确定法律通则的两步法

IF 1.6 2区社会学 Q1 LAW

International & Comparative Law Quarterly Pub Date : 2022-09-19 DOI:10.1017/S0020589322000288

Mariana Clara de Andrade

{"title":"确定法律通则的两步法","authors":"Mariana Clara de Andrade","doi":"10.1017/S0020589322000288","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The two-step methodology for the identification of general principles of law deriving from domestic legal systems, consisting of a comparative analysis followed by a transposability test, seems accepted as the undisputed methodology in the current work of the International Law Commission on the topic. This article examines whether this two-step approach finds reflection in the practice of and before the PCIJ/ICJ and in international legal scholarship. The analysis finds that judicial practice does not entirely follow these two steps, but the method is widely upheld in doctrinal writing. The article argues that the decision to codify this two-step methodology can be viewed as progressive development by the Commission, and may signify the crystallization of this method of identification of general principles of law.","PeriodicalId":47350,"journal":{"name":"International & Comparative Law Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"THE TWO-STEP METHODOLOGY FOR THE IDENTIFICATION OF GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW\",\"authors\":\"Mariana Clara de Andrade\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S0020589322000288\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The two-step methodology for the identification of general principles of law deriving from domestic legal systems, consisting of a comparative analysis followed by a transposability test, seems accepted as the undisputed methodology in the current work of the International Law Commission on the topic. This article examines whether this two-step approach finds reflection in the practice of and before the PCIJ/ICJ and in international legal scholarship. The analysis finds that judicial practice does not entirely follow these two steps, but the method is widely upheld in doctrinal writing. The article argues that the decision to codify this two-step methodology can be viewed as progressive development by the Commission, and may signify the crystallization of this method of identification of general principles of law.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47350,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International & Comparative Law Quarterly\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International & Comparative Law Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589322000288\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International & Comparative Law Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589322000288","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

确定源自国内法律制度的一般法律原则的两步方法，包括比较分析和可转位性检验，似乎是国际法委员会目前关于这一专题的工作中公认的无可争议的方法。本文考察了这种两步走的方法是否在PCIJ/ICJ的实践和之前的实践以及国际法律学术中得到了反映。分析发现，司法实践并不完全遵循这两个步骤，但这一方法在理论写作中得到了广泛的支持。该条认为，委员会决定编纂这两步方法可视为一种渐进式的发展，可能意味着这种确定一般法律原则的方法的结晶。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

THE TWO-STEP METHODOLOGY FOR THE IDENTIFICATION OF GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW

Abstract The two-step methodology for the identification of general principles of law deriving from domestic legal systems, consisting of a comparative analysis followed by a transposability test, seems accepted as the undisputed methodology in the current work of the International Law Commission on the topic. This article examines whether this two-step approach finds reflection in the practice of and before the PCIJ/ICJ and in international legal scholarship. The analysis finds that judicial practice does not entirely follow these two steps, but the method is widely upheld in doctrinal writing. The article argues that the decision to codify this two-step methodology can be viewed as progressive development by the Commission, and may signify the crystallization of this method of identification of general principles of law.

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

International & Comparative Law Quarterly LAW-

CiteScore

3.20

自引率

10.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： The International & Comparative Law Quarterly (ICLQ) publishes papers on public and private international law, comparative law, human rights and European law, and is one of the world''s leading journals covering all these areas. Since it was founded in 1952 the ICLQ has built a reputation for publishing innovative and original articles within the various fields, and also spanning them, exploring the connections between the subject areas. It offers both academics and practitioners wide topical coverage, without compromising rigorous editorial standards. The ICLQ attracts scholarship of the highest standard from around the world, which contributes to the maintenance of its truly international frame of reference. The ''Shorter Articles and Notes'' section enables the discussion of contemporary legal issues and ''Book Reviews'' highlight the most important new publications in these various fields. The ICLQ is the journal of the British Institute of International and Comparative Law, and is published by Cambridge University Press.