E-Book, Englisch, Band 9, 552 Seiten, Format (B × H): 153 mm x 227 mm
The Pluralism of Methods
E-Book, Englisch, Band 9, 552 Seiten, Format (B × H): 153 mm x 227 mm
ISBN: 978-3-8452-8512-2
Verlag: Nomos
Format: PDF
Kopierschutz: Adobe DRM (»Systemvoraussetzungen)
Traditionelle dogmatische Ansätze und Methoden zum Zivilverfahren, die den wissenschaftlichen Diskurs über Jahrzehnte prägten, sind oftmals nicht mehr in der Lage, die zunehmende Komplexität der Gegenwart abzubilden. Vor diesem Hintergrund können Methoden wie vergleichende und interdisziplinäre Ansätze sowie quantitative und qualitative empirische Analysen der prozessrechtlichen Forschung ihre umfassende Erklärungskraft sichern – auch unter transnationalen Vorzeichen.
Das vorliegende Buch präsentiert dazu die Ergebnisse der zweiten IAPL-MPI-Summer School, die im Juli 2016 in Luxemburg stattfand.
Autoren/Hrsg.
Fachgebiete
- Rechtswissenschaften Allgemeines Verfahrens-, Zivilprozess- und Insolvenzrecht Allgemeines Prozessrecht, Kostenrecht
- Rechtswissenschaften Internationales Recht und Europarecht Internationales Recht Internationales Zivilprozess- und Schiedsverfahrensrecht
- Rechtswissenschaften Internationales Recht und Europarecht Europarecht Europäisches Insolvenz- und Zivilprozessrecht
Weitere Infos & Material
1;Cover;1
2; Inaugural Lecture;13
2.1; I. Comparative Perspectives in Procedural Law: Some Remarks and Proposals;15
2.1.1; (I) Introduction;15
2.1.2; (II) The Scope of Comparison in Procedural Law;17
2.1.2.1; (a) Comparing the Regulation of Civil Proceedings;17
2.1.2.2; (b) Comparing Court Proceedings and ADR Mechanisms;19
2.1.2.3; (c) Comparing Civil Procedure and Criminal Procedure;21
2.1.3; (III) The Aims and Purposes of Applying Comparative Methodology in Procedural Law;24
2.1.3.1; (a) Comparing to Improve National Legislation;25
2.1.3.2; (b) Comparing to Harmonize Legislation;30
2.1.3.3; (c) Comparing to Act in a Globalized World;36
2.1.4; (IV) How Should Procedural Comparison Be Carried out?;37
2.1.4.1; (a) Choosing the Terms of Comparison;37
2.1.4.2; (b) The Information Needed and the Way to Gather It;40
2.1.4.3; (c) The Language Issues;43
2.2; II. Comparative Law: A Plurality of Methods;47
2.2.1; (I) Introduction;47
2.2.2; (II) What is Comparative Law?;48
2.2.3; (III) What Are the Methods of Comparative Law?;51
2.2.4; (IV) The Critique of Comparative Law;54
2.2.5; (V) The Next Iteration of Comparative Law?;57
2.2.6; (VI) Development of Comparative Procedural Law;61
3; Procedural Law and Methodology;65
3.1; I. Mauro Cappelletti’s Methodology in Comparative Civil Justice and the Coercive Powers of Courts as a Case Study;67
3.1.1; (I) Comparative Law in Theory – on Comparative Methodology;67
3.1.1.1; (a) Introduction. On The “Constitutive Tension” Between Similarities and Differences in Comparative Legal Studies. Comparative Law in Theory – on Comparative Methodology;67
3.1.1.2; (b) Mauro Cappelletti’s Comparative Law;70
3.1.1.3; (c) A Closer Look: The Stages of the Comparative Law Research;74
3.1.1.4; (d) An Epistemic Critique;77
3.1.2; (II) Comparative law in practice – on the coercive powers of courts in comparative perspective;80
3.1.2.1; (a) Introduction;80
3.1.2.2; (b) In Search of the Common Need;83
