Public/Private

2020 ◽  
pp. 466-480
Author(s):  
Jean-Bernard Auby
Keyword(s):  
Essential Feature ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Public Domain ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Roman Law ◽  
Private Sphere ◽  
Private Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Private And Public ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter examines the distinction between public law and private law. It stresses the importance of being aware of this difference between the public/private and public law/private law dichotomies. The public–private divide is universal even if, from one society to another, it can be conceived differently in certain ways. All human communities have an idea about the relationship between the private sphere and the public domain. By contrast, the distinction between public law and private law is not universal. It may be ignored, rejected, or confined to a very limited sphere of operation as, traditionally, in common law systems. Conversely, the public law/private law distinction may be understood as an essential feature of the juridical world, as was the approach of Roman law, inherited by the continental legal systems.

Private and Public Law

2020 ◽  
pp. 574-592
Author(s):  
Thomas W. Merrill
Keyword(s):  
Law And Economics ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Private Law ◽  
General Criterion ◽  
The Public ◽  
Private Ordering ◽  
Public Rights ◽  
Private And Public ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Derivatives Of

This chapter explores the relationship between private and public law. In civil law countries, the public-private distinction serves as an organizing principle of the entire legal system. In common law jurisdictions, the distinction is at best an implicit design principle and is used primarily as an informal device for categorizing different fields of law. Even if not explicitly recognized as an organizing principle, however, it is plausible that private and public law perform distinct functions. Private law supplies the tools that make private ordering possible—the discretionary decisions that individuals make in structuring their lives. Public law is concerned with providing public goods—broadly defined—that cannot be adequately supplied by private ordering. In the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, various schools of thought derived from utilitarianism have assimilated both private and public rights to the same general criterion of aggregate welfare analysis. This has left judges with no clear conception of the distinction between private and public law. Another problematic feature of modern legal thought is a curious inversion in which scholars who focus on fields of private law have turned increasingly to law and economics, one of the derivatives of utilitarianism, whereas scholars who concern themselves with public law are increasingly drawn to new versions of natural rights thinking, in the form of universal human rights.

Part I General Principles, 3 International Law as it Affects Private Law Conventions Governing Cross-Border Commercial Transactions

2015 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Commercial Law ◽  
Typical Structure ◽  
The Public ◽  
State Security ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Domestic Law

Chapter 3, after describing general principles of international law and the relationship between international law and domestic law, focuses on the hitherto neglected subject of private commercial law conventions. Textbooks on international law invariably focus on public law treaties. By contrast this chapter addresses issues relating to private law conventions. It goes through the typical structure of a private law convention, the interpretation of conventions and the treatment of errors, and the enforcement of private conventional rights against States. The subject of private law conventions and public law has become of increasing importance with the appearance in several private law instruments of provisions of a public law nature designed, for example, to ensure that creditors’ rights are not enforced in a manner that adversely affects the public interest or State security. Reservations and declarations are also discussed, together with the subject of conflicts between conventions.

scholarly journals Evaluation Concepts in Russian Codifications of Civil Law

Lex Russica ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 37-50
Author(s):  
V. G. Golubtsov
Keyword(s):  
Essential Feature ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Private And Public ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Basic Evaluation

Based on general legal and civilistic experience in the study of evaluative concepts, the author investigates the general and the specific in their civil law nature. As the result of the study, the author draws the conclusion that the existence of evaluative concepts forms a distinctive essential feature of civil law as private law. It is noted, however, that the doctrine, law-maker and law-enforcer need basic guidelines that will allow to define objective criteria for nominating concepts as evaluative, as well as for determining the boundaries of their systematic interpretation. Also, the author concludes that the impact of evaluation concepts on legal regulation in private and public law is different. In civil law, depending on the localization in the text of the Civil Code, it is possible to distinguish two groups of evaluation concepts. The first group includes the basic evaluation concepts that allow us to see the goals, meaning and specifics of civil law regulation. The second group, in the author’s opinion, includes peripheral evaluation concepts that are utilized by property law and separate contractual constructions and the presence of which allows to avoid unnecessary causality and, at the same time, makes it possible to bring legal regulation closer to real relations.

Preventive Duties under Private and Public Law scilicet spei permultum sed rei paulum

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (103) ◽  
pp. 51-71
Author(s):  
Dariusz Fuchs
Keyword(s):  
Contract Law ◽  
Legal Aspects ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Insurance Contract ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Private And Public ◽  
European Insurance ◽  
The Relationship

The article aims at discussing preventive obligations incumbent on the insurer and other entities of the insurance relationship, in particular on the policyholder. The analysis takes into account comparative legal aspects, and therefore refers to the Principles of European Insurance Contract Law (PEICL). The author emphasizes the evolution of the provision of Article 826 of the Civil Code, which has changed his views on the scope of the preventive obligation under insurance contract. He points out the possible differences of interpretation as to the scope of the prevention as well as the issue of the insurer's reimbursement of costs due to its implementation by the policyholder. What is more, the relationship between public and private law standards has been presented, with a particular focus on Article 826 of the Civil Code. Finally, de lege ferenda conclusions have been presented.

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.

Part VI Rights—Structure and Scope, Ch.38 The Constitutionalisation of Indian Private Law

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Balganesh Shyamkrishna
Keyword(s):  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Private Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter examines the relationship between private law and constitutional law in India, with particular emphasis on tort law. It considers the Indian Supreme Court’s expansion of its fundamental rights jurisprudence over the past thirty years, as well as its effort to transcend the public law/private law divide. It also explains how the Court’s fusion of constitutional law and tort law has affected the independent efficacy, normativity, and analytical basis of equivalent private law claims in India. It argues that the Court’s efforts have only undermined the overall legitimacy of private law mechanisms in the country, and that this phenomenon is evident not only with respect to tort law, but also to a lesser degree in other areas of private law, such as contract law and property law.

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.

User Property, User Rights, and User Privileges

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pascale Chapdelaine
Keyword(s):  
Public Law ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Future Application ◽  
Private Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Freedom Of Contract ◽  
Competing Interests ◽  
Regulatory Changes ◽  
Law And Policy ◽  
User Property

This chapter proposes two principles that should inform the development of copyright law and policy and of user rights. The first calls for more cohesion between copyright law, private law, and public law, and for less exceptionalism in copyright law. The second requires that the balance in copyright law be adjusted for its future application as a mediation tool between the competing interests of copyright holders, users, intermediaries, and the public. Instituting positive obligations for copyright holders in relation to users and steering freedom of contract toward the objectives of copyright law are necessary regulatory changes to rectify ongoing imbalances. The principle of technological neutrality should guide the judiciary in its application of copyright’s objective of promoting a balance in copyright law. The proposed guiding principles lead to the creation of a taxonomy and hierarchy of copyright user rights that take into account the myriad ways users experience copyright works.

Write–Reach–Repeat

2020 ◽  
pp. 1083-1093
Author(s):  
Robin M. Boylorn
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Public Sphere ◽  
The Internet ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Future ◽  
Private And Public ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter considers the role, importance, and impact of public intellectualism on the future of qualitative research. The chapter argues that the move toward technology and the public dissemination of information via the internet requires a shift in how and what we research with an expressed intention of reaching a broader and nonacademic audience. The chapter considers the relationship between the private and public sphere, and the so-called “bastardization” of intellectualism to explain the role and rise of public intellectualism in qualitative research. By considering issues such as personal subjectivity, accountability, representation, and epistemological privilege, the chapter discusses how public contexts inform qualitative research and, conversely, how qualitative research can inform the public.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document