scholarly journals Odwołania do szkół filozoficzno-prawnych w uzasadnieniach orzeczeń polskich sądów

2020 ◽  
pp. 65-79
Author(s):  
Grzegorz Maroń
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Positivism ◽  
Legal Philosophy ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Legal Thought ◽  
Average Form ◽  
Hard Cases

The article presents the results of a quantitative and qualitative study of the Polish case law in terms of the presence of direct references to schools of legal thought in the written justifications of judgments. Although these types of references are very rare, their intensification can be observed in the last decade. In justifications of court decisions, references were made to just a few strands of jurisprudence. Most references relate to jusnaturalism and legal positivism. Courts characterize schools of legal thought in a simplified and exaggerated manner, and sometimes also incorrectly. The judicature usually disregards the authors’ versions of particular strands of jurisprudence, reaching for the claims derived from these strands in their ‘average’ form. The paper posits that legal philosophy is potentially useful for courts, especially in hard cases. It may help judges to perform the explanatory and persuasive functions of justifications of judgments. The condition for this is that references to the tenets of specific schools of legal thought should not be superficial, shallow or slogan-like. Otherwise, they play only an ornamental role, not an argumentative one.

Revisiting the risk of undesired appeal in investment treaty arbitration: is deference to the tribunal’s award still less likely in the ICSID context?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander J Marcopoulos
Keyword(s):  
Ad Hoc ◽  
De Novo ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Investment Treaty Arbitration ◽  
The Way

Abstract Although they are generally not subject to appeal the way court decisions typically are, investor-State arbitration awards can be reviewed—and potentially set aside—in a number of ways and on various bases. In this respect, investor-State arbitration under the auspices of ICSID is notable in that it provides a self-contained system for the review of arbitral awards by ICSID-appointed ad hoc committees. In the period 2000–2010, this feature of the ICSID system attracted criticism as ad hoc committees appeared to be overreaching in their review of arbitral awards, exercising less deference to the tribunal’s decisions than what would be expected given the narrow bases for setting aside an award under the ICSID Convention. This article revisits the issue 10 years later, exploring whether ICSID practice has evolved in these areas and whether there remains a greater risk of unexpected de novo review by ICSID ad hoc committees. Looking at recent ICSID annulment decisions as well as the case law of arbitration-friendly jurisdictions, the article concludes that although the ICSID ad hoc committees have recently shown more restraint, they continue to interfere more with the tribunal’s reasoning and decisions than many courts exercising the same function.

scholarly journals Asymmetric cross-citations in private law: An empirical study of 28 supreme courts in the EU

2021 ◽  
pp. 1023263X2110146
Author(s):  
Sabrina D’Andrea ◽  
Nikita Divissenko ◽  
Maria Fanou ◽  
Anna Krisztián ◽  
Jaka Kukavica ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Study ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Reciprocal Relationship ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Mixed Result ◽  
Supreme Courts ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Ease Of Access ◽  
The Eu

Recent years have seen a growing volume of research on citations between courts from different countries. This article fills a gap in the current literature by presenting and analysing cross-citations between the highest domestic courts responsible for matters of private law in the EU from 2000 to 2018. It addresses two main questions: first, to what extent do judges cite foreign case law in their decisions? Second, what may explain the varying levels of engagement of supreme courts with foreign case law? Our findings offer a mixed result as to the nature and frequency of such cross-citations. Overall, we identify 2984 cross-citations; yet, only in few instances do we find a reciprocal relationship between the supreme courts of two countries, while more generally an asymmetric picture emerges. The article also discusses whether problems with the ease of access to court decisions may partly be responsible for limitations in the use of cross-citations.