3.1.2.3; (c) Explaining the Differences: a Cultural Approach;86
3.1.3; (III) Conclusion – Is Jacques Derrida right?;90
3.2; II. Beware of Legal Families: The Example of the Effects of Res Judicata Toward Third Parties;93
3.2.1; (I) Introduction;93
3.2.2; (II) The “Continental Paradox”;96
3.2.2.1; (a) Common Roots: Roman Ambiguities;96
3.2.2.1.1; (i) The Definition of the Exceptio Rei Judicatae;97
3.2.2.1.2; (ii) The Locus Standi of Third Parties to Appeal;97
3.2.2.2; (b) Modern Hesitations;98
3.2.2.2.1; (i) A Uniform Definition of Res Judicata;98
3.2.2.2.2; (ii) Different Approaches Concerning the Impact on Third Parties;100
3.2.2.2.2.1; 1. Countries Where Third Party Remedy Against the Judgment Exists;100
3.2.2.2.2.2; 2. Countries Without a Third Party Remedy Against the Judgment;102
3.2.3; (III) The ‘’Common Law Diversity’’;104
3.2.3.1; (a) The Common Roots: “Res Judicata”, “Estoppel by Record” and the Lack of Effect Toward Third Parties;104
3.2.3.1.1; (i) The Basic Concepts;104
3.2.3.1.2; (ii) Parties Bound by the Judgment;106
3.2.3.2; (b) Subsequent Developments: Increasing Divergence Between American and English Law;107
3.2.3.2.1; (i) American Law: Admission of Non-Mutual Collateral Estoppel;107
3.2.3.3; (b) English Law: The Rise of “Abuse of Process”;109
3.2.4; (IV) An Attempt at Synthesis;113
3.2.4.1; (a) A first Conclusion: the Necessity of Going beyond the Legal Families;113
3.2.4.2; (b) Discussion of Two Specific Issues;114
3.2.4.2.1; (i) Judgment about the Validity of a Patent;114
3.2.4.2.2; (ii) Judgment on the Liability of a Tortfeasor Who Inflicted Harm to Many Victims;116
3.2.5; (V) Conclusion;119
3.3; III. Statistical Methods in Comparative Civil Procedure – Chances and Risks Christoph A. Kern;121
3.3.1; (I) Introduction;121
3.3.2; (II) Terminology;124
3.3.3; (III) Quantitative Methods in Comparative Law;125
3.3.3.1; (a) Empirical Research on Legal Systems in General;125
3.3.3.2; (b) Particularities of the “Numerical Comparative Law” Studies;127
3.3.3.3; (c) The Siems Guidelines;128
3.3.4; (IV) The Importance of Transparency and Caution;129
3.3.5; (V) “Numerical Comparative Law” and Civil Procedure;131
3.3.5.1; (a) The Special Case of Procedural Law;131
3.3.5.2; (b) The Intricacies of Measuring the Quality of Civil Justice;132
3.3.5.3; (c) The Lex Mundi Study “Courts” and its Follow-Up Paper;133
3.3.5.3.1; 1. The Lex Mundi Study;133
3.3.5.3.2; 2. The Follow-Up Paper;134
3.3.5.4; (d) Some Evaluating Remarks on these Studies;135
3.3.5.4.1; 1. The Lex Mundi Study;135
3.3.5.4.2; 2. The Follow-Up Paper;137
3.3.6; (VI) The Studies’ Use and Understanding of Comparative Law;138
3.3.6.1; (a) Comparative Law Literature and Quantitative Studies;138
3.3.6.2; (b) Illustration: The Lex Mundi Study “Courts”;139
3.3.7; (VII) Conclusion;143
4; On the Role of the Courts;145
4.1; The Changing Role of Courts between the Privatization of Adjudication and the Privatization of Procedure;147
4.1.1; (I) Introduction: Privatizing Adjudication and Privatizing Procedure;147
4.1.2; (II) Procedural Contracts;150
4.1.3; (III) A Short Comparative Approach;152
4.1.3.1; (a) Comparative Law Methodology;152
4.1.3.2; (b) Prototypical Cases;154
4.1.3.2.1; (i) Germany;154
4.1.3.2.2; (ii) France;157
4.1.3.2.3; (iii) Italy;159
