Comparative legal reasoning and European Law
著者
書誌事項
Comparative legal reasoning and European Law
（Law and philosophy library, v. 50）
Kluwer Academic Pub., c2001
- : [hardcover]
- : pbk
大学図書館所蔵 件 / 全12件
-
該当する所蔵館はありません
- すべての絞り込み条件を解除する
注記
Includes bibliographical references and index
内容説明・目次
- 巻冊次
-
: [hardcover] ISBN 9780792368847
内容説明
Comparative Legal Reasoning and European Law deals with the use of comparative law in European legal adjudication. It describes the different forms of the use of comparative law in legal reasoning, argumentation and justification in several national legal orders and in European level legal institutions. The book begins with an inquiry into the nature of comparative law as a legal source. After the description of the empirical study it ends to the general theory of European law and several hard cases of European law are examined. The book is intended for students and researchers in European law but it also contains aspects to be taken into account in the practical work in European legal orders and legal institutions by judges and legal practitioners.
目次
1. Introduction. 2. Some Historical and Theoretical Observations. 3. Comparative Law in European Legal Adjudication. 4. Conclusions. Epilogue. Literature. Interviews. Index.
- 巻冊次
-
: pbk ISBN 9781402002847
内容説明
Comparative Legal Reasoning and European Law deals with the use of comparative law in European legal adjudication. It describes the different forms of the use of comparative law in legal reasoning, argumentation and justification in several national legal orders and in European level legal institutions. The book begins with an inquiry into the nature of comparative law as a legal source. After the description of the empirical study it ends to the general theory of European law and several hard cases of European law are examined.
The book is intended for students and researchers in European law but it also contains aspects to be taken into account in the practical work in European legal orders and legal institutions by judges and legal practitioners.
目次
- 1: Introduction.- 1.General Remarks.- 2.Comparative Law in the Context of European Law.- 3.The Relevance of the Study.- 2: Some Historical and Theoretical Observations.- 1.Preliminary Remarks: The Rhetorical Nature of the Comparative Legal Argument.- 2. Some History.- 2.1. Early comparisons.- 2.2. Modern comparative law.- 2.3. Conclusions.- 3. To the Idea of Comparative Legal Reasoning.- 3.1. Introduction.- 3.2. Traditional approach.- 3.3. Comparative law argument and comparative legal culture.- 3.4. Comparative law as comparative legal reasoning.- 3.5. Conclusions: the basic structure of practical comparative legal reasoning.- 4. General Conclusions.- 3: Comparative Law in European Legal Adjudication.- 1. Introduction.- 1.1. Preliminary remarks.- 1.2. Some "legal" bases for the use of comparative law in adjudicative reasoning.- 1.3. Some observations concerning the material of the study.- 1.4. The use of comparative law in some national legal orders.- 1.4.1. General remarks.- 1.4.2. Comparative reasoning in relation to international legal obligations.- European law and national legal orders.- Other types of international obligations.- 1.4.3. Some examples.- 1.4.4. Some general remarks on internal comparison, mixed courts, and private international law comparison.- 2. Comparative Law in the European Level Case Law.- 2.1. European Community law.- 2.1.1. General remarks.- 2.1.2. On interpretation in Community law.- 2.1.3. The legal basis for the use of comparative law.- 2.1.4. General remarks on the use of comparative law in the European Community legal order.- 2.1.5. Some general remarks on comparative influences in Community law.- 2.1.6. Comparative reasoning in the realm of international law in the European Court of Justice.- 2.1.7. The use of state legal systems in the absence of international obligations.- 2.1.8. Conclusions.- On the basis of the case law.- On the basis of the interviews.- 2.2. The European System of Human Rights.- 2.2.1. General remarks.- 2.2.2. Some examples of comparative reasoning.- Trial within a reasonable time or release pending trial.- Corporal punishment in private schools.- Non-enforcement of access and custody rights.- Non-recognition of paternity.