{"title":"市场交换:基于交换的法律经济理论","authors":"J. Oosterhuis","doi":"10.1080/2049677X.2020.1757259","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"immune to the inevitable atemporal contextualisation of the notions inherent to legal modernity. Nonetheless, the author is well aware of this, considering her stated hermeneutic choices (21–27). As a general matter, Ulrike Müßig’s book blazes an original trail along a fruitful path of contemporary legal historiography: the past is revisited in the light of the present day, paying particular attention to current legal mechanisms. Provided that it does not lose sight of that indispensable historical sensitivity and does not impose any forced readings on its sources, this type of enquiry certainly leads to interesting results, which will undoubtedly spark discussion and thus carry forward research. It is to be hoped that this book will open up an international debate into the methods and purposes of comparative historical legal research, as the author’s background as a constitutionalist enables her to illustrate classical issues from a fresh perspective. The study is certainly intriguing within a European context of history of justice in reinvigorating approaches and enriching debates, operating within a comparative dimension that seeks to tease out a common perspective, namely: specific European sensitivity for standards of protection vis-a-vis judicial independence. Being the fruit of a millennial evolution, the guarantees of a fair and rational trial, celebrated before an impartial and independent judge, must not be considered to be immune to attacks and misunderstandings. And this is the warning that transpires through the pages of this book: the guarantees of a ‘fair trial’ are symbolically provided to each citizen as a precious right to be defended, and constitute an indispensable transnational framework for interpreting current laws.","PeriodicalId":53815,"journal":{"name":"Comparative Legal History","volume":"8 1","pages":"57 - 63"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/2049677X.2020.1757259","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Marktaustausch: Grundlegung einer juristisch-ökonomischen Theorie des Austauschverkehrs\",\"authors\":\"J. Oosterhuis\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/2049677X.2020.1757259\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"immune to the inevitable atemporal contextualisation of the notions inherent to legal modernity. Nonetheless, the author is well aware of this, considering her stated hermeneutic choices (21–27). As a general matter, Ulrike Müßig’s book blazes an original trail along a fruitful path of contemporary legal historiography: the past is revisited in the light of the present day, paying particular attention to current legal mechanisms. Provided that it does not lose sight of that indispensable historical sensitivity and does not impose any forced readings on its sources, this type of enquiry certainly leads to interesting results, which will undoubtedly spark discussion and thus carry forward research. It is to be hoped that this book will open up an international debate into the methods and purposes of comparative historical legal research, as the author’s background as a constitutionalist enables her to illustrate classical issues from a fresh perspective. The study is certainly intriguing within a European context of history of justice in reinvigorating approaches and enriching debates, operating within a comparative dimension that seeks to tease out a common perspective, namely: specific European sensitivity for standards of protection vis-a-vis judicial independence. Being the fruit of a millennial evolution, the guarantees of a fair and rational trial, celebrated before an impartial and independent judge, must not be considered to be immune to attacks and misunderstandings. And this is the warning that transpires through the pages of this book: the guarantees of a ‘fair trial’ are symbolically provided to each citizen as a precious right to be defended, and constitute an indispensable transnational framework for interpreting current laws.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53815,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Comparative Legal History\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"57 - 63\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/2049677X.2020.1757259\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Comparative Legal History\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/2049677X.2020.1757259\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Comparative Legal History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2049677X.2020.1757259","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
Marktaustausch: Grundlegung einer juristisch-ökonomischen Theorie des Austauschverkehrs
immune to the inevitable atemporal contextualisation of the notions inherent to legal modernity. Nonetheless, the author is well aware of this, considering her stated hermeneutic choices (21–27). As a general matter, Ulrike Müßig’s book blazes an original trail along a fruitful path of contemporary legal historiography: the past is revisited in the light of the present day, paying particular attention to current legal mechanisms. Provided that it does not lose sight of that indispensable historical sensitivity and does not impose any forced readings on its sources, this type of enquiry certainly leads to interesting results, which will undoubtedly spark discussion and thus carry forward research. It is to be hoped that this book will open up an international debate into the methods and purposes of comparative historical legal research, as the author’s background as a constitutionalist enables her to illustrate classical issues from a fresh perspective. The study is certainly intriguing within a European context of history of justice in reinvigorating approaches and enriching debates, operating within a comparative dimension that seeks to tease out a common perspective, namely: specific European sensitivity for standards of protection vis-a-vis judicial independence. Being the fruit of a millennial evolution, the guarantees of a fair and rational trial, celebrated before an impartial and independent judge, must not be considered to be immune to attacks and misunderstandings. And this is the warning that transpires through the pages of this book: the guarantees of a ‘fair trial’ are symbolically provided to each citizen as a precious right to be defended, and constitute an indispensable transnational framework for interpreting current laws.
期刊介绍:
Comparative Legal History is an international and comparative review of law and history. Articles will explore both ''internal'' legal history (doctrinal and disciplinary developments in the law) and ''external'' legal history (legal ideas and institutions in wider contexts). Rooted in the complexity of the various Western legal traditions worldwide, the journal will also investigate other laws and customs from around the globe. Comparisons may be either temporal or geographical and both legal and other law-like normative traditions will be considered. Scholarship on comparative and trans-national historiography, including trans-disciplinary approaches, is particularly welcome.