The Anglo-American debate on the philosophical foundations of tort law has inspired Nordic tort scholars to scrutinise national tort law in new ways over the past decade. This article argues that Norwegian scholarship has (hitherto) not sufficiently taken into account whether and how Anglo-American justice theories fit their new legal surroundings. Norwegian tort law works within the distributive framework of an active welfare state, and so the presence of a distributive element in that law thus seems more intrusive than in any Anglo-American tort law landscape. In the author’s opinion, the import of Anglo-American justice theories should be based on a holistic approach, which takes into account how different justice theorists deal with the distributive element in tort law. In short, if we are going to import Anglo-American justice theories in order to explain (justify) Norwegian tort law, we need to make sure we import a theory that explains (justifies) the main features of that tort law. As part of the analysis, the article suggests a reading of Weinrib’s, Coleman’s and Gardner’s accounts of justice in the context of Norwegian tort law, in particular the Victim’s Compensation Act.
Case law from the European Court of Human Rights has been important for the interpretation and application of the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction. The decisions both give authority to and complement the Hague Convention. Two landmark cases are the Grand Chamber judgments in Neulinger and Shuruk v Switzerland from 2010 and X v Latvia from 2013. The article analyses these two judgments, with a main focus on the Court’s application of the principle of the best interests of the child and the procedural requirements for return cases. The article also focuses on the relationship between child abduction cases and public child care cases. In case law after 2013, the Court applies the X principles in child abduction cases, while the requirements of Neulinger are still applied in public child care cases.
The Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits the forcible transfer or deportation of civilian populations and classifies this action as a grave breach of the laws of war. However, attempts to prosecute this grave violation are hindered by an exception for evacuations of the civilian population for imperative military reasons, which has yet to be satisfactorily defined, either in scholarly literature or in the law. This article analyses the drafting history of the Geneva Convention provisions, the practice of international tribunals, the practice of States, and the practice of international and regional human rights organisations to establish a concrete definition of this exception so that international criminal prosecutors can prosecute confidently this grave war crime and defendants are assured of appropriate notice of all elements of this crime.
Oslo Law Review
2-2019, volume 6
Oslo Law Review was established in 2014, and publishes research articles from all areas of legal scholarship, as well as interdisciplinary articles or articles that engage with law from the perspective of other related disciplines (e.g. political science, anthropology, sociology, linguistics and philosophy).
Professor Lee A. Bygrave, Department of Private Law, University of Oslo
Professor Vibeke Blaker Strand, Department of Public and International Law, University of Oslo
Dr Matthew Saul, Guest Researcher, PluriCourts, University of Oslo
Professor Vidar Halvorsen, Department of Criminology and Sociology of Law, University of Oslo
Doctoral Research Fellow Anders Narvestad, Department of Public and International Law, University of Oslo
Professor Alla Pozdnakova, Scandinavian Institute of Maritime Law, University of Oslo
Professor Shaheen Sardar Ali, University of Warwick
Professor Bert Jaap Koops, University of Tilburg
Professor Elise Poillot, University of Luxembourg
Professor Giovanni Sartor, European University Institute/University of Bologna
Professor Emeritus Carsten Smith, University of Oslo
Professor Lawrence Solum, Georgetown University
Design and typesetting: Type-it AS, Trondheim
Cover design: Scandinavian University Press, Sissel Tjernstad
ISSN online: 2387-3299
The journal is published by Scandinavian University Press (Universitetsforlaget) on behalf of the Faculty of Law at the University of Oslo.