Foreword

It is a privilege to have been asked to write the foreword to the first edition of the “Oxford Undergraduate Law & Policy Review”. I spent an enjoyable day over the Christmas vacation reading the five varied and interesting articles that form this edition. It is fantastic to see careful academic analysis combined with principled proposals for the reform and improvement of the law addressed in the articles. The articles range across many fields of law: criminal, employment, human rights, and international Intellectual Property law.

There are two articles which address the criminal law. The first article is by Philip Kimber of St John’s College and considers unreasonable risks, and what is said to be the overlooked element of recklessness in English criminal law, with particular emphasis on the reasonability of taking risks. The reasonability of taking risks in ending a relationship makes for compelling reading.

The second article on criminal law is by Emily Yu of Exeter College who undertakes a comparative analysis of the approach to self-defence in the laws of England and Wales and China. The article proposed a middle ground between the two systems of law, namely of allowing self-defence only where it is reasonable to use force. This would be a change from the current position in the laws of England and Wales, where reasonableness is judged in the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be.

There are two articles dealing with Intellectual Property. In the first article Giulia Cancellaro of Green Templeton College examines whether a manufacturing for export exception is permissible under international intellectual property law. This is an article which confronts the tension between safeguarding patentees’ exclusive rights and addressing developmental and public-health needs. The article also offers an analysis of the TRIPS Agreement, identifying the scope for calibrated exceptions that prioritise public health and development while remaining consistent with international legal obligations.

In the second article on Intellectual Property, Justin Wu of Somerville College considers the tension between patent protection and competition law, and examines the antitrust treatment of reverse payment settlements in pharmaceutical patent litigation and beyond. The article considers how such settlements can reflect legitimate risk-sharing, but might mask anti-competitive collusion that preserves patent-based monopolies. The evolution of judicial approaches in the United States and the ECJ are traced, and there is an assessment of the jurisprudence before and after the decision of the US Supreme Court in FTC v Actavis. The article suggests an approach of how courts might reconcile patent rights with the demands of effective competition.

Finally, Zara Cherry of St Catherine’s College addresses the employment status, or lack of employment status, of professional athletes competing outside the most commercially prominent sports. The article highlights the difficulties athletes face in securing protection under existing frameworks and categorisations of labour. The article contends that the fragmented and non-traditional income structures characteristic of less commercialised sports should strengthen, rather than undermine, the case for legal protection. The article advances a case for a more expansive interpretation of employment and worker status, one which is capable of extending meaningful protections to athletes.

I have been told that I have to select one of the articles as the winner of the 3 Hare Court Oxford Undergraduate Law & Policy Review Prize. As is apparent from my brief description of the articles above, all would be worthy winners. As it is I have selected the article by Zara Cherry “An unlevel playing field: Why employment law is failing the modern athlete”. I have chosen it because the article identified a problem under the current law, as it is interpreted, and made principled suggestions for an improvement in the law which I can see being employed by an advocate in a hearing. I have always thought that legal academics and practitioners of the law should work closely together.

I wish all the authors well in their studies, and I hope that the Review grows successfully from this most promising start.