It's partly just personal -- my own research is on the philosophical foundations of the principles not the institutions, but I think there is also an interesting philosophical point here, which is that I think the route from a foundational principle to a particular institutional way of realising that principle is not at all direct. I think there will be different ways of realising different underlying principles and a lot will depend on the context.
An example from a different area might be something like lay participation in criminal trials. So I think -- and here I've been influence by my colleague Anthony Duff's work, and his view is that the criminal trials should be seen as a situation where you hold the defendant answerable to the public at large. I like that view of a trial, and then the thought is: how do we make the institutions of trial represent the public at large? And there are various ways of doing it. You could have lay juries or you could have lay judges or magistrates or other ways of doing of doing it, and I think it's very difficult to determine -- a lot will depend on the context and the history and what we consider most symbolically important in our society to work out which way of doing it is most important and is going to work best.