Das Verbot der Auslandsbestechung

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cornelia Spörl

Why do we criminalise foreign bribery? This question is of central importance for the legitimation and interpretation of relevant criminal offences in this respect. In this book, the author examines this issue from the perspectives of legal theory, legal history and comparative law, and provides a solution by virtue of a new form of structured legal reasoning. On this basis, the commonly discussed problems of section 335a of the German penal code, as well as sections 331–334 in connection with section 11, paragraph 1, number 2a of the German penal code can be resolved. In addition, the author suggests ways of clarifying the statute.

2004 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 56-72 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen J. Morse

How to respond justly to the dangers persistent violent offenders present is a vexing moral and legal issue. On the one hand, we wish to reduce predation; on the other, we want to treat predators fairly. The central theme of this paper is that it is difficult to achieve both goals without compromising one of them, and that both are being seriously undermined. I begin by explaining the legal theory, doctrine and practice governing dangerous offenders (DO) and demonstrate that the law leaves a gap in the ability to confine them. Next I explore the means by which the law has overtly or covertly sought to fill the gap. Many of these measures, especially the new form of civil commitment for sexual predators, dangerously conflate moral and medical categories. I conclude that pure preventive detention is more common than we usually assume, but that this practice violates fundamental assumptions concerning liberty under the American constitutional regime.


2021 ◽  
pp. 48
Author(s):  
Aleksei V. Stovba

This article is a response to the criticism of Prof. O.V. Martyshin in the journal “State and Law” (2020. No. 12). The author has defended the thesis that there is no doubt as to whether the application of new terminology and philosophical methods of legal reasoning borrowed from contemporary philosophical trends and propagated by the representatives of the non-classical Philosophy of Law has brought positive results in Philosophy of Law and General legal theory.


Author(s):  
Linda Tvrdíková

If we look at the literature about judicial decision-making and interpretation of law, we can find many texts which are dedicated to legal arguments, logic and legal reasoning – in those texts the rationality, analytical and logical thinking is glorified and an interpretation seems ‘just’ as a logical operation where judges subsume certain facts under general legal norm or norms, those norms are formulated linguistically, so it seems that the whole job of judges is to analyze texts. What we can see more rarely are discussions and texts exploring the role of intuitions, feelings and emotions and their role in judicial decision-making – at least in the Czech Republic. Those of our faculties are seen as the source of bias and distortion. Even if we look to the past, those themes are not so common among legal theorists and philosophers – especially in our tradition where we are still influenced by Hans Kelsen and František Weyr and their normative theory – but we can find exceptions and those are the American legal realists. In this paper, we will show that their observations and insights seem to be right. How can we know it? Because in last decades cognitive scientists have made big progress in the area of decision-making and it seems that we are not so rational as we thought us to be. They have explored that our thinking does not take place only through the deliberative system but, surprisingly, there is also another one system which influences our decisions. This system is automatic, fast, and intuitive – some call this system S1, Seymour Epstein an experiential system. This automatic system is more influential than our deliberative system because it is always heard – we can use Jonathan Haidt’s metaphor of an elephant and a rider. S1, the intuitive, experiential system, is an elephant and S2, the deliberative, analytical system is the rider – in legal theory, we have talked about the rider a lot but we do not explore the elephant sufficiently. This paper will try to uncover the nature of the elephant.


2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 249-254
Author(s):  
Shivprasad Swaminathan

This volume is an important contribution to a topic which has seen something of a resurgence lately and one from which both legal theorists and legal historians will greatly benefit. Some of the essays in this volume tackle questions on the ground floor, as it were, of interactions between legal theory and legal history. Others offer metatheoretical reflections on legal theory and legal history. Some combine the two. Given that the essays offer a rich variety of perspectives and do not unfold according to a master plan, it would be ill advised for a reviewer to impose an artificial order on them to be able to discuss the whole in one go. Instead, the discussion in this review will revolve primarily around some key themes revolving around the method and aims of legal theory.


2014 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 209-251 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aria Nakissa

In this article, I combine textual research with ethnographic data collected at al-Azhar and Dār al-ʿUlūm to investigate how the modernization of traditional religious learning has transformed the character of Islamic legal doctrine. I argue that changes in educational techniques have produced a shift in “episteme”. Whereas traditional religious learning was dominated by language-based conceptions of knowledge, modern reforms have reoriented education towards new conceptions modeled on the natural sciences. This transformation has fundamentally altered patterns of legal reasoning, particularly with respect to ijtihād and taqlīd. I use these observations to urge a rethinking of the perspectives on ijtihād and taqlīd that currently structure Western research on Islamic legal history. 



Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document