E-Book, Englisch, Band 114, 262 Seiten
Reihe: Beiträge zum ausländischen und internationalen Privatrecht
Fleischer / Basedow / Zimmermann Legislators, Judges, and Professors
1. Auflage 2016
ISBN: 978-3-16-154986-1
Verlag: Mohr Siebeck
Format: PDF
Kopierschutz: Adobe DRM (»Systemvoraussetzungen)
E-Book, Englisch, Band 114, 262 Seiten
Reihe: Beiträge zum ausländischen und internationalen Privatrecht
ISBN: 978-3-16-154986-1
Verlag: Mohr Siebeck
Format: PDF
Kopierschutz: Adobe DRM (»Systemvoraussetzungen)
As lawyers we are normally interested in various substantive areas of law; and as comparative lawyers we are interested in finding out about the differences and similarities between national legal systems. But from time to time we should also reflect on how we think and operate, and look at basic questions of legal methodology - both for the sake of understanding better what we do as lawyers immersed in our own legal systems and as lawyers attempting to assess and comprehend how foreign legal systems work. The nine essays in this volume are devoted to the topics of law-making today (with a focus on Japan, Turkey and Russia), judicial decision-making today (with a focus on England and Wales, Switzerland and Argentina), and legal scholarship today (with a focus on the United States, France and South Africa); and they thus revolve around the three protagonists of legal development: legislators, judges and professors.
Autoren/Hrsg.
Fachgebiete
Weitere Infos & Material
1;Cover;1
2;Preface;6
3;Contents;10
4;Abbreviations;12
5;Law-Making Today;16
5.1;Yuko Nishitani: Law-Making in Japan;18
5.1.1;I. Introduction;18
5.1.2;II. Foundations of Japanese Law;19
5.1.2.1;1. Meiji era;19
5.1.2.2;2. Post-war era;21
5.1.2.3;3. Developments since 2001;22
5.1.3;III. Characteristics of Law-Making in Japan;25
5.1.3.1;1. Professors;25
5.1.3.1.1;a) Relation to the legislature;25
5.1.3.1.2;b) Relation to the judicature;27
5.1.3.2;2. Judges;28
5.1.3.2.1;a) Law-making by the judicature;28
5.1.3.2.2;b) Control of constitutionality;30
5.1.3.3;3. Legislators;32
5.1.3.3.1;a) Background;32
5.1.3.3.2;b) Methods of legislation;33
5.1.3.3.2.1;(1) The role of the government;33
5.1.3.3.2.2;(2) Cabinet Legislation Bureau;34
5.1.3.3.2.3;(3) Stakeholders;35
5.1.3.3.2.4;(4) Professors;36
5.1.3.3.3;c) Tendency of the legislation;36
5.1.3.3.3.1;(1) Reserved position of legislators;36
5.1.3.3.3.2;(2) Activism of legislators;39
5.1.4;IV. Final Remarks;40
5.2;Ba?ak Baysal: Law-Making in Turkish Private Law;42
5.2.1;I. Introduction;42
5.2.2;II. Law-Making by Legislators;43
5.2.2.1;1. Legislative drafting;43
5.2.2.1.1;a) Legislative drafting and Regulatory Impact Analysis;44
5.2.2.1.2;b) Important RIA requirements in Turkish law;44
5.2.2.1.2.1;(1) Duty of the preparatory commissions and external consultation;45
5.2.2.1.2.2;(2) Justifications;48
5.2.2.1.2.3;(3) Economic analysis of law;48
5.2.2.2;2. Abuse of legislative power through legislative technique;50
5.2.3;III. Law-Making by Judges;51
5.2.3.1;1. The Turkish judge: Interpreter and/or legislator?;51
5.2.3.2;2. Adaptation of contract: Judges acting as legislators;53
5.2.4;IV. Concluding Remarks: Codifying Judge-Made Law;55
