后伊利河世界的司法管辖权间权利执行

R. Schapiro
{"title":"后伊利河世界的司法管辖权间权利执行","authors":"R. Schapiro","doi":"10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195368321.003.0007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The United States may have emerged as the first modern federation, (1) but federalism has since been widely copied elsewhere. (2) Federalism is no longer a political structure that is unique to the United States. An aspect of federalism in the United States that remains distinctive, however, is the existence of a fully developed dual court system. A national judiciary composed of trial and appellate courts co-exists with state judiciaries, which also have trial and appellate benches. Judges in the national courts are chosen by national bodies in accordance with national rules, and judges in state courts are chosen in each state in accordance with the state's rules. The existence of such parallel judicial structures is unusual among federalist nations. Most federalist systems rely on a single set of lower courts, commonly identified with the subnational units, to apply both national and subnational law. (3) In view of the existence of parallel state and federal judicial tracks, the allocation of issues between state and federal courts becomes an important concern. The different structural features of state and federal courts in the United States magnifies the importance of the choice. Among other characteristics, the electoral accountability of most state, but not federal, judges may lead the state and federal courts to develop different perspectives on issues, particularly those relating to hotly contested matters of public policy. (4) The existence of a dual court system creates the possibility of allocating cases based on the law at issue. Federal questions could be sent to federal court and state questions to state court, though of course cases raising both kinds of issues would pose allocational difficulties. Instead, in the United States, the jurisdictions of the state and federal courts overlap extensively. Issues of state law commonly arise in and are adjudicated by federal courts; issues of federal law commonly arise in and are adjudicated by state courts. Such intersystemic adjudication, by which I mean the interpretation by a court operating within one political system of laws of another political system, is pervasive. This Article seeks to situate intersystemic adjudication within the larger framework of federalism in the United States. Federalism today is characterized by a sharing of state and federal power, rather than by a rigid division between state and federal authority. Dual federalism, the idea that the states and the national government each enjoy independent and largely autonomous spheres of authority, has given way to other visions of federalism that contemplate a greater sharing of power. (5) Elsewhere, I have developed the concept of \"polyphonic federalism\" to describe the appropriate understanding of federalism in the contemporary United States. (6) Polyphonic federalism understands the state and federal governments to be sources of power that are distinctive, but not mutually exclusive. State and federal governments serve as alternative mechanisms for accomplishing ends that legitimately lie within the prerogative of either system. Although conceptions of federalism have changed over time, the basic goals of federalism have remained stable. One of the key purposes of federalism is to offer enhanced protection for individual rights. (7) This Article contends that intersystemic adjudication provides a way for state and federal courts to work together to safeguard important liberties. Many scholars of federal jurisdiction treat intersystemic adjudication as a necessary evil. The verbal formulas vary somewhat, but these scholars express a preference for the courts of a particular legal system interpreting the law of that jurisdiction. (8) Contrary to that general critical backdrop, this Article offers a limited defense of intersystemic adjudication. Specifically, I make two primary arguments in support of intersystemic adjudication. First, I contend that intersystemic adjudication sometimes proves beneficial to the enforcement of rights. …","PeriodicalId":75324,"journal":{"name":"William and Mary law review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Interjurisdictional Enforcement of Rights in a Post-Erie World\",\"authors\":\"R. Schapiro\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195368321.003.0007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The United States may have emerged as the first modern federation, (1) but federalism has since been widely copied elsewhere. (2) Federalism is no longer a political structure that is unique to the United States. An aspect of federalism in the United States that remains distinctive, however, is the existence of a fully developed dual court system. A national judiciary composed of trial and appellate courts co-exists with state judiciaries, which also have trial and appellate benches. Judges in the national courts are chosen by national bodies in accordance with national rules, and judges in state courts are chosen in each state in accordance with the state's rules. The existence of such parallel judicial structures is unusual among federalist nations. Most federalist systems rely on a single set of lower courts, commonly