- Transsexuality.- Pre-trial detention.- 2.2.3. Comparative reasoning related to Article 10(1 and 2) ("freedom of expression" and "necessity in a democraticsociety") in of the European System of Human Rights (Cases Handyside, Engel, X v Germany, Arrowsmith, Glimmerveen, Liberal Party, Barthold, Glasenapp, Markt Intern, Groppera, Autronic,Mtiller, Castels v. Spain, Observer, Colman, Chorherr, Informationsverein Lentia, Casado Coca, Jersild, Oberschlick).- 2.2.4. Conclusions on the European System of Human rights.- On the basis of the case law.- On the basis of the interviews.- 2.3. Some general conclusions.- 2.3.1. General remarks.- 2.3.2. Some analysis.- 3. "Hard Cases" and the Comparative Limits of European Law.- 3.1. Introduction.- 3.2. Value based comparative reasoning.- 3.2.1. Hard case I (The Otto Preminger Institute in the European system of human rights).- General remarks.- Context of justification.- Justification.- Some further analysis.- "Morality" and procedural polycentrism.- 3.2.2. Hard case II (Bachmann in the European Court of Justice).- Context of justification.- Justification.- Some analysis.- Conclusions.- 3.3. Traditional comparative reasoning.- 3.3.1 Hard case III (Hoechst in the European Court of Justice).- General remarks.- Context of justification.- The inquiry into the Member States' systems.- The inquiry into the European System of Human rights.- Conclusions.- Justification.- Some analysis: a principle of individual protection vs. protection of business premises?.- 3.3.2. Hard case IV (Albany in the European Court of Justice).- General remarks.- The facts of the case.- The context of justification (the Advocate General's opinion).- The Court's reasoning.- Some other studies.- Some conclusions.- Collective agreements and competition law
- basic rights, market rights, and the hierarchy of these rights based on the idea of functional interpretation.- General conclusions.- 3.4. Functional comparative reasoning: Hard case V (Kalanke in the European Court of Justice).- 3.4.1. General remarks.- 3.4.2. Comparative law as acceptable and non-acceptable legal source.- 3.4.3. "Substantive equality".- 3.4.4. Some analysis.- 3.4.5. Comparative generalities, the paradox, and the use of third law.- 3.4.6. Substantive equality as a cultural argument, the limits of law, and functional law.- 3.4.7. A systematic interpretation?.- 3.4.8. Epilogue I: Structural inequality.- 3.4.9. Epilogue II: a vertical comparative analysis.- 3.4.10. Final conclusions.- 3.5. Conclusions on the hard cases.- 4: Conclusions.- 1. Comparative European Law and European Comparative Law.- 1.1. Preliminary remarks.- 1.2. The intellectual dimension: forms of interaction of arguments and legal systems.- 1.2.1. General remarks.- 1.2.2. The analytical quality of comparative arguments, the "stages of coherence", and the legal integrity of systems.- 1.3. Motives for comparative reasoning in European law.- 1.3.1. General remarks.- 1.3.2. The forms of traditional "self-construction", control of compliance, and integrative interpretation.- 1 3.3 Maintenance of "reasonable autonomy" and the role of comparative considerations in substituting the travaux preparatoires.- 1.3.4. Implementation of changes in a persuasive way
- the strength of the normative solution.- 1.3.5. The stability function: the strength of the argument, the judicial self-restraint, and the relative dynamics and stability.- 1.3.6. Comparative reasoning directing the future interpretations in national and European legal systems.- 1.4. The institutional dimension.- 1.4.1. Institutional reasoning in European law.- 1.4.2. The structure of the European level institutional comparative law.- 1.5. Conclusions.- 1.5.1. The function of comparative law in the evolution of European law.- 1.5.2. Problems of evolution?.- 2. Conclusions on European Law.- 2.1. General remarks: toward a "reflexive" theory of European law.- 2.2. Is there justification for the (institutional) non-discursive reflexivity?.- 2.3. Integrative reflexivity and European comparative rules.- 2.4. European comparative dogmatics and vertical comparisons.- 2.5. Conclusions.- Epilogue.- 1. Contemporary Comparative Law.- 2. What Kind of Institutional Justification is Comparative Legal Justification?.- Literature.- Interviews.
「Nielsen BookData」 より
