Amicus Curiae
https://journals.sas.ac.uk/amicus
<p><strong>Amicus</strong> <strong>Curiae</strong> (a 'friend of the Court') is the official journal of both the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, University of London and its Society for Advanced Legal Studies. <em>Amicus Curiae</em> aims to promote scholarship and research that involves academics, the legal profession and those involved in the administration of law. The New Series of <em>Amicus Curiae</em> carries articles on a wide variety of topics including human rights, commercial law, white collar crime, law reform generally, and topical legal issues both inside and outside the UK. The print journal began publication in 1997 and from autumn 2019 is published three times a year by the Society for Advanced Legal Studies at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies as an open access publication. </p> <p> </p>Institute of Advanced Legal Studies / Society for Advanced Legal Studiesen-USAmicus Curiae1461-2097<p>Those who contribute items to Amicus Curiae retain author copyright in their work but are asked to grant two licences. One is a licence to the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, School of Advanced Study, University of London, enabling us to reproduce the item in digital form, so that it can be made available for access online in the open journal system, repository, and website. The terms of the licence which you are asked to grant to the University for this purpose are as follows:<br /><br />'I grant to the University of London the irrevocable, non-exclusive royalty-free right to reproduce, distribute, display, and perform this work in any format including electronic formats throughout the world for educational, research, and scientific non-profit uses during the full term of copyright including renewals and extensions'.</p><p>The other licence is for the benefit of those who wish to make use of items published online in Amicus Curiae and stored in the e-repository. For this purpose we use a Creative Commons licence (<a href="http://www.creativecommons.org.uk/" target="_blank">http://www.creativecommons.org.uk/</a>); which allows others to download your works and share them with others as long as they mention you and link back to your entry in Amicus Curiae and/or SAS-SPACE; but they can't change them in any way or use them commercially.</p>Facing China: The Prospect for War and Peace by Jean-Pierre Cabestan
https://journals.sas.ac.uk/amicus/article/view/5757
Michael Palmer
Copyright (c) 2025 Amicus Curiae
2025-02-272025-02-2762420424Consumer Protection in Asia, edited by Geraint Howells, Hans-W Micklitz, Mateja Durovic and André Janssen
https://journals.sas.ac.uk/amicus/article/view/5758
Ling Zhou
Copyright (c) 2025 Amicus Curiae
2025-02-272025-02-2762425430Lawyers for the Poor: Legal Advice, Voluntary Action, and Citizenship in England, 1890-1990 by Kate Bradley
https://journals.sas.ac.uk/amicus/article/view/5759
Patricia Ng
Copyright (c) 2025 Amicus Curiae
2025-02-272025-02-2762431435Constitutional Change in the Contemporary Socialist World by Ngoc Son Bui
https://journals.sas.ac.uk/amicus/article/view/5760
Johannes San Miguel Giralt
Copyright (c) 2025 Amicus Curiae
2025-02-272025-02-2762436442Children’s Voices, Family Disputes and Child Inclusive Mediation: The Right to be Heard by Anne Barlow and Jan Ewing
https://journals.sas.ac.uk/amicus/article/view/5761
Marian Roberts
Copyright (c) 2025 Amicus Curiae
2025-02-272025-02-2762443451The Constitutional System of the Hong Kong SAR: A Contextual Analysis by Albert Hung-yee Chen and Po Jen Yap
https://journals.sas.ac.uk/amicus/article/view/5762
Michael Palmer
Copyright (c) 2025 Amicus Curiae
2025-02-272025-02-2762452458Full issue
https://journals.sas.ac.uk/amicus/article/view/5767
Maria Federica Moscati
Copyright (c) 2025 Amicus Curiae
2025-02-272025-02-2762229499News and Events
https://journals.sas.ac.uk/amicus/article/view/5766
Eliza Boudier
Copyright (c) 2025 Amicus Curiae
2025-02-272025-02-2762496499The Discontents of the Pan European Game Information (PEGI)
https://journals.sas.ac.uk/amicus/article/view/5764
<p>This article explores the practical application of visual law and legal design in the context of consumer protection and video games, and it examines the Pan European Game Information System (PEGI) and its limitations in the classification of video games. While PEGI effectively translates regulatory concerns into an accessible and standardized visual format, its content-based approach oversimplifies the complexity of the video game medium while also overlooking how the human–machine interaction takes place. With this in mind, this article proposes a shift towards a PEGI-grounded classification system that focuses on “gameplay bricks”: the rules and mechanics that shape the game environment. By integrating principles and insight from visual law and legal design, this model aims to enhance clarity, accessibility and understanding of the legal message behind an icon or indicator. In this context, legal design ensures that the rule/mechanic structure is translated into visual indicators and icons that have the capacity to empower consumers to make informed decisions. This approach thus aligns with the policy objectives that constituted the cornerstones of the very existence of PEGI.</p> <p><strong>Keywords: </strong>video games; PEGI; video games rules; indicators; rating gameplay.</p>Salvatore Fasciana
Copyright (c) 2025 Amicus Curiae
2025-02-272025-02-2762466478Instrumenting(s):
https://journals.sas.ac.uk/amicus/article/view/5765