5.3;Andrey M. Shirvindt: Reforming the Russian Civil Code – A Search for a Better Law-Making;56
5.3.1;I. Introduction;56
5.3.2;II. Expert Groups;58
5.3.2.1;1. The Council, the Research Centre and the ad hoc working groups;58
5.3.2.2;2. Controversies around composition of the groups;59
5.3.2.2.1;a) Lack of access;59
5.3.2.2.2;b) Public-spiritedness and public interests;60
5.3.2.2.3;c) Emphasis on hard cases?;62
5.3.3;III. Working Method;63
5.3.3.1;1. An outline;63
5.3.3.2;2. Problematic aspects;64
5.3.3.2.1;a) Limited transparency;64
5.3.3.2.2;b) Problem formulation;65
5.3.3.2.3;c) Coordination;66
5.3.3.2.4;d) Public discussion;66
5.3.4;IV. Travaux préparatoires;68
5.3.4.1;1. Available materials;68
5.3.4.2;2. The Concept and its functions;70
5.3.5;V. Comparative Law;72
5.3.5.1;1. Prominent role of comparative inspirations;72
5.3.5.2;2. Controversial aspects of the use of comparative law by drafters;74
5.3.5.2.1;a) Borrowing as an end in itself;74
5.3.5.2.2;b) Borrowing vs. creating;74
5.3.5.2.3;c) The model to follow: civil law or common law?;74
5.3.5.2.4;d) Quality of the comparative work;75
5.3.6;VI. Final Remarks;77
6;Judicial Decision-Making Today;78
6.1;Thomas Coendet: Judicial Decision-Making Today – The Swiss Perspective;80
6.1.1;I. Introduction;81
6.1.1.1;1. Legends;81
6.1.1.2;2. Scope;82
6.1.1.3;3. Methodology;83
6.1.2;II. Analysing Judicial Decision-Making;85
6.1.2.1;1. Context;85
6.1.2.1.1;a) Swiss courts;85
6.1.2.1.2;b) Swiss Supreme Court;87
6.1.2.2;2. Judges;88
6.1.2.2.1;a) The judicial self-image as decision-maker;89
6.1.2.2.2;b) Judicial focal points in decision-making;91
6.1.2.2.3;c) Methodological aspects of decision-making;95
6.1.2.3;3. Cases;97
6.1.2.3.1;a) Judicial focal points in decision-making;98
6.1.2.3.2;b) Methodological aspects of decision-making;101
6.1.2.4;4. Blind spots;103
6.1.2.4.1;a) Further participants;104
6.1.2.4.2;b) Judicial routine;104
6.1.2.4.3;c) Judicial research;106
6.1.3;III. Conclusion;108
6.2;Matthew Dyson: Judicial Decision-Making in England and Wales;112
6.2.1;I. What is Being Decided;114
6.2.1.1;1. Decision-making as law-making;114
6.2.1.2;2. Precedent;115
6.2.1.3;3. What judicial decisions are being made;117
6.2.1.4;4. The building blocks of judicial law-making;117
6.2.1.5;5. Extra-judicial decision-making by judges;118
6.2.2;II. Where Decisions Are Made;120
6.2.2.1;1. United Kingdom Supreme Court (UKSC);121
6.2.2.2;2. Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC);122
6.2.2.3;3. Court of Appeal of England and Wales;123
6.2.2.4;4. High Court;124
6.2.2.5;5. County Court and Crown Court;125
6.2.2.6;6. Magistrates’ Court;125
6.2.2.7;7. Tribunals;126
6.2.2.8;8. Other;126
6.2.3;III. Who Makes the Decisions;127
6.2.3.1;1. Place of the Judge in English Society;127
6.2.3.2;2. Who makes judicial decisions;128
6.2.3.2.1;a) Diversity;128
6.2.3.2.2;b) Legal background;131
6.2.3.2.3;c) Appointment;135
6.2.3.2.4;d) Career Development;136
6.2.3.2.5;e) Indirect homogenising factors;137
6.2.3.2.6;f) Which judge hears the case;138
6.2.3.3;3. Collegial decision-making;140
6.2.4;IV. For Whom Are Decisions Made;144
6.2.4.1;1. Audience below;144
6.2.4.2;2. Audience in legal profession;144
6.2.4.3;3. Audience above;145
6.2.5;V. How Decisions Are Made;145