4.1.3.2.4; (iv) Brazil;161
4.1.3.2.5; (v) United States;162
4.1.4; (IV) Preliminary Points of Analysis;164
4.1.4.1; (a) Why Have Procedural Agreements at All?;164
4.1.4.2; (b) Managerial Judging and Procedural Agreements;166
4.1.4.3; (c) Historical Background and the Uniqueness of Procedural Agreements;167
4.1.5; (V) Empirical Research and the Two Privatizations;168
4.1.5.1; (a) The Importance of Empirical Analysis of the Privatization of Adjudication;168
4.1.5.2; (b) Future Research Proposal;170
5; National Procedural Law;173
5.1; I. The Italian Assisted Negotiation for Legal Separation and Divorce;175
5.1.1; (I) Methodology and Introduction to the Theme;175
5.1.2; (II) Family Law in the Italian System;178
5.1.3; (III) Law 10th November 2014 N. 162: A General Overview;182
5.1.4; (IV) The Assisted Negotiations for Legal Separation and Divorce;187
5.1.5; (V) The Procedure of Assisted Negotiation for Legal Separation and Divorce: An Analytical Illustration.;198
5.1.6; (VI) Personal remarks;206
5.1.7; (VII) Conclusion;209
5.2; II. The Impact of the EU Financial Crisis in the Europeanization of the Greek Civil Procedural Law: A Multi-Methodological Insight to the New Greek Civil Procedure Code (2015), its Scope and Innovative Provisions;211
5.2.1; (I) Introduction;211
5.2.2; (II) The Historical Context of the Civil Judicial Reform in Greece and the Establishment of the New Greek Civil Procedure Code (2015);213
5.2.2.1; (a) Greece in the Storm of the EU Financial Crisis;214
5.2.2.2; (b) The Way to the Establishment of the New Greek Civil Procedure Code;219
5.2.3; (III) The Scope of the New Greek Civil Procedure Code (2015);221
5.2.3.1; (a) The Need for the Acceleration of Civil Trial Proceedings;222
5.2.3.2; (b) The Three Pillars of the Scope of the New Greek Civil Procedure Code;226
5.2.3.2.1; (i) The Issuance of Sound, Fair and Quick Civil Judgments;227
5.2.3.2.2; (ii) The Adoption of Judicial Economy in Civil Trial;228
5.2.3.2.3; (iii) The Fulfillment of the Right to Judicial Protection;229
5.2.4; (IV) The Main Amendments of the New Greek Civil Procedure Code (2015);231
5.2.4.1; (a) The Categorization of the Amendments of the New Greek Civil Procedure Code;232
5.2.4.1.1; (i) The New Ordinary Proceedings before the Courts of First Instance;232
5.2.4.1.2; (ii) The Reformation of the Special Proceedings and the Changes in the Payment Order;234
5.2.4.1.3; (iii) The Modifications in the Interim Proceedings Regarding Precautionary Measures;236
5.2.4.1.4; (iv) The Amendments in the Compulsory Civil Enforcement Procedure;237
5.2.4.2; (b) A “European” Approach to the Most Innovative Provisions of the New Greek Civil Procedure Code;239
5.2.4.2.1; (i) The Establishment of Judicial Economy as a Fundamental Principle of the Civil Trial;239
5.2.4.2.2; (ii) The Promotion of ADR Methods;240
5.2.4.2.3; (iii) The Establishment of a New System for the Concentration of the Litigants’ Claims;242
5.2.4.2.4; (iv) The Deployment of Technological Innovation;244
5.2.5; (V) Conclusion: Towards the Europeanization of the Greek Civil Procedural Law? Problems, Challenges and Prospects;245
5.3; III. Supreme Courts: “Filters’’ and the Case Selection. Argentina’s Writ of Certiorari in a Comparative Perspective;249
5.3.1; (I) Presentation;249