New Developments in Public Health Case Law

2003 ◽  
Vol 31 (S4) ◽  
pp. 86-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen Smith Thiel
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health Effects ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Great Frequency ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Health Law ◽  
Public Health Law ◽  
New Developments

In recent years, public health law has seen some important court decisions. Those are presented below.In Pelman v. McDonaldS Corporation, the court dismissed a complaint filed by three children who claimed that McDonald’s practices in making and selling its products were deceptive. This deception, the children alleged, caused them to consume McDonald’s products with great frequency and become obese, thereby injuring their health. The plaintiffs pled five causes of action against McDonald’s, alleging that McDonald’s: 1) failed to adequately disclose the ingredients and health effects of its products and described their food as nutritious without disclosing detrimental health effects; 2) engaged in marketing techniques geared toward inducing children to consume their products; 3) acted negligently in selling foods high in fat, cholesterol, salt, and sugar when studies show that foods containing these ingredients cause obesity and detrimental health effects; 4) failed to warn consumers of the quantity and qualities of levels of fat, cholesterol, salt, and sugar in its products or of the detrimental health effects of such foods; and 5) acted negligently in marketing foods that were physically and psychologically addictive.

scholarly journals Withdrawing Versus not Offering Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: Is There a Difference?

2015 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon JW Oczkowski ◽  
Bram Rochwerg ◽  
Corey Sawchuk
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Medical Team ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Substitute Decision Makers ◽  
The Individual

Conflict between substitute decision makers (SDMs) and health care providers in the intensive care unit is commonly related to goals of treatment at the end of life. Based on recent court decisions, even medical consensus that ongoing treatment is not clinically indicated cannot justify withdrawal of mechanical ventilation without consent from the SDM. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), similar to mechanical ventilation, is a life-sustaining therapy that can result in disagreement between SDMs and clinicians. In contrast to mechanical ventilation, in cases for which CPR is judged by the medical team to not be clinically indicated, there is no explicit or case law in Canada that dictates that withholding/not offering of CPR requires the consent of SDMs. In such cases, physicians can ethically and legally not offer CPR, even against SDM or patient wishes. To ensure that nonclinically indicated CPR is not inappropriately performed, hospitals should consider developing ‘scope of treatment’ forms that make it clear that even if CPR is desired, the individual components of resuscitation to be offered, if any, will be dictated by the medical team’s clinical assessment.

scholarly journals General Principles of EU Law: The Ghost in the Platonic Heaven in Need of Conceptual Clarification

2013 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Constanze Semmelmann
Keyword(s):  
Natural Law ◽  
General Principle ◽  
Legal Theory ◽  
Legal Positivism ◽  
Legal Philosophy ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Conceptual Clarification

General principles are en vogue in EU law – and in need of conceptual clarification. A closer look at several concepts of principle in legal philosophy and legal theory sheds light upon the concept of general principles in EU law. A distinction between an aprioristic model of principle and a model of principle informed by legal positivism may contribute to clarifying the genesis of a (general) principle in EU law, as well as its nature and functions. This paper demonstrates that an evolution has taken place from a reliance on seemingly natural law inspired reflections of general principles via the desperate search to ground general principles in various kinds of sources based on a more or less sound methodology  towards an increasing reliance on strictly positivistic approaches. Against this backdrop, general principles are likely to lose significance where there are other norms while retaining an important yet uncontrollable role where the traditional canon of sources is silent.

scholarly journals “Regardless of their sex” or “biological differences”. An analysis of the European Court of Human Rights’ case law on women in prison

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 1275-1311 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sofia Ciuffoletti
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Incarcerated Women ◽  
Soft Law ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Relevant Issue ◽  
European Court ◽  
Women In Prison ◽  
Biological Differences ◽  
Critical Aspects

Abstract In recent years, a growing attention for the specificities of female detention has spurred the adoption of a consolidated corpus of international soft-law tools, as well as reports on the conditions of incarcerated women. This momentum has not been paralleled by court decisions focusing on gender as a key issue in determining potential violations to prisoners’ rights, neither at a domestic nor at an international level. The paper will explore the gap between said legislation and policies and their implementation, particularly focusing on the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. The perspective adopted by this Court in interpreting the gender specificities of women in prison seems to be uncritically grounded in the vulnerability paradigm and the protection of motherhood. We will attempt to decode this normative ideology and to read it in context, and in comparison with the consolidated case law of the Court on the legal notion of vulnerability in prison, as well as with its case law on gender topics and the prohibition of discrimination. The analysis will highlight the most critical aspects of the traditional interpretation of gender equality in prison, as well the need to reconsider gender as a relevant issue in the protection of prisoners’ rights.

