Can Gaius Really Be Compared To Darwin?

2000 ◽  
Vol 49 (2) ◽  
pp. 297-329 ◽  
Author(s):  
Geoffrey Samuel
Keyword(s):  
Child Abuse ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Legal Reform ◽  
Social Benefits ◽  
General Question ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Face ◽  
The Common

One might, by way of introduction, return to the general question. What is one to make of the debate between Professor Birks and the apparent schematic disorder of the common law? One immediate response is to consign this whole debate to a past age. Those who believe that meaningful legal reform can be achieved through classification risk being ridiculed.7 Such a view is understandable. The amount of intellectual energy spent on emancipating unjust enrichment from the categories of contract, tort and equity seems to bear little relation to the actual social benefits detectable in the restitution decisions themselves.8 And the experimentation with the public and private law dichotomy appears to have proved of little worth in the face of such social horrors as child abuse.9

The Relationship between Disability Non-Discrimination Law and Quota Schemes

2019 ◽  
pp. 94-117
Author(s):  
Lisa Waddington
Keyword(s):  
Public Sector ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
People With Disabilities ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Common ◽  
Public And Private Sector ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter explores the relationship between disability quota schemes and non-discrimination law in Europe. While at first sight they seem to sit uneasily beside each other, the chapter reveals how, in some instances, quota schemes can serve to facilitate compliance with non-discrimination legislation. At the same time, the chapter explores seeming incompatibilities between the two approaches and considers whether there are differences between common and civil law jurisdictions in this respect. Tentative conclusions suggest that there is a greater willingness to establish quota schemes through legislation in civil law jurisdictions compared to common law jurisdictions, and that quota schemes in civil law jurisdictions are more likely to provide for the imposition of a levy in the case that employers fail to meet their quota obligations through employing the required number of people with disabilities. There also seems to be some indication that there is greater awareness of the potential for conflict or tension, in various forms, between non-discrimination law and quota schemes in common law jurisdictions than in civil law jurisdictions. Finally, the two schemes operating in the common law states are only applicable to the public sector—whilst in civil law states quotas are generally applied to both public and private sector employers. This may indicate different perceptions regarding the role of public sector employers and the legitimacy of imposing quota requirements.

scholarly journals Rethinking the Public-Private Law Divide in the Age of Governmentality and Network Governance

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 119-143 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lukas van den Berge
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Modern Art ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Network Governance ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
The Public ◽  
European Public ◽  
Present Context ◽  
Stateless Society

This article presents an analysis of the ways in which the public-private law divide is envisioned in French, English and Dutch law. First, it explains why French law’s tradition of regarding public and private law as ‘two separated worlds’ is now outmoded, failing to live up to the present trends of ‘governmentality’ and ‘network governance’ determining the modern art of government. Subsequently, it argues that the holistic idea of English ‘common law’ as French law’s conceptual counterpart is equally outmoded, with its ideology of ‘self-government’ within a ‘stateless society’ being out of touch with an age of managerialism and ‘governmentality’ in which the state withdraws from society only to increase its grip on societal processes. Finally, it proposes a paradigm recently developed in Dutch doctrinal thought as an attractive theoretical framework for structural innovations that may contribute to a stable and legitimate system of modern European public law that attunes to its present context without being alienated from its central classical tenets – be it either those rooted in the French or the English tradition.

10. Negligence: Duty of Care—Public Bodies

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Lunney ◽  
Donal Nolan ◽  
Ken Oliphant
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
The Political ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
The Public ◽  
Economic Considerations ◽  
Public Bodies

This chapter focuses on the negligence liability of public authorities. It discusses how negligence actions against public bodies may have both public and private law dimensions. The discussion of the public law dimension focuses on the mechanisms that have been employed in response to concerns about the political nature of some public authority decisions, and the fact that those decisions frequently involve the balancing of social or economic considerations, and the interests of different sections of the public. The discussion of the private law dimension of negligence actions against public bodies considers policy reasons for limiting the liability of public bodies and statutory responsibilities as a source of affirmative common law duties. The chapter concludes with a consideration of proposals for reform of the law in this area.

Crown Ownership of Water in situ in Common Law Canada : Public Trusts, Classical Trusts and Fiduciary Duties

2011 ◽  
Vol 51 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 493-519
Author(s):  
Jane Matthews Glenn
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Clear Understanding ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Fiduciary Duties ◽  
The Public ◽  
Management Regime ◽  
Functional Equivalent ◽  
The Common

A clear understanding of the private law rules relating to water in situ is a necessary pre-condition to the success of any public law management regime. This article thus examines the private law rules applicable in the common law provinces to determine if there are functional equivalents to Québec’s private law principle of res communis and its statutory notion of State “custodianship”. It concludes that while there is no direct functional equivalent to the concept of res communis, there is an acceptance — almost by default — of Crown ownership of water in situ, an acceptance reflected in the legislation of the western provinces. However, this Crown ownership is not full and absolute but rather limited, more in the nature of “custodianship” than “ownership”. This conclusion follows an exploration of three equitable institutions — the public trust, the classical trust and fiduciary duties. In each case, the argument for limitation is difficult, but not impossible, to make.

What Can Economists Contribute to the Common Good Tradition?

