Subjects -> LAW (Total: 1397 journals)
    - CIVIL LAW (30 journals)
    - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (52 journals)
    - CORPORATE LAW (65 journals)
    - CRIMINAL LAW (28 journals)
    - FAMILY AND MATRIMONIAL LAW (23 journals)
    - INTERNATIONAL LAW (161 journals)
    - JUDICIAL SYSTEMS (23 journals)
    - LAW (843 journals)
    - LAW: GENERAL (11 journals)

LAW (843 journals)            First | 1 2 3 4 5     

Showing 801 - 354 of 354 Journals sorted alphabetically
Uyuşmazlık Mahkemesi Dergisi     Open Access  
Valparaiso University Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Vanderbilt Law Review     Free   (Followers: 5)
Varia Justicia     Open Access  
Veredas do Direito : Direito Ambiental e Desenvolvimento Sustentável     Open Access  
Veritas et Justitia     Open Access  
Verstek     Open Access  
Vertentes do Direito     Open Access  
Via Inveniendi Et Iudicandi     Open Access  
Vianna Sapiens     Open Access  
Victoria University of Wellington Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 10)
Villanova Environmental Law Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Villanova Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Violence Against Women     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 58)
VirtuaJus - Revista de Direito     Open Access  
Vniversitas     Open Access  
Vox Juris     Open Access  
Waikato Law Review: Taumauri     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 7)
Washington and Lee Journal of Energy, Climate, and the Environment     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Washington and Lee Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Washington Law Review     Free   (Followers: 2)
Washington University Global Studies Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 7)
Washington University Journal of Law & Policy     Open Access  
Washington University Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Wayne Law Review     Free  
Western Journal of Legal Studies     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Western New England Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
William & Mary Journal of Women and the Law     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
William and Mary Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice / Recueil annuel de Windsor d'accès à la justice     Open Access  
Wirtschaftsrechtliche Blätter     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3)
Wroclaw Review of Law, Administration & Economics     Open Access  
Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities     Open Access   (Followers: 10)
Yale Journal of Law and Technology     Open Access   (Followers: 12)
Yale Journal on Regulation     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 19)
Yale Law Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 65)
Yearbook of European Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 21)
Yearbook of International Disaster Law Online     Full-text available via subscription  
Yuridika     Open Access  
Zuzenbidea ikasten : Irakaskuntzarako aldizkaria     Open Access  
交大法學評論     Open Access  

  First | 1 2 3 4 5     

Similar Journals
Journal Cover
Western Journal of Legal Studies
Number of Followers: 1  

  This is an Open Access Journal Open Access journal
ISSN (Print) 1927-9132
Published by Western University Homepage  [18 journals]
  • Contract Law’s Red Herring: Exposing “Intention” as a
           Guise for Consideration

    • Authors: Laura Goldfarb
      Abstract: This paper describes and evaluates the contested fourth requirement for contract formation: the intention of both parties that their agreement be legally enforceable (“legal intention”). I begin with an overview of the jurisprudence on legal intention, ending with the Supreme Court of Canada’s most recent pronouncement in Ethiopian Orthodox Church of Canada St. Mary Cathedral v Aga. While the Court in this case affirmed that legal intention is to be treated as a fourth requirement, its analysis reveals precisely the reason why it should not be: when courts purport to analyze legal intention, an inherently difficult value to assess, they often lapse into a veiled assessment of consideration instead. I draw on Peter Benson's conception of "robust consideration" to argue that we should dispense with the legal intention requirement. In its place, a clear test for robust consideration would allow courts to conduct self-aware analyses free from contorted intention assessments. I conclude by offering an interpretation of Balfour v Balfour, the seminar case supporting a legal intention requirement, that is consistent with my proposed approach to contract formation.
      PubDate: 2023-01-31
      DOI: 10.5206/uwojls.v14i1.15360
      Issue No: Vol. 14, No. 1 (2023)
  • Harm Reduction in Prisons: Restraints within the Prisoners’ Rights

    • Authors: Étienne Lacombe
      Abstract: A growing gap exists between the availability of harm reduction initiatives in mainstream society and those offered in correctional institutions. The quality of current risk-reducing measures in penitentiaries and the absence of more ambitious programs have led prisoners’ rights advocates to seek relief through litigation, often unsuccessfully. The author deconstructs these cases and traces litigants’ lack of success to two factors, which he contends condition harm reduction litigation in the prison context. While the law is clear that inmates retain their civil rights behind bars, the author concludes that the generic legal channels through which inmates must litigate their rights and a widespread conception of health that centres on treatment rather than prevention impede efforts to import harm reduction initiatives into penitentiaries. Although past prison litigation reveals great strides to providing inmates with the same rights and protections as members of the general population, challenges to the availability of harm reduction initiatives fit uneasily within the established pattern of prisoners’ rights litigation. In order to accommodate harm reduction claims, the prisoners’ rights discourse would need to be reconceptualized at the stakeholder and judicial levels.
      PubDate: 2023-01-31
      DOI: 10.5206/uwojls.v14i1.15144
      Issue No: Vol. 14, No. 1 (2023)
  • Indeterminate Sentences and Section 12 of the Charter

    • Authors: Zev Macklin
      Abstract: Indeterminate sentences are uniquely reserved for two classes of offenders, dangerous offenders and individuals designated not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. These sentences effectively keep individuals in constant jeopardy before a Parole or Review Board. This paper reviews the constitutionality of these regulatory schemes under Section 12 of the Charter; its prohibition against “cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.” In this paper, I examine the legislative and jurisprudential development of the regimes, and their impact on individuals given these designations. The paper argues that the regimes result in a gross and systemic violation of the rights of individuals who have been given indeterminate sentences. It finally argues that there is also a moral imperative to reject any indefinite detention that is not subject to judicial review. This paper discusses and seeks to bring attention to the unfair and unconstitutional treatment of two vulnerable groups in our judicial system. Through greater visibility, the author hopes to put pressure on our legal system and the government to review these types of sentences and their true impact on individual rights and freedoms.
      PubDate: 2023-01-31
      DOI: 10.5206/uwojls.v14i1.14341
      Issue No: Vol. 14, No. 1 (2023)
  • Wrongly Imprisoned, Released as a Pauper: Canada’s Ineffective Approach
           to Innocence Compensation and Avenues for Reform

    • Authors: Omri Rozen
      Abstract: Canada’s innocence compensation framework is inadequate and unjust. To secure compensation for the myriad harms caused to them by miscarriages of justice, the wrongfully convicted in Canada can either rely on civil suits adjudicated on standards deferential to state actors and with remote prospects of recovery, or must subject themselves to entirely discretionary assessments of ex gratia payments by the executive. In this paper, I provide an overview of why this status quo is undesirable. I then examine other jurisdictions’ innovative approaches to innocence compensation, grounded in a distinction between ‘statutory schedule’ and ‘adjudicated rights’ frameworks. I conclude by setting out the advantages and disadvantages of each approach with a view to informing Canadian lawmakers should they be interested in reform.
      PubDate: 2023-01-31
      DOI: 10.5206/uwojls.v14i1.14627
      Issue No: Vol. 14, No. 1 (2023)
School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Heriot-Watt University
Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK
Tel: +00 44 (0)131 4513762

Your IP address:
Home (Search)
About JournalTOCs
News (blog, publications)
JournalTOCs on Twitter   JournalTOCs on Facebook

JournalTOCs © 2009-