Suchergebnisse

Abstract
In the first part of this paper I consider the Gricean account of communication, as structured by the Cooperative Principle and the four maxims. Several authors, including Jean Goodwin [10], Fred Kauffeld [17], Michael Gilbert [7], Ernie Lepore and Mathew Stone [22], among others, argue that the Gricean view of communication fails in as much as it pretends to offer an account of all such human interactions. As Goodwin and Kauffeld suggest, a more promising starting point is to consider the variety of contextually determined presumptions that we make about speakers and that we rely upon in interpreting utterances. These presumptions are established in various ways, and are dropped, or defeated, in certain conditions. In order to clarify these aspects we need to inquiry into the nature of presumptions. I argue that Kauffeld's [18], [19], [20] account of presumptions is useful in this context. In the second part of the paper I look at what this account tells us about how, and in what conditions, presumptions in communication are rebutted.

Abstract
The precautionary principle is a central, if controversial, feature of international legal argument. I explore this controversy through a pluralist lens. What makes the precautionary principle so controversial is that it prevents us from appreciating risk holistically, particularly when appraising responses to policy trilemmas. Instead, claims of precaution focus only on some risks to the exclusion of others. I argue that we can overcome this problem by treating precaution as an evidentiary principle. This approach translates competing precautionary claims into a holistic appreciation of risk in its full factual context. I analyse that existing evidentiary conceptions of precaution (precaution as burden shift and precaution as standard-lowering) do not adequately achieve this goal. I submit that these problems can be overcome when treating precaution as an evidentiary presumption and develop how to formulate it.

Kirsten Anderson, legal research and policy manager at Coram Children's Legal Centre, examines an amendment to Clause 11 of the Children and Families Bill that clarifies "parental involvement"