“Felix Cohen Was the Blackstone of Federal Indian Law:” Taking the Comparison Seriously

IF 0.2 Q4 LAW
Adrien Habermacher
{"title":"“Felix Cohen Was the Blackstone of Federal Indian Law:” Taking the Comparison Seriously","authors":"Adrien Habermacher","doi":"10.2478/bjals-2019-0014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper explores the many facets of Rennard Strickland’s comparison between Sir William Blackstone, author of the 1765–69 Commentaries on the Laws of England, and Felix Cohen, architect of the 1942 Handbook of Federal Indian Law. It consists of a side by side analysis of both authors’ master works, political and educational projects, as well as general contribution to jurisprudence. It reveals that despite the stark differences between Blackstone’s work on the English common law from his professorship at Oxford in the late eighteenth century, and Cohen’s endeavors on the US federal law concerning Native Americans as a civil servant at the turn of the 1940s, there are remarkable similarities in the enterprises of legal scholarship the two jurists took on, the larger political projects they promoted, and their role in the development of legal thought. The idea that “Felix Cohen was the Blackstone of Federal Indian Law” has stylistic appeal and could have been little more than a gracious way to celebrate Cohen. An in-depth comparative examination of legal history and jurisprudence however corroborates and amplifies the soundness of the comparison.","PeriodicalId":40555,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of American Legal Studies","volume":"255 4","pages":"371 - 398"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of American Legal Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/bjals-2019-0014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract This paper explores the many facets of Rennard Strickland’s comparison between Sir William Blackstone, author of the 1765–69 Commentaries on the Laws of England, and Felix Cohen, architect of the 1942 Handbook of Federal Indian Law. It consists of a side by side analysis of both authors’ master works, political and educational projects, as well as general contribution to jurisprudence. It reveals that despite the stark differences between Blackstone’s work on the English common law from his professorship at Oxford in the late eighteenth century, and Cohen’s endeavors on the US federal law concerning Native Americans as a civil servant at the turn of the 1940s, there are remarkable similarities in the enterprises of legal scholarship the two jurists took on, the larger political projects they promoted, and their role in the development of legal thought. The idea that “Felix Cohen was the Blackstone of Federal Indian Law” has stylistic appeal and could have been little more than a gracious way to celebrate Cohen. An in-depth comparative examination of legal history and jurisprudence however corroborates and amplifies the soundness of the comparison.
“费利克斯·科恩是联邦印第安人法律的黑石:”认真对待比较
摘要:本文探讨了雷纳德·斯特里克兰对1765-69年《英国法律评论》的作者威廉·布莱克斯通爵士和1942年《联邦印度法手册》的作者菲利克斯·科恩进行比较的多个方面。它包括对两位作者的主要作品、政治和教育项目以及对法学的一般贡献的并排分析。它揭示出,尽管布莱克斯通在18世纪晚期担任牛津大学教授期间对英国普通法的研究与科恩在20世纪40年代初作为公务员对美国联邦法的研究存在着明显的差异,但这两位法学家所从事的法律学术事业、他们所推动的更大的政治项目以及他们在法律思想发展中的作用都有显著的相似之处。“费利克斯·科恩(Felix Cohen)是联邦印第安人法的黑石”这种说法具有风格上的吸引力,本可以是一种赞美科恩的优雅方式。然而,对法律史和法理学的深入比较研究证实并放大了这种比较的合理性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
6
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊介绍: The British Journal of American Legal Studies is a scholarly journal which publishes articles of interest to the Anglo-American legal community. Submissions are invited from academics and practitioners on both sides of the Atlantic on all aspects of constitutional law having relevance to the United States, including human rights, legal and political theory, socio-legal studies and legal history. International, comparative and interdisciplinary perspectives are particularly welcome. All submissions will be peer-refereed through anonymous referee processes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信