A new compass for legal professionals, stakeholders, and policy makers

AbstractAbout a quarter of legal jurisdictions in the world operate in more than one language. Despite this, language policies governing the functioning of law in such jurisdictions, other than in the European Union, rarely receive much attention in research. Given, however, that the policy contrast between legal monolingualism and multilingualism is often a matter of strategic response to the rising or declining power of one or more particular language communities, the conferring of legal authority on some language(s) but not others calls for analysis. Advocacy and justification surrounding potential or actual change of legal language, for example, consists of competing rhetorics advanced by politicians, legal professionals, and campaign groups, and to this extent politics permeates both the promotion and presentation of legal multilingualism, despite reluctance among legal policy makers to engage directly with this aspect of the process. This article situates legal multilingualism within a wider understanding of multilingualism and language policy. It first surveys status labels assigned to languages in multilingual jurisdictions. It then compares, across jurisdictions, rhetorical strategies deployed in promoting and opposing specific proposals about language status, in both official and public discourses, and analyses contradictions and dilemmas embedded in them. The argument extends [Rhetoric as jurisprudence: An introduction to the politics of legal language. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 4(1). 88–122] observation that legal discourse is pre-eminently a discourse of power. But if use of legal language is political, it is suggested, then the processes of negotiation which establish a language for such use are even more so.

Download Full-text

The information-gathering practice of liberal professionals in a workplace setting: More than just seeking information

Journal of Librarianship and Information Science ◽

10.1177/0961000621992810 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 096100062199281

Author(s):

Yosef Solomon ◽

Jenny Bronstein

Keyword(s):

Information Seeking ◽

Information Gathering ◽

Legal Practice ◽

Information Discovery ◽

Structured Interviews ◽

Policy Makers ◽

Personal Traits ◽

Legal Professionals ◽

Other Information ◽

Workplace Setting

Existing models of the information behaviour of various liberal professionals, especially lawyers, lack currentness. They do not adequately represent the full scope of how these professionals de facto attain information in their occupation. Without clarity about the contemporary information-gathering practice of liberal professionals in a workplace setting, scholars, technology entrepreneurs and policy makers might be relying on partial or outdated grounds, and the ability of the information specialists to provide an effective service for their patrons might also be hindered. With a focus on legal professionals, as they have experienced noteworthy changes in their occupation, purposive sampling was applied, and 20 semi-structured interviews were conducted with practising lawyers in Israel. Participants were nationwide and ranged over 30 different areas of legal practice, with a fair diversity of other professionals and personal traits achieved. The content analysis revealed four distinctive forms in which lawyers in Israel gather information within the contemporary legal practice: (a) self-executed information-seeking, (b) mediated acquisition of information, (c) information discovery and (d) combined information-gathering – which in all compile 10 different habitual strategies of gathering information in their professional work. Finally, the study suggests a revised, integrative and inclusive model that provides a more accurate and profound understanding of legal professionals’ information-gathering practice. This comprehensive and current framework may serve as an insightful guide for understanding other information-rich liberal professions.

Download Full-text

Biosecurity: tools, behaviours and concepts

Emerging Topics in Life Sciences ◽

10.1042/etls20200343 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 4 (5) ◽

pp. 449-452

Author(s):

Alan MacLeod ◽

Nicola Spence

Keyword(s):

