Edinburgh Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series - February 2020

The latest in the Legal Studies Research Paper Series (Vol. 8, No. 1: Feb 20, 2020) from Edinburgh Law School is now available.

View the full Edinburgh Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series on SSRN

Papers include:

Beyond Categorisation: Refining the Relationship Between Subjects and Objects in Health Research Regulation
Edinburgh School of Law Research Paper No. 2020/01
Catriona McMillan, Edinburgh Law School
Edward Dove, Edinburgh Law School
Graeme Laurie, Edinburgh Law School
Emily Postan, Edinburgh Law School
Nayha Sethi, Edinburgh Law School
Annie Sorbie, Edinburgh Law School

Abstract: In this article, we argue that the relationship between 'subject' and 'object' is poorly understood in health research regulation (HRR), and that it is a fallacy to suppose that they can operate in separate, fixed silos. By seeking to perpetuate this fallacy HRR risks, among other things, objectifying persons by paying insufficient attention to human subjectivity, and the experiences and interests related to being involved in research.

We deploy the anthropological concept of liminality – concerned with processes of transformation and change over time – in order to emphasise the enduring connectedness between subject and object in these contexts. By these means, we posit that regulatory frameworks based on processual regulation can better recognise and encompass the fluidity and significance of these relationships, and so ground more securely the moral legitimacy and social licence for human health research.

Paris Agreement, Article 2: Aims Objectives and Principles
Edinburgh School of Law Research Paper No. 2020/02
Navraj Singh Ghaleigh, Edinburgh Law School

Abstract: This chapter provides a critical commentary of Article 2 of the Paris Agreement. Article 2 is the key provision of the much-lauded Paris Agreement, setting its key ‘target temperature’ – “well below 2°C” – and giving a novel degree of prominent to climate adaptation and finance. Although ostensibly focusing on its aims, objectives and principles, the paper argues that Article 2 is also the product of questionable compromises that may well undermine the core objectives of the entire climate regime. The language of Article has made more challenging the task of enforcing climate law, and distorted the concept of differentiation. These weaknesses, now hardwired into the international framework for climate action, create a legal void into which national and regional processes of constitutionalism must now step. The paper sets out a framework for the creation of credible commitments in national law, and their attainment. It remains to be seen whether systems of constitutional law can bear this weight placed upon them by an inadequate international regime.