Law has the potential to be one of the humanistic disciplines that is an integral part of general culture. But it is not usually perceived in that way by non-lawyers. As the Society of Legal Scholars celebrates its Centenary, its members are under pressure to broaden the audiences of legal scholarship. Setting this expectation in the context of the movement to encourage all academic disciplines to place greater emphasis on ‘public understanding’ and ‘public engagement’, this lecture considers the what, why and how of confronting this challenge, recognises some obstacles and constraints, and suggests how the Society, law schools and law publishers might contribute to this enterprise.

This paper explores, through illustrations from the law of contract, the important central theme to the effect that the rules and principles, which constitute the doctrine of the law, are not ends in themselves but are, rather, the means through which the courts arrive at substantively fair outcomes in the cases before them. The paper focuses on the concept of ‘radicalism’, which relates to the point at which the courts decide that it is legally permissible to hold that a contract should come to an end because a radical or fundamental ‘legal tipping point’ has not only been arrived at but has, in fact, been crossed. It explores the role of this concept as embodied in the doctrines of frustration, common mistake, discharge by breach, as well as fundamental breach in the context of exception clauses – in particular, how ‘radicalism’ with regard to these doctrines can be viewed from the (integrated) perspectives of structure, linkage and fairness. The paper also touches briefly on linkages amongst the doctrines of economic duress, undue influence and unconscionability, as well as the ultimate aim these doctrines share of achieving fair outcomes in the cases concerned.

The paper provides a critical survey of certain methodological debates in the field of legal philosophy in order to assess their implications for legal research in general. Underpinning this survey is a concern to establish the independence and integrity of both legal practice and legal research in the light of the risks posed by preponderant forms of instrumental rationality. Thus, Brian Leiter's recent call for a ‘naturalised’ jurisprudence is criticised for the instrumentalist basis upon which he claims to privilege forms of legal research apparently ‘continuous with’ the natural and empirical social sciences. As against Leiter, it is argued that there are in fact a range of distinct but interrelated modes of legal research. In this respect, the work of HLA Hart is interpreted as an example of a distinctively theoretical mode of inquiry into law. In addition, an account of the nature of a distinctively practical mode of legal inquiry is developed from a critique of Ronald Dworkin's excessively ‘theoretical’ reading of the interpretive character of legal practice. A constitutive practical feature of both modes of inquiry is their capacity to take up a certain distance from any exclusive concern with instrumental or pragmatic action.

This paper offers a critical perspective on how immigration control regulates the family lives of British residents and nationals of migrant descent. Family migration is problematic for a government determined to restrict long-term immigration to the skilled. The extended or ‘corporate’ family is particularly problematic because it also causes the reproduction of forms of family life that are regarded as oppressive and a barrier to cohesion. Policies have tended to minimise these forms of migration, and recent changes and proposals are consistent with that. The result is the increased marginalisation or exclusion of some migrants and pressure on migrant family life to conform more closely to majority norms.

The enactment of the Charities Act 2006 is widely viewed as one of the most momentous events in the recent history of English charity law, and the impact of the Act on the pre-existing law is still being debated. This paper inquires into the operation of the Act within the religious sphere. It seeks to explore the basis upon which charitable recognition was accorded within this sphere before the Act and to assess how far the law that was previously in force has been preserved, modified or rendered inoperative by the provisions of the Act. Three fundamental dimensions of the legal regime governing religious charities are especially relevant to this inquiry. The first dimension encompasses the elusive quest for the meaning of religion in the charitable sense. The second focuses on the long-standing requirement that religious purposes must be beneficial to the public in order to be charitable. The third is concerned with the human rights implications of conferring or withholding charitable status within the religious domain. Each dimension is examined in turn with a view to providing an insight into the complexities and difficulties inherent in the pre-existing law and the extent to which these have been addressed by the reforms contemplated by the Act.

Recent years have seen a number of developments pertaining to the notion that victims should be afforded a ‘voice’ in the criminal justice system. The theoretical and structural parameters of the adversarial system are not, however, conducive to exercising such a role. For many, conferring procedural rights on victims jeopardises the due process rights of the accused, as well as the public nature of the criminal justice system. In light of the recent decision to roll out the ‘Victims' Focus Scheme’ across England and Wales, this paper explores a number of issues of principle that arise – not least the deeper policy implications of an apparent re-alignment of the normative parameters of the criminal justice system to incorporate the private interests of third parties.

This paper discusses issues associated with international ranking of law journals. Some catalysts for the development of international journal ranking are highlighted, reasons for ranking are discussed and a range of ranking methodologies are analysed. The paper illustrates the problems associated with international journal rankings and the negative consequences that inevitably flow from such exercises.

The paper was prompted by the Australian Research Council's (ARC)'s recent Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) scheme which, as one of its components, requires international journal ranking. While examples are drawn from the ERA scheme, the paper's discussion is general and much broader in scope. That is because schemes like the ERA will come and go, but the issues of international journal rankings will remain.