反对劳动法专家管辖权的案例:劳动关系普通法的哲学假设

Nick Wailes
{"title":"反对劳动法专家管辖权的案例:劳动关系普通法的哲学假设","authors":"Nick Wailes","doi":"10.26686/NZJIR.V19I1.3338","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The aim of this paper is to outline the philosophical assumptions that form the basis of the present call for the abolition of specialist jurisdiction for labour law in New Zealand The discussion here focuses on Epstein's (1983a) \"A common law for labour relations ...\" because it is the key statement of the case against a specialist jurisdiction, and the conclusions he advances have played an important role in the debate about labour law in New Zealand While academic literature has been largely critical of the call for the\nabolition of the Employment Court, there have been very few attempts to come to terms with the types of arguments used by the \"abolitionists\". It is argued that an adequate critique needs to be built on an understanding of the philosophical assumptions that are driving the current changes in labour relations legislation.","PeriodicalId":365392,"journal":{"name":"New Zealand journal of industrial relations","volume":"70 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Case Against Specialist Jurisdiction for Labour Law: The Philosophical Assumptions of a Common Law for Labour Relations\",\"authors\":\"Nick Wailes\",\"doi\":\"10.26686/NZJIR.V19I1.3338\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The aim of this paper is to outline the philosophical assumptions that form the basis of the present call for the abolition of specialist jurisdiction for labour law in New Zealand The discussion here focuses on Epstein's (1983a) \\\"A common law for labour relations ...\\\" because it is the key statement of the case against a specialist jurisdiction, and the conclusions he advances have played an important role in the debate about labour law in New Zealand While academic literature has been largely critical of the call for the\\nabolition of the Employment Court, there have been very few attempts to come to terms with the types of arguments used by the \\\"abolitionists\\\". It is argued that an adequate critique needs to be built on an understanding of the philosophical assumptions that are driving the current changes in labour relations legislation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":365392,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"New Zealand journal of industrial relations\",\"volume\":\"70 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"New Zealand journal of industrial relations\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.26686/NZJIR.V19I1.3338\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Zealand journal of industrial relations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26686/NZJIR.V19I1.3338","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文的目的是概述哲学假设,这些假设构成了目前呼吁废除新西兰劳动法专家管辖权的基础。这里的讨论重点是爱泼斯坦(1983a)。“劳动关系普通法……”,因为这是反对专家管辖权的案件的关键陈述,他提出的结论在新西兰劳动法的辩论中发挥了重要作用。虽然学术文献主要批评废除就业法院的呼吁,但很少有人试图与“废除主义者”使用的论点类型达成协议。有人认为,充分的批评需要建立在对推动当前劳资关系立法变化的哲学假设的理解之上。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Case Against Specialist Jurisdiction for Labour Law: The Philosophical Assumptions of a Common Law for Labour Relations
The aim of this paper is to outline the philosophical assumptions that form the basis of the present call for the abolition of specialist jurisdiction for labour law in New Zealand The discussion here focuses on Epstein's (1983a) "A common law for labour relations ..." because it is the key statement of the case against a specialist jurisdiction, and the conclusions he advances have played an important role in the debate about labour law in New Zealand While academic literature has been largely critical of the call for the abolition of the Employment Court, there have been very few attempts to come to terms with the types of arguments used by the "abolitionists". It is argued that an adequate critique needs to be built on an understanding of the philosophical assumptions that are driving the current changes in labour relations legislation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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