<p>This Visual Law article accounts an event “A Royal Dis-Sent – Re-Writing and Re-Imagining a Series of Repetitive Beats CJA 1994” held at House of Annetta, on London’s Brick Lane, on Sunday 3 November 2024. On that day it was 30 years since the notorious Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (CJA) 1994 was given royal assent, illegalizing raves, banning music that “includes sounds wholly or predominantly characterized by the emission of a succession of repetitive beats” (section 63(1)(B)). Discussions as to the nature of sound and law are unravelled, considering prohibition, nomadism, repetition and property concerning the connections found between law, music and aesthetics that the CJA 1994 and the workshop highlighted. The summary relays the work of event organizers Dr Daniel Hignell-Tully and Dr Lucy Finchett-Maddock under the guise of transdisciplinary project “Instrumenting(s)”, investigating the relations between sound, property and law, and how we may best understand the history of land within legalities and their resistances via a combination of legal, scientific and artistic research through the development of a “geosocial instrument”.</p> <p><strong>Keywords: </strong>CJA 1994; sound; prohibition; nomadism; repetition; law and aesthetics.</p>Lucy Finchett-MaddockDaniel Hignell-TullyAnders Hultqvist
Copyright (c) 2025 Amicus Curiae
2025-02-272025-02-2762479495Tony Whatling (1939–2024)
https://journals.sas.ac.uk/amicus/article/view/5763
Mohamed M Keshavjee
Copyright (c) 2025 Amicus Curiae
2025-02-272025-02-2762459465Editor's introduction
https://journals.sas.ac.uk/amicus/article/view/5747
Maria Federica Moscati
Copyright (c) 2025 Amicus Curiae
2025-02-272025-02-2762vviiiHow Do You Solve a Problem Like English Partnerships?
https://journals.sas.ac.uk/amicus/article/view/5756
<p>English partnerships are transparent for tax purposes, but there is no legislation outlining the tax rules besides a Statement of Practice (SP) (1975). Limited liability partnerships (LLPs) are treated the same for tax purposes but are bodies corporate. This has led to concerns over employment and partnership status being confused and highlights the necessity for specific anti-avoidance legislation for LLPs. Partnerships and LLPs can also be regarded as (bare) trusts for tax purposes, potentially leading to confusion and disputes as to beneficial ownership. These problems would largely disappear if members of LLPs chose to treat their partnership as a separate legal entity for tax purposes. If they did so, LLPs could be subject to corporation tax; otherwise, they and general partnerships should be subject to tailored, dedicated primary legislation governing the tax treatment—instead of that covering a mere SP.</p> <p><strong>Keywords: </strong>partnerships; Partnership Act 1890; SP D12; LLP; beneficial ownership; legal entity; employment.</p>Chris Thorpe
Copyright (c) 2025 Amicus Curiae
2025-02-272025-02-2762404419Cultural Connections
https://journals.sas.ac.uk/amicus/article/view/5754
<p>With increasing migration, integration has become a critical priority for host countries. This article discusses the findings of the research project titled “All the Same with Dance”, which examines the role of cultural activities, specifically dance, in the integration process of migrants. Migration often involves challenges such as xenophobia, which hinder social cohesion. Employing qualitative methods, including semi-structured interviews, content analysis and focus group discussions, “All the Same with Dance” explored how dance influences perceptions of similarity and reduces prejudices. Findings reveal a shift from nationalistic sentiments before the event to a focus on shared experiences afterward, demonstrating the positive impact of dance. This article contributes to the academic discourse by highlighting the transformative role of cultural exchange in fostering migrant integration.</p> <p><strong>Keywords: </strong>dance; integration; xenophobia; cultural biases; migrants.</p>Canan ÇetinSenanur UysalKumru IslıCeren Öcalan
Copyright (c) 2025 Amicus Curiae
2025-02-272025-02-2762335357Self-Regulatory ODR in China’s e-Commerce Market
https://journals.sas.ac.uk/amicus/article/view/5755
<p>This article explores the evolution and application of online dispute resolution (ODR) within China’s e-commerce landscape, focusing on the self-regulatory mechanisms employed by Alibaba’s Taobao platform. It provides an overview of China’s ODR development, analyses Taobao’s crowdsourced jury system as a case study, and examines the platform’s rulemaking and dispute resolution procedures. The analysis highlights Taobao’s ability to resolve disputes efficiently while addressing important challenges, such as transparency, data privacy and legal accountability. The study emphasizes Taobao’s role in shaping China’s e-commerce governance, underlining the need for balance between innovation and consumer trust in a rapidly expanding digital marketplace.</p> <p><strong>Keywords: </strong>online dispute resolution (ODR); e-commerce; Taobao; self-regulation platform; consumer protection; crowdsourced jury.</p>Yang LIN
Copyright (c) 2025 Amicus Curiae
2025-02-272025-02-2762358403Introduction to Special Section
https://journals.sas.ac.uk/amicus/article/view/5748
Maya UnnithanMaria Federica Moscati
Copyright (c) 2025 Amicus Curiae
2025-02-272025-02-2762229238This Is Texas
https://journals.sas.ac.uk/amicus/article/view/5749
