Search results

The purpose of this paper is to present a “manifesto” exploring a methodological approach to legal analysis, relying upon a morphological understanding of ideology.

The authors explore ideology within law and legal culture. They examine one such ideology – rule of law – and consider how this can shape judicial decision-making. They suggest techniques by which such influences can be identified.

The authors make four findings. First, following Freeden, ideology can be understood as a ubiquitous form of political thinking which seeks to fix the meanings of essentially contested concepts. Second, ideology in this sense forms an important part, but is distinguishable from the wider notion of legal culture. Considering ideology in law as a sub-system of legal culture can therefore be fruitful in providing a rich understanding of interpretive disagreements among the judiciary. Third, rule of law as an ideal is itself ideological, as it comprises contested concepts such as certainty, equality, stability and legality. It can be considered to constitute an internal ideology of law and it can be analysed how the concepts are de-contested in individual decisions. Finally, understanding this can help in the analysis of judgments in areas with high levels of administrative discretion and political contestation, such as planning and environmental law, as it helps us to understand how any particular judge sees the role of the court in its wider political context.

The originality of the authors’ approach lies in the drawing together of methodological techniques and understandings of ideology in, and in relation to, law.

The purpose of this article is to examine the national law regimes related to the remediation of contaminated land.

The methodology used is comparative. Models for different systems are described on the basis of varying interpretations of the polluter pays principle. The regimes present in the Member States are then analysed to see which model they have adopted. A comparator from each model group is then considered.

This article presents three key findings. First, it concludes that the extent to which additional national legislation relating to environmental damage is permitted, which depends upon the notion of “more stringent” legislation, is incoherent where more than one interpretation is given to the polluter pays principle. Second, the different interpretations given to the principle undermine harmonisation. Finally, this has wider implications for how we justify liability for contaminated land.

This comparative study of the interpretation of the polluter pays principle, through its implementation in Member States, provides a valuable and novel insight into environmental liability regimes in Europe. It also demonstrates the different type of regimes that are developed on the basis of such different interpretations. Although the different national attitudes to contaminated land policy and remediation have been considered before, this article adds to this debate by suggesting a central cause of such variation in the shape of different interpretations of a principle of the European Union.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the obligations imposing localism and the presumption in favour of sustainable development in English planning law.

The paper uses doctrinal analysis to examine section 38 PCPA 2004 and the NPPF to assess whether the obligations are coherent when considered as stand-alone obligations, and whether they are compatible when combined. Case law and the statutory provisions are examined to assess this. Planning theory is also examined to bring a multidisciplinary focus to the analysis.

The paper concludes that there are problems with these legal obligations when considered as stand-alone obligations. There is imprecision over the meaning of key terms; the “presumptions” established do not operate as true presumptions; and there is an ambiguity as to the hierarchy of norms and the allocation of decision-making control. When combined, the incoherence increases. It is argued that this occurs thanks to underlying disagreements in key concepts in planning theory.

This paper examines the new structures of planning law introduced under the Localism Act 2011 and the NPPF and considers how this structure works in practice. It does so from the multidisciplinary viewpoint of planning law and planning theory and links these two approaches. This is not replicated elsewhere in the literature. It considers in detail the ensuing case law, and the contradictions that appear. Again, there is little surveying the overall framework of planning law in the UK.