5.3.2; (II) Overview of Argentina’s Supreme Court and Federal Judiciary System. The Fusion of Two “Legal Traditions”;251
5.3.3; (III) The Two Dimensions of the Supreme Courts’ Crisis;253
5.3.3.1; (a) “Quantitative” Dimension;253
5.3.3.2; (b) “Qualitative” Dimension;255
5.3.4; (IV) Mechanisms to Address the Crisis;257
5.3.4.1; (a) “Overproduction” Mechanisms;257
5.3.4.2; (b) Case Selection Mechanisms;259
5.3.5; (V) The Requirement of “relevance” (trascendencia) in an Extraordinary Appeal at the Federal Supreme Court (Argentina);261
5.3.5.1; (a) Partial Discretion;261
5.3.5.2; (b) No Motivation;262
5.3.5.3; (c) Parameters to select by “transcendence”. Relevance, institutional roles and the Argentinian approach to the “ius litigatoris dilemma”.;262
6; International Courts;267
6.1; I. The Court of the Eurasian Economic Union: Basic and Some Controversial Questions of Jurisdiction and Procedure;269
6.1.1; (I) Introduction;269
6.1.2; (II) Structure and Composition of the Court, Questions and Independence;271
6.1.2.1; (a) Nomination of Judges and Terms of Tenure;271
6.1.2.2; (b) Removal from the Office;275
6.1.2.3; (c) Immunities;277
6.1.2.4; (d) Composition of Panels and Presidency;280
6.1.3; (III) Jurisdiction of the Court;285
6.1.3.1; (a) Direct Actions;285
6.1.3.1.1; (i) On the Claim (request) of a Member State;285
6.1.3.1.2; (ii) On the Claim (request) of an Economic Entity;288
6.1.3.2; (b) Interpretation on the Union Law, Civil Service Issues;290
6.1.3.3; (c) Waived Competence of Preliminary Rulings;291
6.1.4; (IV) Conclusion;294
6.2; II. The Court of Justice of the European Union as an Institutional Model for the African Court of Justice and Human Rights;295
6.2.1; (I) Introduction;295
6.2.2; (II) The Reform of the AU’s Judicial System;297
6.2.2.1; (a) The Rationalization as a Goal;297
6.2.2.2; (b) The EU’s Institutional Support;299
6.2.3; (III) The CJEU’S Jurisdiction as a Model;303
6.2.3.1; (a) The Question of Multiple Jurisdictions of the ACtJHR.;303
6.2.3.2; (b) The Jurisdiction of the General Affairs Section and the European Model;309
6.2.3.2.1; (i) Advisory Jurisdiction;310
6.2.3.2.2; (ii) Jurisdiction in Constitutional Issues Arising from the Institutional Structure of the Organization;312
6.2.3.2.3; (iii) Jurisdiction to Deal with Any Issues of International Law;312
6.2.3.2.4; (iv) Staff Appeals;316
6.2.3.2.5; (v) Other Competences?;317
6.2.4; (IV) The CJEU’s Procedural Rules as a Model;318
6.2.4.1; (a) The Number, Eligibility and Required Expertise of Judges;318
6.2.4.2; (b) Enforcement Mechanism;322
6.2.5; (V) Conclusion;324
6.3; III. When Titans Clash: Setting Standards for Child Abduction by the CJEU and the ECtHR;327
6.3.1; (I) Introduction;327
6.3.2; (II) The Approach of the CJEU to the “Automatic Return” Principle;329
6.3.3; (III) The Position of the ECtHR;331
6.3.4; (IV) A “Non Mechanical” Return? The Neulinger Case;332
6.3.5; (V) A Procedural “Compromise”: the Povse v. Austria Case and its Progeny;335
6.3.6; (VI) Concluding Remarks;340
7; Collective Redress;343
7.1; I. Collective Due Process of Law: Reconciling Representation and Participation;345
7.1.1; (I) The Matter;345
7.1.2; (II) Participation and Due Process of Law;346
7.1.3; (III) Outcome-based Approaches and Process-based Approaches;349
