{"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":"6 1","pages":"153 - 166"},"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\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"153 - 166\"},\"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}
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.
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.