<p>Using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and interview data, the history and experience of commercial surrogacy in the state of Texas—one of the first in the United States (US) to permit third-party pregnancy and legislate for the surrogacy contract enforcement—is examined. Findings reveal a neoliberal pro-industry stance in a state with a strong Evangelical base has enabled legislative support for surrogacy and strongly shapes the experience of Texas reproductive work. While these state characteristics have enabled a robust surrogacy industry in Texas, the current precarity of abortion care in the US has the potential to disrupt the surrogacy industry in new ways.</p> <p><strong>Keywords: </strong>surrogacy; Texas; third-party pregnancy; assisted reproduction.</p>Heather Jacobson
Copyright (c) 2025 Amicus Curiae
2025-02-272025-02-2762239259Surrogacy and Consent under Irish Law
https://journals.sas.ac.uk/amicus/article/view/5750
<p>In July 2024 Ireland enacted detailed legislation regulating both domestic and international surrogacy arrangements, in the form of the Health (Assisted Human Reproduction) Act 2024. This article will discuss the model for regulating domestic surrogacy in Part 7 of the 2024 Act and critique the court’s inability to dispense with the surrogate’s consent to a post-birth parental order except in the most unusual circumstances. The consent provisions in Part 7 of the 2024 Act are very similar to those in the UK’s Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008. The article demonstrates how the 2024 Act accords a gestational surrogate remarkable weight in determining a genetically unrelated child’s legal parentage, and how this may be detrimental to intended parents and their surrogate-born children. Further, the approach in the 2024 Act may conflict with the provisions on children’s rights, and familial rights, and the state’s concomitant obligations in relation to same, in the Constitution of Ireland, and international surrogacy-related best practice in the Verona Principles. The article concludes by suggesting amendments to the 2024 Act to better balance the rights of all parties to a domestic surrogacy.</p> <p><strong>Keywords: </strong>surrogacy; consent; parentage; parental order; best practice; Verona Principles; Constitution of Ireland; law reform.</p>Brian Tobin
Copyright (c) 2025 Amicus Curiae
2025-02-272025-02-2762260279Best Interests as a Rule of Procedure
https://journals.sas.ac.uk/amicus/article/view/5751
<p>This article examines the extent to which the best interests of the child, under Article 3 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989, has been utilized as a rule of procedure when developing legislative responses to surrogacy. Three jurisdictions are examined which have adopted vastly different regulatory responses to surrogacy: Sweden, impliedly prohibiting surrogacy; England and Wales, permitting surrogacy on an unenforceable basis; and California, providing for enforceable surrogacy agreements. Through analysis of the development of the legislation in each jurisdiction, it is argued that the concept of best interests carries a significant risk of being a term of empty rhetoric and seeks to reinforce the value of using child’s rights impact assessments to ensure a child-centric approach to surrogacy regulation.</p> <p><strong>Keywords: </strong>best interests; surrogacy; children’s rights; UNCRC.</p>Lottie Park-Morton
Copyright (c) 2025 Amicus Curiae
2025-02-272025-02-2762280299Legal (Dis)Orders
https://journals.sas.ac.uk/amicus/article/view/5752
<p>This article critically examines India’s legislative framework on women’s reproductive labour, focusing on the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, and the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act 2021. It explores how these laws, with their prohibitionist approach, demand altruism on the part of women and undermine their reproductive autonomy. Our analysis combines constitutional arguments on reproductive rights, privacy and bodily autonomy with empirical research to assess the law’s ramifications in a privatized labour market. The findings underscore the resilience of women involved in reproductive labour, who resist the unjust laws and assert their rights within a complex regulatory landscape. The research further reveals that the widening demand–supply gap as a result of the restrictive laws potentially fosters an underground economy where reproductive services are rendered with exploitative repercussions for the women, which demands urgent reworking of the law.</p> <p><strong>Keywords:</strong> assisted reproductive technology (ART); reproductive labour; surrogacy; egg donation; reproductive justice.</p>Madhusree JanaPrabha Kotiswaran
Copyright (c) 2025 Amicus Curiae
2025-02-272025-02-2762300323The Undue Importance of Marriage in India’s Current Surrogacy Legislation
https://journals.sas.ac.uk/amicus/article/view/5753
<p>Focusing specifically on the marginalization of “single”, unmarried women in the Indian Surrogacy (Regulation) Act 2021, we highlight the socio-cultural biases that centre on the notion of marriage in the legislation. Drawing on insights from legislative mobilization (Kothari 2024) post 2021, we suggest that the current surrogacy legislation in India only selectively empowers certain women’s reproductive autonomy. This defies the constitutional “right to family” of especially single women and discriminates against their equality of citizenship. The barriers presented by patriarchal concepts which frame the contexts in which the law is enacted must be recognized to remove the intentional and unintentional gender biases through which the law is implemented and experienced.</p> <p><strong>Keywords: </strong>surrogacy; marriage; singlism; gender bias; discrimination.</p>Maya UnnithanJayna Kothari
Copyright (c) 2025 Amicus Curiae
2025-02-272025-02-2762324334