the native standard concerning null and post-verbal subjects. These findings support both the meso-parametric view of cross-linguistic variation and feature reassembly on functional heads in L2 acquisition, while partially rejecting the Interpretability Hypothesis. Learners nevertheless deviate from the native standard concerning complementizer-trace sequences. This finding is unaccounted for by the meso-parametric approach, feature reassembly, or interpretability, but can instead be attributed to L1 transfer. Controls also demonstrate variability concerning complementizer-trace sequences, suggesting that the performance of all participants regarding this configuration is affected by processing difficulties, lower frequency in the input, and methodological issues with the items and/or the task.
In political decision-making processes in Greenland, comparisons are often drawn with Denmark, Scandinavia, the Faroe Islands, and Iceland. With Greenland as a case, this article analyses a series of aspects across the societies to highlight the politics of comparisons, which are taken for granted, and to emphasise contextual conditions. Comparisons are central to cultural meaning-making and navigation with nation building strategies. We conclude that the current comparisons are significant in terms of explaining Greenland’s challenges with a vulnerable economy and with the sustainable use of natural and human resources. To utilise local resources and create a sustainable livelihood, there is a need to break from the existing trajectories based on the current politics of comparison to explore local conditions more carefully and find other models of inspiration. By developing the concept of island operation, the article unfolds distinct characteristics of the Greenlandic socio-economic structures and includes statistical data on trade, education, and the labour market to support the identification of conditions that can contribute to future analyses of Greenland’s sustainable development. This analysis has relevance for societies that share geographical and cultural conditions with Greenland and post-colonial countries that must deal with complex path dependencies to navigate towards sustainable development.
This article recovers a lost era of Sino-American constitutional imagination surrounding the drafting of the 1946 Republic of China Constitution. It examines the transnational dynamics that led the Constitution's initial drafter, Zhang Junmai or Carsun Chang, to travel to the U.S. in 1945 to ostensibly study the ideas of Thomas Jefferson then ascendant in New Deal constitutional rhetoric. Recovering this episode recontextualizes Chang's early and late life as one of China's cosmopolitan intellectuals emerging from its contentious post-1911 dynastic politics who shaped China's engagement with evolving institutions of the modern international legal order. This recontextualization broadens and revises extant accounts of Chang's engagement with the 1946 constitutional drafting process by challenging accepted understandings of Chang's personal and intellectual trajectory and illuminating how the geopolitics of the Chinese Civil War intersected with presumptions about the overseas projection of American constitutional values increasingly embedded in twentieth-century American internationalism. Herein, Chang's long-standing interest in Jefferson's constitutional ideals was reshaped by the strategic considerations he faced situated between his consistent criticism of Guomindang leader Chiang-Kai Shek and Chang's suddenly heightened status among American political leaders. His near year-long stay in the U.S. before the 1946 drafting process involved many little known but determinative turns, including the role of a subset of Roosevelt and Truman Administration officials actively enamored with Jefferson's own study of Confucianism. The article also details the telling contours of Chang's post-1949 life as a political exile in the United States. Ultimately, this recovered episode demonstrates the pervasive and impactful nature of transnational dynamics in modern Sino-American relations which blur the line between national and international legal history. Most broadly, the fallout from the 1946 drafting process and the varied Chinese interpretations of thinkers like Jefferson reflect the mid-twentieth century transition of America from a global symbol of constitutional revolution to a global symbol of racialized empire. Recapturing this era thus also has implications for originalist-styled constitutional arguments made in contemporary Taiwan as well as for evaluating the international dimensions of Jefferson's problematic domestic legacy.
The career of the composer, performer, educator and diplomat Hans-Joachim Koellreutter was exceptionally varied, taking place over three continents. A refugee from Nazi Germany, he is primarily known for introducing serialism to Brazil. However, he not only returned to his native Germany for a short period but also lived and worked in India and Japan, before going back to Brazil. His life and work epitomize the role played by migrants in constructing a global diasporic network, illustrating both the promises and the shortcomings of global musical modernism. The consequences he drew, however, drove him to embrace a form of universalism that was at odds with the increasing ideological polarization of the 1970s and 1980s, notably in a Latin American intellectual climate dominated by dependency theory.