This article argues that the debate concerning the theoretical characterization of the policy requirement as either an element of crime or an evidentiary relevant circumstance for crimes against humanity is deficient. Comparative case law analysis illustrates that this characterization does not fundamentally affect the position, meaning and scope of the policy underlying crimes against humanity...

'The law imposes the duty of care: but the standard of care is a matter of medical judgment'. So says Lord Scarman, outlining the hitherto accepted 'Bolam' standard, in his recent speech in the House of Lords decision of Sidaway v Bethlem Royal Hospital, reflecting earlier judicial dicta suggesting that it is for the medical profession rather than the courts to determine whether or not a medica...

Arti cial intelligence has contributed fundamentally to our understanding of reasoning and communication processes, and especially their limits. These insights have deep implications for issues in jurisprudence which depend on a model of `correct' reasoning and argumentation, such as theories of the separation of powers and judicial discretion. Some of these implications are explored in this pa...

Introduction – The Context Nosocomial infections have been a reality since the origin of medicine and have been the object of judicial decisions for a long time. Canadian judges have dealt with potential liability arising from healthcare-related infections since at least the beginning of the twentieth century. However, the increased incidence rates of nosocomial infections in the last few years...

What is the ideological direction of the judges whom President George W. Bush has appointed to the bench during his first term? Until now we have had no quantitative, empirical data to respond to this query. Critics of the President, often liberal Democrats, have suggested that Bush’s judicial appointees are ultra-conservatives who are hostile to the interests of racial minorities, women, the e...