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew M. Yuengert
Keyword(s):  
Common Good ◽  
Common Pool Resources ◽  
Economic Approach ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Private Provision ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Common Good ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Insight Into

Although most economists are skeptical of or puzzled by the Catholic concept of the common good, a rejection of the economic approach as inimical to the common good would be hasty and counterproductive. Economic analysis can enrich the common good tradition in four ways. First, economics embodies a deep respect for economic agency and for the effects of policy and institutions on individual agents. Second, economics offers a rich literature on the nature of unplanned order and how it might be shaped by policy. Third, economics offers insight into the public and private provision of various kinds of goods (private, public, common pool resources). Fourth, recent work on the development and logic of institutions and norms emphasizes sustainability rooted in the good of the individual.

Cohabitants, Choice, and the Public Interest

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Leckey
Keyword(s):  
Social Change ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Intimate Relationships ◽  
Family Law ◽  
Regulatory System ◽  
Law Reform ◽  
Private Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
System P ◽  
The Face

Through the narrow entry of property disputes between former cohabitants, this chapter aims to clarify thinking on issues crucial to philosophical examination of family law. It refracts big questions—such as what cohabitants should owe one another and the balance between choice and protection—through a legal lens of attention to institutional matters such as the roles of judges and legislatures. Canadian cases on unjust enrichment and English cases quantifying beneficial interests in a jointly owned home are examples. The chapter highlights limits on judicial law reform in the face of social change, both in substance and in the capacity to acknowledge the state's interest in intimate relationships. The chapter relativizes the focus on choice prominent in academic and policy discussions of cohabitation and highlights the character of family law, entwined with the general private law of property and obligations, as a regulatory system.

The New Private Law and Intellectual Property

2020 ◽  
pp. 408-426
Author(s):  
Molly Shaffer Van Houweling
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Concepts And Categories ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law ◽  
Law Courts ◽  
Legal Concepts

This chapter studies intellectual property (IP). A hallmark of the New Private Law (NPL) is attentiveness to and appreciation of legal concepts and categories, including the traditional categories of the common law. These categories can sometimes usefully be deployed outside of the traditional common law, to characterize, conceptualize, and critique other bodies of law. For scholars interested in IP, for example, common law categories can be used to describe patent, copyright, trademark, and other fields of IP as more or less “property-like” or “tort-like.” Thischapter investigates both the property- and tort-like features of IP to understand the circumstances under which one set of features tends to dominate and why. It surveys several doctrines within the law of copyright that demonstrate how courts move along the property/tort continuum depending on the nature of the copyrighted work at issue—including, in particular, how well the work’s protected contours are defined. This conceptual navigation is familiar, echoing how common law courts have moved along the property/tort continuum to address disputes over distinctive types of tangible resources.

Global PPPs and the Choice of Law Challenge

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-115
Author(s):  
Yock Lin Tan
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Choice Of Law ◽  
Conflict Of Laws ◽  
The Public ◽  
Legal Structure ◽  
Foreign State ◽  
Relational Distance ◽  
Belt And Road ◽  
The Belt And Road

Abstract Positing the public-private partnership as an important optional legal structure in the delivery of infrastructural services in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), this exploratory article discusses the crucial, but formidable, problems of risks in management or governance. It considers whether traditional common law conflict of laws as applied in Singapore courts can contribute principles that recognize shared expectations and commitment or foster solidarity, mutuality, and trust—values regarded as essential to their effective resolution. Arguing that traditional conflicts distinctions between State and non-State law as well as between public and private law are unhelpful in this respect, it concludes that modern critical developments contain promising prospects for developing such principles. These principles will predicate a role for foreign State substantive public policies and, if there is relevant ‘relational distance’, implement them in BRI choice-of-law disputes, thereby reconciling private efficiency and public accountability beyond borders.

scholarly journals Thabo Meli Revisited: The Pernicious Effects of Result-Driven Decisions

2013 ◽  
Vol 77 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-55
Author(s):  
Kenneth J. Arenson
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Limited Extent ◽  
Natural Consequence ◽  
Privy Council ◽  
The Public ◽  
Adversarial System ◽  
The Common

Despite the hackneyed expression that ‘judges should interpret the law and not make it’, the fact remains that there is some scope within the separation of powers doctrine for the courts to develop the common law incrementally. To this extent, the courts can effectively legislate, but only to this limited extent if they are to respect the separation of powers doctrine. On occasion, however, the courts have usurped the power entrusted to Parliament, and particularly so in instances where a strict application of the existing law would lead to results that offend their personal notions of what is fair and just. When this occurs, the natural consequence is that lawyers, academics and the public in general lose respect for both the judges involved as well as the adversarial system of criminal justice. In order to illustrate this point, attention will focus on the case of Thabo Meli v United Kingdom in which the Privy Council, mistakenly believing that it could not reach its desired outcome through a strict application of the common law rule of temporal coincidence, emasculated the rule beyond recognition in order to convict the accused. Moreover, the discussion to follow will demonstrate that not only was the court wrong in its belief that the case involved the doctrine of temporal coincidence, but the same result would have been achieved had the Council correctly identified the issue as one of legal causation and correctly applied the principles relating thereto.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document