{"title":"理论化不当得利法:现实主义(下)?","authors":"K. Barker","doi":"10.1093/ojls/gql021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This review article juxtaposes and critically analyses two very different theoretical understandings of Unjust Enrichment Law - one (Weinrib) based upon a formalist, corrective justice approach, the other (Dagan) an avowedly realist approach which is deeply sceptical of the field as a coherent category and which assigns to restitutionary rules functions which are pluralistic, public and distributive in orientation. From the clash of these two deeply contrasting visions, the author attempts to salvage some realistic truths about the structure and normative committments of unjust enrichment law.","PeriodicalId":344388,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Civil Procedure eJournal","volume":"125 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Theorising Unjust Enrichment Law: Being Realist(ic)?\",\"authors\":\"K. Barker\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ojls/gql021\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This review article juxtaposes and critically analyses two very different theoretical understandings of Unjust Enrichment Law - one (Weinrib) based upon a formalist, corrective justice approach, the other (Dagan) an avowedly realist approach which is deeply sceptical of the field as a coherent category and which assigns to restitutionary rules functions which are pluralistic, public and distributive in orientation. From the clash of these two deeply contrasting visions, the author attempts to salvage some realistic truths about the structure and normative committments of unjust enrichment law.\",\"PeriodicalId\":344388,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Law & Society: Civil Procedure eJournal\",\"volume\":\"125 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2006-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Law & Society: Civil Procedure eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gql021\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law & Society: Civil Procedure eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gql021","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Theorising Unjust Enrichment Law: Being Realist(ic)?
This review article juxtaposes and critically analyses two very different theoretical understandings of Unjust Enrichment Law - one (Weinrib) based upon a formalist, corrective justice approach, the other (Dagan) an avowedly realist approach which is deeply sceptical of the field as a coherent category and which assigns to restitutionary rules functions which are pluralistic, public and distributive in orientation. From the clash of these two deeply contrasting visions, the author attempts to salvage some realistic truths about the structure and normative committments of unjust enrichment law.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
