超越英国模式。新西兰、澳大利亚、加拿大、南非和以色列的法律改革

IF 1.5 Q1 LAW
E. Albanesi
{"title":"超越英国模式。新西兰、澳大利亚、加拿大、南非和以色列的法律改革","authors":"E. Albanesi","doi":"10.1080/20508840.2018.1475054","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The aim of this article is to set the scene for the following special issue, which contains five papers relating to research on law reform in common law and mixed jurisdictions and which forms part of a wider research project (Law Reform Project) carried out within the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies (IALS), University of London. The first hypothesis of this research was that due to the contrasting way in which the traditions of the British common law have developed within the two mixed jurisdictions examined in this volume (namely South Africa and Israel) and their different connections with the Commonwealth, the concepts of law reform there do differ from one another. The second hypothesis of this research was that, within a homogeneous area (i.e. common law or mixed jurisdictions which all have strong historical and cultural connections with the U.K. in common and which are all members of the Commonwealth), the model of law reform, although rather homogenous, is differently shaped in each of these jurisdictions and goes beyond the British model. The case studies analysed here are New Zealand, Australia, Canada and South Africa. The articles published here seem to support some provisional conclusions on the adoption of law reform processes.","PeriodicalId":42455,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Practice of Legislation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2018-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/20508840.2018.1475054","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Beyond the British model. Law reform in New Zealand, Australia, Canada, South Africa and Israel\",\"authors\":\"E. Albanesi\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/20508840.2018.1475054\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT The aim of this article is to set the scene for the following special issue, which contains five papers relating to research on law reform in common law and mixed jurisdictions and which forms part of a wider research project (Law Reform Project) carried out within the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies (IALS), University of London. The first hypothesis of this research was that due to the contrasting way in which the traditions of the British common law have developed within the two mixed jurisdictions examined in this volume (namely South Africa and Israel) and their different connections with the Commonwealth, the concepts of law reform there do differ from one another. The second hypothesis of this research was that, within a homogeneous area (i.e. common law or mixed jurisdictions which all have strong historical and cultural connections with the U.K. in common and which are all members of the Commonwealth), the model of law reform, although rather homogenous, is differently shaped in each of these jurisdictions and goes beyond the British model. The case studies analysed here are New Zealand, Australia, Canada and South Africa. The articles published here seem to support some provisional conclusions on the adoption of law reform processes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42455,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Theory and Practice of Legislation\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-05-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/20508840.2018.1475054\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Theory and Practice of Legislation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/20508840.2018.1475054\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theory and Practice of Legislation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20508840.2018.1475054","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文的目的是为以下特刊做准备,其中包含五篇关于普通法和混合司法管辖区法律改革研究的论文,这是伦敦大学高级法律研究所(als)开展的一个更广泛的研究项目(法律改革项目)的一部分。本研究的第一个假设是,由于英国普通法传统在本卷所考察的两个混合司法管辖区(即南非和以色列)中发展的不同方式以及它们与英联邦的不同联系,那里的法律改革概念确实彼此不同。本研究的第二个假设是,在一个同质区域内(即普通法或混合司法管辖区,它们都与英国有着强烈的历史和文化联系,并且都是英联邦的成员),法律改革的模式虽然相当同质,但在每个司法管辖区都是不同的,并且超越了英国模式。本文分析的案例包括新西兰、澳大利亚、加拿大和南非。这里发表的文章似乎支持关于采用法律改革进程的一些临时结论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Beyond the British model. Law reform in New Zealand, Australia, Canada, South Africa and Israel
ABSTRACT The aim of this article is to set the scene for the following special issue, which contains five papers relating to research on law reform in common law and mixed jurisdictions and which forms part of a wider research project (Law Reform Project) carried out within the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies (IALS), University of London. The first hypothesis of this research was that due to the contrasting way in which the traditions of the British common law have developed within the two mixed jurisdictions examined in this volume (namely South Africa and Israel) and their different connections with the Commonwealth, the concepts of law reform there do differ from one another. The second hypothesis of this research was that, within a homogeneous area (i.e. common law or mixed jurisdictions which all have strong historical and cultural connections with the U.K. in common and which are all members of the Commonwealth), the model of law reform, although rather homogenous, is differently shaped in each of these jurisdictions and goes beyond the British model. The case studies analysed here are New Zealand, Australia, Canada and South Africa. The articles published here seem to support some provisional conclusions on the adoption of law reform processes.
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
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
10.00%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: The Theory and Practice of Legislation aims to offer an international and interdisciplinary forum for the examination of legislation. The focus of the journal, which succeeds the former title Legisprudence, remains with legislation in its broadest sense. Legislation is seen as both process and product, reflection of theoretical assumptions and a skill. The journal addresses formal legislation, and its alternatives (such as covenants, regulation by non-state actors etc.). The editors welcome articles on systematic (as opposed to historical) issues, including drafting techniques, the introduction of open standards, evidence-based drafting, pre- and post-legislative scrutiny for effectiveness and efficiency, the utility and necessity of codification, IT in legislation, the legitimacy of legislation in view of fundamental principles and rights, law and language, and the link between legislator and judge. Comparative and interdisciplinary approaches are encouraged. But dogmatic descriptions of positive law are outside the scope of the journal. The journal offers a combination of themed issues and general issues. All articles are submitted to double blind review.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信