Company Directors: Duties, Liabilities, and Remedies

2017 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Cayman Islands ◽  
Market Abuse ◽  
Company Directors ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Law And Legislation ◽  
Court Of Appeal

This is a new edition of the established authority on the law relating to directors of companies incorporated under the UK Companies Acts. The new edition features all important developments in the law including the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 which improves transparency (including requiring directors to be natural persons unless exceptions apply), simplifies company filing requirements, clarifies the application of general duties to shadow directors, modernises directors’ disqualification and reforms insolvency law to facilitate proceedings where there has been wrongdoing. There has been a wealth of new case law relevant to directors’ duties before the English courts, all of which are analysed and explained, including the Supreme Court decisions in Prest v Petrodel Resources, Jetivia v Bilta (UK), FHR European Ventures v Cedar Capital Partners and Eclairs Group v JKX Oil & Gas, the Court of Appeal decisions in Smithton Ltd v Naggar and Newcastle International Airport v Eversheds as well as the important High Court decisions in Universal Project Management Services v Fort Gilkicker, Madoff Securities International v Raven and the wrongful trading case, Re Ralls Builders. Non-UK cases are also analysed including Weavering Macro Fixed Income Fund Ltd v Peterson in the Cayman Islands’ Court of Appeal and the 2016 decision of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Chen v Jason. In keeping with developments in case law and legislation the book now includes expanded coverage of multiple derivatives claims, directors’ exposure to third party claims and a new chapter on civil remedies for market abuse. The third edition is a complete reference work on the law relating to company directors and is the first port of call for all serious corporate lawyers and scholars on this subject.

Robust Normativity, Morality, and Legal Positivism

2019 ◽  
pp. 105-136 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Plunkett
Keyword(s):  
Legal Positivism ◽  
Legal Philosophy ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Dividing Line

This chapter discusses two different issues about the relationship between legal positivism and robust normativity (understood as the most authoritative kind of normativity to which we appeal). First, the chapter argues that, in many contexts when discussing “legal positivism” and “legal antipositivism”, the discussion should be shifted from whether legal facts are ultimately partly grounded in moral facts to whether they are ultimately partly grounded in robustly normative facts. Second, the chapter explores an important difference within the kinds of arguments that legal philosophers give for the (purported) truth of legal positivism. The difference concerns whether (purportedly) robustly normative facts are appealed to as premises in those arguments or not. (A closely connected issue is whether (purportedly) normative facts that bear one or more important connections to robustly normative facts are appealed to in premises to those arguments.) The chapter argues that thinking about this dividing line helps people better situate the positivist/antipositivist dispute, better understand the space of views in legal philosophy, better evaluate those views, and avoid having merely verbal disputes.

The Paradox of Equity

1996 ◽  
Vol 55 (3) ◽  
pp. 456-469 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Tasioulas
Keyword(s):  
Recent Article ◽  
Affirmative Answer ◽  
Legal Philosophy ◽  
Ronald Dworkin ◽  
Legal Thought ◽  
The Law

Martha Nussbaum's recent article “Equity and Mercy” eloquently advocates the continued relevance of a tradition of ethical and legal thought—the “equity tradition”—that has been neglected by legal philosophers in recent times. That neglect is partly due to the fact that contemporary legal philosophy (as in the debate between H.L.A. Hart and Ronald Dworkin) has concerned itself with the prior question of whether judges should or need to exercise discretion. The equity tradition presupposes an affirmative answer to that question where the rigorous application of a law yields a sufficiently grave injustice in the circumstances of a particular case or where such an injustice would arise because of a “gap” in the law. Yet it might have been thought prudent for those who assert the ineradicability and value of adjudicative discretion to have embraced and developed the idea of equity.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document