6.2.5.1;1. What is the starting point for judicial decision-making?;145
6.2.5.2;2. Judge as ‘umpire’;146
6.2.5.2.1;a) Counsel;147
6.2.5.2.2;b) Interveners;150
6.2.5.2.3;c) Litigants and litigants in person;150
6.2.5.2.4;d) Academics;152
6.2.5.2.5;e) Judicial Assistants;156
6.2.5.2.6;f) Juries;157
6.2.5.2.7;g) Legislators;157
6.2.5.3;3. Themes within decision-making;159
6.2.6;VI. What Form Decisions Take: Writing Judgments;162
6.2.7;VII. Conclusion;164
6.3; Agustín Parise: Judicial Decision-Making in Latin America – Unveiling the Dynamic Role of the Argentine Supreme Court;166
6.3.1;I. Introduction;166
6.3.2;II. Judges and Legal Development;168
6.3.2.1;1. Judges and society;169
6.3.2.2;2. Argentine judicial structure;173
6.3.2.3;3. Procedural triangle and extraordinary appeal;175
6.3.3;III. Judicial Decision-Making and the Argentine Supreme Court;179
6.3.3.1;1. Logical genesis;180
6.3.3.2;2. Style;182
6.3.3.3;3. Reasoning;184
6.3.3.4;4. Academic writing;186
6.3.3.5;5. Comparative law;189
6.3.3.6;6. Dissenting opinions;192
6.3.3.7;7. Precedents;195
6.3.4;IV. Snapshot of the Argentine Supreme Court (January–July 2015);197
6.3.4.1;1. Commercial decisions in extraordinary appeals;199
6.3.4.2;2. Civil decisions in extraordinary appeals;201
6.3.5;V. Closing Remarks;204
7;Legal Methodology Today;206
7.1;Aditi Bagchi: On the Very Idea of Legal Methodology;208
7.1.1;I. The Concept of Legal Method is Simultaneously Ambiguous and Laden;208
7.1.2;II. Pragmatism and Legal Methodology;211
7.1.3;III. Pluralism and Legal Methodology;215
7.1.4;IV. Legal Method and the Rule of Law;220
7.1.5;V. Conclusion;222
7.2;Jean-Sébastien Borghetti: Legal Methodology and the Role of Professors in France – Professorenrecht is not a French Word!;224
7.2.1;I. Introduction;224
7.2.2;II. The Teaching of Law in France;226
7.2.2.1;1. Legal methodology in the legal curriculum;226
7.2.2.2;2. Commentaire d’arrêt, the typical academic exercise;227
7.2.3;III. Judicial Law-Making in France and the Role of Professors;232
7.2.4;IV. Concluding Remarks;237
7.3;Helen Scott: The Death of Doctrine? – Private Law Scholarship in South Africa Today;238
7.3.1;I. Introduction;238
7.3.2;II. The South African Law Professor;240
7.3.2.1;1. “With us the position is different”: South Africa’s mitigated doctrine of precedent;240
7.3.2.2;2. The formative period: De Villiers, Maasdorp, Wessels and Wille;242
7.3.2.3;3. Twentieth century: the age of the scholar;244
7.3.2.4;4. A clash of legal cultures: the case of wrongfulness;246
7.3.3;III. Private-Law Scholarship in the Twenty-First Century I: The Continuing Importance of Doctrine;249
7.3.3.1;1. Rationalising the uncodified ius commune;249
7.3.3.2;2. “The normative influence of the Constitution must be felt throughout the common law”;250
7.3.4;IV. Private-Law Scholarship in the Twenty-First Century II: Doctrine in Decline?;253
7.3.4.1;1. “Out of fashion”: the general decline of private law;253
7.3.4.2;1. The effect of section 39(2): a crisis in the authority of common-law rules;254
7.3.4.3;2. Two illustrations: K v. Minister of Safety and Security and Lee v. Minister of Correctional Services;256
7.3.4.4;3. Constructive interpretation;261
7.3.5;V. Conclusion;263
8;Contributors;264