Plant Protection ◽

Human Life ◽

Animal Health ◽

Early Warning Systems ◽

Policy Makers ◽

Recent Developments ◽

Surveillance Programs ◽

Harmful Organisms ◽

The One ◽

Biosecurity Practices

COVID 19 has raised the profile of biosecurity. However, biosecurity is not only about protecting human life. This issue brings together mini-reviews examining recent developments and thinking around some of the tools, behaviours and concepts around biosecurity. They illustrate the multi-disciplinary nature of the subject, demonstrating the interface between research and policy. Biosecurity practices aim to prevent the spread of harmful organisms; recognising that 2020 is the International Year of Plant Health, several focus on plant biosecurity although invasive species and animal health concerns are also captured. The reviews show progress in developing early warning systems and that plant protection organisations are increasingly using tools that compare multiple pest threats to prioritise responses. The bespoke modelling of threats can inform risk management responses and synergies between meteorology and biosecurity provide opportunities for increased collaboration. There is scope to develop more generic models, increasing their accessibility to policy makers. Recent research can improve pest surveillance programs accounting for real-world constraints. Social science examining individual farmer behaviours has informed biosecurity policy; taking a broader socio-cultural approach to better understand farming networks has the potential to change behaviours in a new way. When encouraging public recreationists to adopt positive biosecurity behaviours communications must align with their values. Bringing together the human, animal, plant and environmental health sectors to address biosecurity risks in a common and systematic manner within the One Biosecurity concept can be achieved through multi-disciplinary working involving the life, physical and social sciences with the support of legislative bodies and the public.

Download Full-text

Clinical Update: Understanding Causation: An Example Using Carpal Tunnel Syndrome

Guides Newsletter ◽

10.1001/amaguidesnewsletters.2007.novdec02 ◽

2007 ◽

Vol 12 (6) ◽

pp. 5-8 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

J. Mark Melhorn

Keyword(s):

Risk Factors ◽

Carpal Tunnel Syndrome ◽

Carpal Tunnel ◽

Legal Responsibility ◽

Medical Evidence ◽

Anatomic Structure ◽

Legal Professionals ◽

Compensation Systems ◽

Tunnel Syndrome ◽

Four Levels

Abstract Medical evidence is drawn from observation, is multifactorial, and relies on the laws of probability rather than a single cause, but, in law, finding causation between a wrongful act and harm is essential to the attribution of legal responsibility. These different perspectives often result in dissatisfaction for litigants, uncertainty for judges, and friction between health care and legal professionals. Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) provides an example: Popular notions suggest that CTS results from occupational arm or hand use, but medical factors range from congenital or acquired anatomic structure, age, sex, and body mass index, and perhaps also involving hormonal disorders, diabetes, pregnancy, and others. The law separately considers two separate components of causation: cause in fact (a cause-and-effect relationship exists) and proximate or legal cause (two events are so closely related that liability can be attached to the first event). Workers’ compensation systems are a genuine, no-fault form of insurance, and evaluators should be aware of the relevant thresholds and legal definitions for the jurisdiction in which they provide an opinion. The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment contains a large number of specific references and outlines the methodology to evaluate CTS, including both occupational and nonoccupational risk factors and assigning one of four levels of evidence that supports the conclusion.

Download Full-text

Suicide on the Indian Subcontinent

Crisis ◽

10.1027//0227-5910.23.3.104 ◽

2002 ◽

Vol 23 (3) ◽

pp. 104-107 ◽

Cited By ~ 36

Author(s):

Murad M. Khan

Keyword(s):

Sri Lanka ◽

Mental Health Professionals ◽

Indian Subcontinent ◽

Interpersonal Relationship ◽

Public Health Problem ◽

Elderly Subjects ◽

Important Public Health Problem ◽

Policy Makers ◽

Formidable Challenge ◽

Causative Factors

Summary: The Indian subcontinent comprises eight countries (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Bhutan, and the Maldives) and a collective population of more than 1.3 billion people. 10% of the world's suicides (more than 100,000 people) take place in just three of these countries, viz. India, Sri Lanka, and Pakistan. There is very little information on suicides from the other four countries. Some differences from suicides in Western countries include the high use of organophosphate insecticides, larger numbers of married women, fewer elderly subjects, and interpersonal relationship problems and life events as important causative factors. There is need for more and better information regarding suicide in the countries of the Indian subcontinent. In particular, studies must address culture-specific risk factors associated with suicide in these countries. The prevention of this important public health problem in an area of the world with myriad socio-economic problems, meager resources, and stigmatization of mental illness poses a formidable challenge to mental health professionals, policy makers, and governments of these countries.

Download Full-text