Artikkelen drøfter hvordan vi bør forstå kravet om likhet for loven i Grl. § 98. Vi spør hvorvidt en appell til likhet for loven har selvstendig normativ funksjon, og eventuelt hvorfor og hva som kreves for at likhetskravets skal realiseres. Artikkelen tar utgangspunkt i et behov for avklaring av disse spørsmålene, da verken forarbeidene til grunnlovsrevisjonen i 2014 eller etterfølgende rettsvitenskapelig litteratur, i særlig grad avklarer hva likhet for loven betyr. Vi utvikler en teori om at likhetsprinsippet i § 98 (...) er et grunnprinsipp for retten som fastlegger begrunnelsesbyrden ved utformingen av lov og annen regulering, og ved rettsanvendelsen. Likhetsprinsippet innebærer at likebehandling krever i seg selv ingen begrunnelse, mens ulikebehandling må kunne begrunnes i henhold til kravene i andre ledd. De to leddene i paragrafen er derfor etter vårt syn uatskillelige: Første ledd stadfester hva som er utgangspunktet, mens andre ledd presiserer hva som ikke regnes som relevante begrunnelser for ulikhet. Likhetskravet er dermed ikke et krav om likt utfall, men et krav om likeverdighet, som vi hevder er en konstitutiv verdi for verdien av politisk rettferdighet. Den forståelsen av likhetskravet i § 98 som vi utvikler, knytter første og andre ledd i § 98 sammen, og åpner for at også første ledd kan bli mer aktivt brukt av domstolene. (shrink)

The two center time dependent Dirac equation, for an electron in the external field of two colliding ultrarelativistic heavy ions is considered. In the ultrarelativistic limit, the ions are practically moving at the speed of light and the electromagnetic fields of the ions are confined to the light fronts by the extreme Lorentz contraction and by the choice of gauge, designed to remove the long-range Coulomb effects. An exact solution to the ultrarelativistic limit of the two-center Dirac equation is found (...) by using light-front variables and a light-fronts representation. Previously unexplained experimental results obtained at CERN's SPS are explained in this way and predictions are made as to where one should look, in momentum space, and in space-time, if one wants to study and observe non-perturbative electromagnetic pair-production effects in extremely relativistic heavy-ion collisions. (shrink)

Banking, in common with other areas of finance, is often considered an amoral field focused purely on risk and return. However, ethics does have an important role to play, both traditionally and as business and banking evolve. Based on a speech to a European Union conference on financing small and medium–sized enterprises , this paper seeks to provide an overview of ethics in banking using three terms. Integrity is important to generate the trust necessary for any banking system to flourish, (...) responsibility highlights contemporary banks’ need to take into account the consequences of their lending policies, and affinity refers to a set of relatively novel ways in which depositors and borrowers can be brought closer together than they are in conventional western banking. (shrink)

We re-express a previous general result in a way which seems easier to remember, using the terminology of infinite games. We show how this can be applied to construct recursive linear orderings, showing, for example, that if there is a ▵ 0 2β + 1 linear ordering of type τ, then there is a recursive ordering of type ω β · τ.

The contentions of this paper are essentially two. One is that truth does not consist of verifiability—and still less of verification—in the sense in which this has been maintained by some pragmatists, operationalists, and positivists. The other is that in a certain other sense of “verifiability”, which will be described, truth is the same thing as verifiability. The paper, it should be understood, attempts only to make clear what is and what is not the relation between truth and verifiability. It (...) does not attempt in addition to carry the analysis of verification itself to the point where it would, by implication, furnish a terminal answer to the question, what is truth. The latter task, because of space limitations, must be reserved for some future occasion. (shrink)

I Suppose that most believers in God, if asked what is the relation of God to the world, would reply that he is its Creator and its Lord. But, like all the language in which we express our religious convictions, the language of this reply is plainly metaphorical. It calls up the picture of a human artificer or artist, the image of a human ruler or proprietor. And yet it needs but little reflection to perceive that there must be essential (...) differences between a human artificer or artist, who has a material to work in ready to his hand, and One who makes all things, as it is said, “ out of nothing “; between a human ruler or proprietor. (shrink)

This article examines Claude Lefort's writings in order to think about the ‘social’, understood as separate from the political, and in its separation, as a strictly modern ‘phenomenon’. Prior to the modern democratic revolution, the collective order was presented through the representation of power, itself identified with both law and knowledge, and referred to a transcendent source. At a first moment, the modern democratic revolution, under the sign of the general will, renders power immanent. At a second moment, it separates (...) power from law and, above all, knowledge, such that three domains emerge, each with its own logic, its own notion of representation, its own divisions. The ‘social’, in a sense, arises between these two moments. At one level, it appears as an event in, and in consequence an object of, knowledge, once knowledge need no longer be, primarily, a knowledge of power or law, that is the enunciation of the principles by which the latter establish the order, coherence and sense of the world. At another level the ‘social’ emerges as a response to the difficulties presented by a strictly political representation of societal order–difficulties in no small part due to the revolutionaries’ inability to countenance the separation between the three domains. In this regard the ‘social’ appears as a presupposition that serves to stabilize an inherently conflictual political order. It is, however, an ‘empty’ presupposition, without determinate content, and therefore also a source of uncertainty. While this emptiness proves a stimulus for the construction of new savoirs, it also accounts for the fragility of all discourses that would speak in its name (social science, social theory, sociology). The article concludes with a few words about the ‘death of the social’. (shrink)