7.1.3.1; (a) Would the Process Survive without Participation? Critique to the Notion of Essential Participation.;351
7.1.3.2; (b) Would the Process Survive Without Participation? Critique to the Notion of Instrumental Participation;355
7.1.4; (IV) A New Concept of ??Procedural Participation;357
7.1.5; (V) Who is Entitled to Collective Rights?;359
7.1.6; (VI) The Concept of Society;362
7.1.7; (VII) The Species of Collective Disputes;365
7.1.7.1; (a) Global collective disputes;367
7.1.7.2; (b) Local Collective Disputes;369
7.1.7.3; (c) Irradiated Collective Disputes;371
7.1.8; (VIII) A Procedural Model for Collective Disputes;375
7.1.8.1; (a) The Process in Global Disputes;376
7.1.8.2; (b) The Process in Local Disputes;379
7.1.8.3; (c) The Process in Irradiated Disputes;381
7.1.9; (IX) Conclusion;389
7.2; II. Access to Justice of Disadvantaged Groups and Judicial Control of Public Policies through Class Actions in Argentina;391
7.2.1; (I) Research Project;391
7.2.2; (II) Introduction;392
7.2.3; (III) Class Actions in Argentina;394
7.2.3.1; (a) General Constitutional and Statutory Overview;394
7.2.3.2; (b) Case Law General Overview: The Halabi Case and its Progeny;397
7.2.3.3; (c) SCJA Administrative Regulations;401
7.2.4; (IV) Barriers on Access to Justice;403
7.2.4.1; (a) Economic Barriers;403
7.2.4.2; (b) Cultural Barriers and the Complexity of Modern Law;404
7.2.4.3; (c) A Dangerous Combination;406
7.2.5; (V) Access to Justice, Class Actions and Disadvantaged Groups;407
7.2.5.1; (a) Access to Justice as One of the Main Goals of Class Actions;407
7.2.5.2; (b) Access to Justice and Disadvantaged Groups of People;408
7.2.6; (VI) The Scope of “Case or Controversy” Doctrine and its Influence on Judicial Review of Public Policies through Class Actions;409
7.2.7; (VII) Provisional Conclusions;413
7.3; III. Financial Consumer Redress by ADR and ODR. New European Approaches;415
7.3.1; (I) Introduction;415
7.3.2; (II) Financial ADR Mechanisms;416
7.3.3; (III) Financial Ombudsman Complaint-Handling Procedure;418
7.3.3.1; (a) Differences between the English System and the Spanish System;418
7.3.3.2; (b) Internal Dispute Resolution Scheme;420
7.3.3.3; (c) External Dispute Resolution Scheme;421
7.3.3.3.1; (i) Defensor del Cliente (Customer Ombudsman);421
7.3.3.3.2; (ii) Market Conduct and Claims Department (Financial Ombudsman);422
7.3.3.3.3; (iii) Funding Scheme;426
7.3.4; (IV) The Importance of the Networking of ADR Financial Institutions: Fin-Net;428
7.3.4.1; (a) Development of ADR on Cross-Border Disputes Resolution;429
7.3.4.2; (b) Fin-Net;430
7.3.5; (V) ADR/ODR as EU Binomial Solution for Consumer Conflicts: Controversial Aspects;432
7.3.5.1; (a) Nominal Fee for Consumers;433
7.3.5.2; (b) Pre-specified Monetary Thresholds;434
7.3.6; (VI) Improvement Proposals;434
7.3.6.1; (a) The Removal of the Spanish Institution Defensor del Cliente;434
7.3.6.2; (b) Single Financial ADR Body;435
7.3.6.3; (c) Final Decisions with (Half)-Binding Effects;436
7.3.7; (VII) Conclusions;436
7.3.7.1; (a) Financial Consumer Protection is essential to guarantee the Market Stability;437
7.3.7.2; (b) The Customer Care Departments or IDR Schemes are not Out-of-Court Settlement of Consumer Disputes Procedures in the proper Sense;437
