Abstract This response discusses Mookherjee’s views on plural autonomy and autonomy-promoting education, and her recognition that different
cultural value systems can lead to varied responses and strategies across cultures. It considers mechanisms to counter forced
marriage and argues from the standpoint of grassroots work within the Muslim community for the importance of the distinction
between traditional culture and religion. It raises the issues of racism, islamophobia, and stereotyping in silencing Muslim
women’s voices and reducing the space for them to argue for change within communities.
Content Type Journal Article
DOI 10.1007/s11158-008-9065-z
Authors
Fariha Thomas, Amina—the Muslim Women’s Resource Centre Network House, 311 Calder Street Glasgow G42 7NQ UK
Abstract The article is a brief response to Jacob Blair’s critique of David Rodin’s argument in War and Self-Defense that there are circumstances in which war conceivably could be justified not as self-defence, but as law enforcement or punishment.
It argues that while Rodin’s position potentially is less dilemmatic than Blair suggests, Blair nevertheless usefully highlights
tensions within it. Blair’s own argument in favour of ar as law-enforcement is suggestive, but in no way conclusive.
Content Type Journal Article
DOI 10.1007/s11158-008-9076-9
Authors
Per Albert Ilsaas, St Antony’s College 62 Woodstock Road Oxford OX2 6JF UK
Abstract Increasingly, taxonomies are being developed and used by industry practitioners to facilitate information interoperability
and retrieval. Within a single industrial domain, there exist many taxonomies that are intended for [...]
Abstract This article presents a formal dialogue game for adjudication dialogues. Existing AI & law models of legal dialogues and argumentation-theoretic
models of persuasion are extended with a neutral third party, to give a more [...]
Abstract This paper presents a formal reconstruction of a Dutch civil legal case in Prakken’s formal model of adjudication dialogues.
The object of formalisation is the argumentative speech acts exchanged during the dispute by the [...]
Introduction to special issue on modelling legal cases
Content Type Journal ArticlePages 329-331DOI 10.1007/s10506-008-9068-2Authors
Katie Atkinson, University of Liverpool Department of Computer Science Liverpool UK
Abstract Laws set requirements that force organizations to assess the security and privacy of their IT systems and impose them to implement
minimal precautionary security measures. Several IT solutions (e.g., Privacy Enhancing [...]
Abstract This paper argues that Article 8 of the ECHR, as applied to the protection of a person’s right to wear a headscarf, is an
inappropriate locus for thrashing out arguments about the right to protection of religious freedom, and that Article 9 allows
for a broader legal and political analysis of the multiple meanings and impacts of religion in our lives. However, the law
should not prohibit women from wearing the headscarf. Legal regulation of the headscarf should be replaced with robust political
debate about the many diverse and intersecting ways in which it is possible to experience womanhood, sexuality, culture, religion,
race, nationality and economic security in the twenty-first century.
Content Type Journal Article
DOI 10.1007/s11158-008-9067-x
Authors
Sharon Cowan, University of Edinburgh School of Law Old College, South Bridge Edinburgh EH8 9YL UK
Abstract Within now prolific debates surrounding the compatibility of feminism and multiculturalism in liberal societies, the need
arises for a normative conception of women’s self-determination that does not violate the self-understandings or values of
women of different backgrounds and forms of life. With reference to the recent British debate about forced marriage, this
article proposes an innovative approach to this problem in terms of the idea of ‘plural autonomy’. While the capacity for
autonomy is plural, in the sense of varying across cultures, autonomy in any world-view involves a capacity to ‘endorse’ one’s
decisions in certain crucial spheres of life. Non-endorsement, coercion or force occurs if one risks being alienated from
the (cultural) goods and relationships that structure one’s capacity to act in the world. This approach counsels more caution
than prominent liberal approaches with respect to negotiating the contested boundary between freedom and force in a diverse
society.
Content Type Journal Article
DOI 10.1007/s11158-008-9064-0
Authors
Monica Mookherjee, Keele University School of Politics, International Relations and Philosophy Staffordshire ST5 5BG UK
Abstract This article examines two modalities of law, depicted spatially as the vertical and the horizontal. The intellectual background
for seeing law in vertical and horizontal dimensions is to be found in much socio-legal scholarship. These approaches have
challenged the modernist, legal positivist and essentially vertical view of law as a system of imperatives emanating from
a hierarchically superior source such as a sovereign. In keeping with the socio-legal critical tradition, but approaching
it from the perspective of legal philosophy, my aim is to address three matters. First, why is vertical law problematic for
feminists? Second, what are the theoretical characteristics of law in its horizontal register? Third, how is an appreciation
of this ‘flat’ law useful for feminist legal theory and practice? In particular, I consider the ways in which feminist legal
theory operating in the horizontal dimension can transgress, without transcending, the vertically determined perimeters of
the nation state.
Content Type Journal Article
DOI 10.1007/s10691-008-9096-z
Authors
Margaret Davies, Flinders University School of Law GPO Box 2100 Adelaide 5001 Australia
