Harvard Law Review最新文献_第7页

Due process--right to medical access--Supreme Court of Canada holds that ban on private health insurance violates Quebec charter of human rights and freedoms--Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General), 2005 S.C.C. 35, 29272, [2005] S.C.J. No. 33 QUICKLAW (June 9, 2005). 正当程序————获得医疗服务的权利————加拿大最高法院认为，禁止私人医疗保险违反了魁北克人权和自由宪章————Chaoulli诉魁北克(总检察长)，2005年S.C.C. 35, 29272， [2005] S.C.J.第33号QUICKLAW(2005年6月9日)。

IF 3.4 2区社会学

Harvard Law Review Pub Date : 2005-12-01

引用次数: 0

The Political Constitution of Criminal Justice 刑事司法的政治构成

IF 3.4 2区社会学

Harvard Law Review Pub Date : 2005-12-01 DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.783565

William J. Stuntz

引用次数: 57

Constitutional law--abortion rights--fourth circuit declares Virginia partial birth infanticide statute unconstitutional per se.--Richmond Medical Center for Women v. Hicks, 409 F.3d 619 (4th Cir.), reh'g and reh'g en banc denied, 422 F.3d 160 (4th Cir. 2005). 宪法法律——堕胎权——第四巡回法院宣布弗吉尼亚州部分杀婴法案本身违宪。——里士满妇女医疗中心诉Hicks案，409 F.3d . 619(第4卷)，reh'g和reh'g银行被驳回，422 F.3d . 160(2005年第4卷)。

IF 3.4 2区社会学

Harvard Law Review Pub Date : 2005-12-01

引用次数: 0

Foreign Law and the Modern Ius Gentium 外国法与现代民法

IF 3.4 2区社会学

Harvard Law Review Pub Date : 2005-11-01 DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198735335.003.0028

Jeremy Waldron

{"title":"Foreign Law and the Modern Ius Gentium","authors":"Jeremy Waldron","doi":"10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198735335.003.0028","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198735335.003.0028","url":null,"abstract":"I. INTRODUCTION Is it ever appropriate for American courts to cite or defer to foreign law? The question arose last Term in a bitter dispute among the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court in Roper v. Simmons, (1) the juvenile death penalty case. (2) One of the frustrating things about Roper, however, is that no one on the Court bothered to articulate a general theory of the citation and authority of foreign law. (3) Writing for the Court, Justice Kennedy said that it was \"proper\" to take foreign law into account and that referring to the laws of other countries could be \"instructive\" for the Court's interpretation of the Eighth Amendment. (4) But he did not explain the jurisprudence behind this view. (5) Nor did the Roper dissenters articulate a theory of citation to foreign law that they could squarely refute; they simply denounced the practice. The theory that is called for is not necessarily a complete jurisprudence. But it has to be complicated enough to answer a host of questions raised by the practice: about the authority accorded foreign law (persuasive versus conclusive), about the areas in which foreign law should and should not be cited (private law, for example, compared to constitutional law), and about which foreign legal systems should be cited (only democracies, for example, or tyrannies as well). The theory has to be broad enough to explain the use of foreign law in all appropriate cases: too many scholars call for a theory that will explain the citation of foreign law only in constitutional cases. (6) The theory has to be persuasive enough to dispel the serious misgivings that many Americans have about this practice: why should American courts cite anything other than American law? Above all, it has to be a theory of law. The argument cannot just be that good diplomacy requires us to ingratiate ourselves with the Europeans. (7) It must explain why American courts are legally permitted (or obliged) to cite to non-American sources and how that practice connects with the status of courts as legal institutions. An example may help get at the sort of theory I have in mind. When courts cite their own precedents, they do so on the basis of the theory of stare decisis, which provides a platform on which judges can articulate and defend their deference to precedent. It explains why deference is appropriate even for cases in which justice or policy seems to require a different result. It explains why precedent is more important in some cases than in others. And it explains its relation to various sources of law (the difference between stare decisis in common law and in constitutional interpretation, for instance). No doubt the details of stare decisis are controversial. (8) But even if one disagrees with a judge's conception, it is surely better that he should articulate such a theory than that he simply give the impression that he thinks deferring to precedent is a good idea. We should require nothing less for the citation of foreign law. I","PeriodicalId":48320,"journal":{"name":"Harvard Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2005-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"60646000","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 110

Regulating preimplantation genetic diagnosis: the pathologization problem. 调控着床前遗传学诊断:病理化问题。

IF 3.4 2区社会学

Harvard Law Review Pub Date : 2005-06-01

引用次数: 0

Assessing the viability of a substantive due process right to in vitro fertilization. 评估体外受精的实质性正当程序权利的可行性。

IF 3.4 2区社会学

Harvard Law Review Pub Date : 2005-06-01

引用次数: 0

Last resorts and fundamental rights: the substantive due process implications of prohibitions on medical marijuana. 最后的手段和基本权利:禁止医用大麻的实质性正当程序影响。

IF 3.4 2区社会学

Harvard Law Review Pub Date : 2005-04-01