7.3.7.3; (c) The Financial Ombudsman is an ADR Category of its Own;438
7.4; IV. Eduardo J. Couture. Footmarks that Help in Understanding the Present;441
8; Arbitration and ADR/ODR;451
8.1; I. The Theory and Practice of Precedent in Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods;453
8.1.1; (I) Introduction;453
8.1.2; (II) The Special Nature of CISG Arbitration Case Law;455
8.1.3; (III) Criteria for CISG Arbitral Precedents;461
8.1.4; (IV) Uniform Application of CISG;463
8.1.5; (V) Conclusion;467
8.2; II. When Forward-Looking Aspect of Precedent Justifies Immediate Formally Binding Decisions;477
8.2.1; (I) Introduction;477
8.2.2; (II) The Idea of the Forward-Looking Aspect;478
8.2.3; (III) Professor Schauer’s Thesis;479
8.2.4; (IV) Professor Schauer’s Erroneous Premise;482
8.2.5; (V) When Forward-Looking Aspect of Precedent Justifies Formally Binding Immediate Decisions: The Brazilian Example;488
8.2.6; (VI) Conclusion;490
8.3; III. Some Remarks about Collective Procedural Law and the New Brazilian Civil Procedure Code;491
8.3.1; (I) Introduction: a Brief Panorama of Collective Procedural Law;491
8.3.2; (II) The Kind of Collective Protection;495
8.3.3; (III) The Role of the Collective Procedure;496
8.3.4; (IV) The Collective Protection as a Fundamental or Constitutional Right;496
8.3.5; (V) Requirements, Protection of the Absent Members and Different Methods and Representation;497
8.3.6; (VI) The Frame of the Collective Procedural Law and its Paths. A multi-door perspective;498
8.3.7; (VII) The New Brazilian Civil Procedure Code;500
8.3.8; (VIII) Final Questions;505
9; Meeting Points: International, European, Domestic Procedural Law;507
9.1; I. Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions in Domestic Courts – Union Law Requirements on the locus standi of Individuals;509
9.1.1; (I) Presentation and Legal Framework;509
9.1.2; (II) The Principles at Play: Equivalence, Effectiveness, and Effective Judicial Protection;511
9.1.3; (III) Standing to Challenge Administrative Decisions;515
9.1.3.1; (a) Introduction;515
9.1.3.2; (b) Standing of Private Parties – Rights Protection or Effectiveness?;516
9.1.3.3; (c) The Existence of a Right Deriving From Union Law;519
9.1.3.4; (d) Adverse Effects on the Applicant;522
9.1.3.5; (e) Vested and Present Interest;529
9.1.4; (IV) Discussion and Final Remarks;531
9.2; II. Procedural Law and Global Governance: Exploring and Mapping a New Research Field;535
9.2.1; (I) “Sentry”;535
9.2.2; (II) With the Eyes of a Stranger;536
9.2.3; (III) A View from Procedural Law;538
9.2.4; (IV) Procedural Law and Global Governance: Towards a Workable Research Agenda;538
9.2.5; (V) The Silence of Procedural Law Literature;539
9.2.6; (VI) Misleading Perceptions;540
9.2.7; (VII) Janus-Faced Civil Procedure;541
9.2.8; (VIII) The Case for Procedural Law;542
9.2.9; (IX) Roadmap of the Research Project;543
9.2.9.1; (a) Domestic and international courts and transnational governance. The working hypothesis aims to establish whether there are symptoms of an ‘over-judicialization’.;543
9.2.9.2; (b) Use of indicators (and big data) as a tool to evaluate and compare judicial systems.;545
9.2.10; (X) Aim of the Research Project;546
9.3; Index;547
