Extracontractual Liability Law as a Policy Instrument: Public Law in Disguise or in Chains?

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 16-36
Author(s):  
Pieter Gillaerts
Keyword(s):  
General Trend ◽  
Policy Instrument ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Top Down ◽  
Present Contribution ◽  
Fundamental Level ◽  
Liability Law ◽  
Preventive Actions ◽  
Common Limit

AbstractExtracontractual liability law is no exception to the general trend of instrumentalisation of private law. It is increasingly being used to pursue goals other than its primary aim of compensation. This instrumentalisation is a dual phenomenon that has developed both out of top-down and bottom-up impulses. Although specific questions may arise for each of these two movements, they encounter a common limit. On a fundamental level, the instrumentalisation is restricted by extracontractual liability law’s primary compensatory function. Other functions, such as enforcement (of rights) or prevention, are grafted onto this primary function and can only be pursued to the extent that they are compatible with it. It relates to the tension created by pursuing public goals through extracontractual liability law as an essentially private law instrument. Attention is needed not to overstretch extracontractual liability law’s prerequisites, which are coherent with its private law embedding. It would turn extracontractual liability law into a dangerous passe-partout. Besides stretching the existing prerequisites, one may also consider alternative instruments for pursuing non-compensatory goals, such as preventive actions. Given the ubiquitous occurrence of the phenomenon, the present contribution will start from Belgian and Dutch law, although the conclusions may reach beyond these legal systems.

The Proportionality Puzzle in Contract Law: A Challenge for Private Law Theory?

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 215-244
Author(s):  
Zhong Xing Tan
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Top Down ◽  
Bottom Up ◽  
Internal Logic ◽  
Pragmatic Justification ◽  
Internal Rationality

This article explores the emerging use of the proportionality concept in the contract law of the Anglo-common law world, first to understand its internal logic, and secondly, to situate its invocation within private law theory. What are judges doing when they appeal to “proportionality”?, and what does this say about the ideology of adjudication? I draw insights from the use of proportionality in other domains, in particular public law, to uncover its internal rationality as a means-ends rationality review coupled with a process of balancing competing considerations, which I illustrate with reference to the illegality, penalty, and cost of cure doctrines. I argue that proportionality reflects a method of pragmatic justification, expressing an aspiration towards a structured and transparent mode of argumentation that is anti-formal and anti-ideological, focusing from the bottom-up on contextual considerations, and occupying a distinct space against existing theories in private law driven, for instance, by “top-down”? rights-based ideologies or critical and communitarian perspectives.

The use and Enforcement of Soft Law by Australian Public Authorities

2014 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Greg Weeks
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Soft Law ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Regulatory Aspects ◽  
Highly Effective ◽  
Judicial Remedies

Soft law is a pervasive phenomenon which is highly effective as a means of regulation in Australia, as it is in many other jurisdictions. This article will not focus on the regulatory aspects of soft law, but will examine the capacity of individuals to obtain remedies where public authorities fail to adhere to the terms of their published soft law. The available judicial remedies apply in very limited circumstances, both in private law actions (in tort or equity) and public law (judicial review) actions. Ultimately, the most effective ways to remedy breaches of soft law appear also to be ‘soft’, such as recommendations of the Ombudsman and discretionary schemes for ex gratia payments.

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.

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.

Internet Jurisdiction Law and Practice

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia Hörnle
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
International Law ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Public Law ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Online Data ◽  
Media Regulation

Jurisdiction is the foundational concept for both national laws and international law as it provides the link between the sovereign government and its territory, and ultimately its people. The internet challenges this concept at its root: data travels across the internet without respecting political borders or territory. This book is about this Jurisdictional Challenge created by internet technologies. The Jurisdictional Challenge arises as civil disputes, criminal cases, and regulatory action span different countries, rising questions as to the international competence of courts, law enforcement, and regulators. From a technological standpoint, geography is largely irrelevant for online data flows and this raises the question of who governs “YouTubistan.” Services, communication, and interaction occur online between persons who may be located in different countries. Data is stored and processed online in data centres remote from the actual user, with cloud computing provided as a utility. Illegal acts such as hacking, identity theft and fraud, cyberespionage, propagation of terrorist propaganda, hate speech, defamation, revenge porn, and illegal marketplaces (such as Silkroad) may all be remotely targeted at a country, or simply create effects in many countries. Software applications (“apps”) developed by a software developer in one country are seamlessly downloaded by users on their mobile devices worldwide, without regard to applicable consumer protection, data protection, intellectual property, or media law. Therefore, the internet has created multi-facetted and complex challenges for the concept of jurisdiction and conflicts of law. Traditionally, jurisdiction in private law and jurisdiction in public law have belonged to different areas of law, namely private international law and (public) international law. The unique feature of this book is that it explores the notion of jurisdiction in different branches of “the” law. It analyses legislation and jurisprudence to extract how the concept of jurisdiction is applied in internet cases, taking a comparative law approach, focusing on EU, English, German, and US law. This synthesis and comparison of approaches across the board has produced new insights on how we should tackle the Jurisdictional Challenge. The first three chapters explain the Jurisdictional Challenge created by the internet and place this in the context of technology, sovereignty, territory, and media regulation. The following four chapters focus on public law aspects, namely criminal law and data protection jurisdiction. The next five chapters are about private law disputes, including cross-border B2C e-commerce, online privacy and defamation disputes, and internet intellectual property disputes. The final chapter harnesses the insights from the different areas of law examined.

THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS AND INVESTMENT TREATY ARBITRATION: A LIMITED RELATIONSHIP

2015 ◽  
Vol 64 (4) ◽  
pp. 905-933
Author(s):  
Jarrod Hepburn
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
Investment Protection ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Investment Arbitration ◽  
General Principles Of Law ◽  
Domestic Law ◽  
Investment Treaty Arbitration

AbstractThe UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts have appeared in a small but steady trickle of investment treaty arbitrations over the last decade. This article considers the use of the Principles by investment tribunals on questions of both domestic law and international law. It suggests that reference to the Principles can play an important legitimating role on questions of domestic law, but that this should not replace reference to the applicable law. On questions of international law, reference to the Principles may be justified by resort to the general principles of law. However, the article contends that there is only a limited role for the UNIDROIT Principles where the primary and secondary rules of investment protection are already found in treaties and custom. In addition, while general principles have historically been drawn from domestic private law, there is increasing recognition that general principles of public law are more relevant to investment arbitration. Given this, arbitrators resolving questions of international law must be cautious in references to the UNIDROIT Principles, a quintessentially private law instrument.

scholarly journals CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING SYSTEMIC INTERACTION OF LAW WITH OTHER SOCIAL NORMATIVE SUBSYSTEMS

2014 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 27-31
Author(s):  
Claudiu Ramon D. Butculescu ◽  
Sorina Maria Florea
Keyword(s):  
Systems Theory ◽  
Public Law ◽  
General Systems Theory ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Normative Systems ◽  
General Systems

This article tackles the issue of systemic interaction between various normative systems. As such, it addresses and analyses the system of law from the perspective the general systems theory. More than that, the paper analyses the links and interactions between various normative systems, called sub-systems in the paper, and the division of law, namely public law and private law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document