identified with the subnational units, to apply both national and subnational law. (3) In view of the existence of parallel state and federal judicial tracks, the allocation of issues between state and federal courts becomes an important concern. The different structural features of state and federal courts in the United States magnifies the importance of the choice. Among other characteristics, the electoral accountability of most state, but not federal, judges may lead the state and federal courts to develop different perspectives on issues, particularly those relating to hotly contested matters of public policy. (4) The existence of a dual court system creates the possibility of allocating cases based on the law at issue. Federal questions could be sent to federal court and state questions to state court, though of course cases raising both kinds of issues would pose allocational difficulties. Instead, in the United States, the jurisdictions of the state and federal courts overlap extensively. Issues of state law commonly arise in and are adjudicated by federal courts; issues of federal law commonly arise in and are adjudicated by state courts. Such intersystemic adjudication, by which I mean the interpretation by a court operating within one political system of laws of another political system, is pervasive. This Article seeks to situate intersystemic adjudication within the larger framework of federalism in the United States. Federalism today is characterized by a sharing of state and federal power, rather than by a rigid division between state and federal authority. Dual federalism, the idea that the states and the national government each enjoy independent and largely autonomous spheres of authority, has given way to other visions of federalism that contemplate a greater sharing of power. (5) Elsewhere, I have developed the concept of \\\"polyphonic federalism\\\" to describe the appropriate understanding of federalism in the contemporary United States. (6) Polyphonic federalism understands the state and federal governments to be sources of power that are distinctive, but not mutually exclusive. State and federal governments serve as alternative mechanisms for accomplishing ends that legitimately lie within the prerogative of either system. Although conceptions of federalism have changed over time, the basic goals of federalism have remained stable. One of the key purposes of federalism is to offer enhanced protection for individual rights. (7) This Article contends that intersystemic adjudication provides a way for state and federal courts to work together to safeguard important liberties. Many scholars of federal jurisdiction treat intersystemic adjudication as a necessary evil. The verbal formulas vary somewhat, but these scholars express a preference for the courts of a particular legal system interpreting the law of that jurisdiction. (8) Contrary to that general critical backdrop, this Article offers a limited defense of intersystemic adjudication. Specifically, I make two primary arguments in support of intersystemic adjudication. First, I contend that intersystemic adjudication sometimes proves beneficial to the enforcement of rights. …\",\"PeriodicalId\":75324,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"William and Mary law review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2005-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"William and Mary law review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195368321.003.0007\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"William and Mary law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195368321.003.0007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

美国可能已经成为第一个现代联邦,但联邦制从那时起就被其他地方广泛效仿。联邦制不再是美国独有的政治结构。然而,美国联邦制仍然与众不同的一个方面是存在一个充分发展的双重法院系统。由审判和上诉法院组成的国家司法机构与州司法机构并存,州司法机构也有审判和上诉法院。国家法院的法官由国家机关按照国家规定选任,州法院的法官由各州按照国家规定选任。这种平行司法结构的存在在联邦制国家中是不寻常的。大多数联邦制依靠单一的下级法院,通常被认为是地方单位,来适用国家和地方法律。(3)鉴于存在平行的州和联邦司法轨道,州和联邦法院之间的问题分配成为一个重要的问题。美国州法院和联邦法院的不同结构特点放大了选择的重要性。除其他特点外,大多数州(而非联邦)法官的选举问责制可能会导致州法院和联邦法院在问题上形成不同的观点,特别是那些与激烈争论的公共政策问题有关的问题。(4)双重法院制度的存在创造了根据有关法律分配案件的可能性。联邦问题可以提交给联邦法院,州问题可以提交给州法院,当然,提出这两种问题的案件会造成分配困难。相反,在美国,州法院和联邦法院的管辖范围广泛重叠。州法问题通常出现在联邦法院并由联邦法院裁决;联邦法律问题通常出现在州法院,并由州法院裁决。这种跨系统裁决,我指的是在一个政治体系内运作的法院对另一个政治体系的法律的解释,是普遍存在的。本文试图将跨系统裁决置于美国联邦制的更大框架内。今天的联邦制的特点是州和联邦权力的共享,而不是州和联邦权力之间的严格划分。双重联邦制,即各州和国家政府各自享有独立的、在很大程度上自治的权力范围,已经让位于考虑更大程度上分享权力的联邦制的其他愿景。(5)在其他地方,我提出了“复调联邦制”的概念,以描述对当代美国联邦制的适当理解。(6)复调联邦制认为州政府和联邦政府是不同的权力来源,但不是相互排斥的。州政府和联邦政府作为替代机制来实现合法地属于任何一个系统的特权范围内的目标。虽然联邦制的概念随着时间的推移而改变,但联邦制的基本目标保持稳定。联邦制的主要目的之一是加强对个人权利的保护。(7)本文认为,跨系统裁决为州法院和联邦法院共同维护重要自由提供了一种途径。许多研究联邦司法的学者都把跨系统裁决视为一种必要之恶。口头公式略有不同,但这些学者表达了对解释该司法管辖区法律的特定法律制度的法院的偏好。(8)与这种普遍的批评背景相反,本文为系统间裁决提供了有限的辩护。具体来说,我提出了支持跨系统裁决的两个主要论点。首先,我认为跨系统裁决有时被证明有利于权利的执行。…
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Interjurisdictional Enforcement of Rights in a Post-Erie World
The United States may have emerged as the first modern federation, (1) but federalism has since been widely copied elsewhere. (2) Federalism is no longer a political structure that is unique to the United States. An aspect of federalism in the United States that remains distinctive, however, is the existence of a fully developed dual court system. A national judiciary composed of trial and appellate courts co-exists with state judiciaries, which also have trial and appellate benches. Judges in the national courts are chosen by national bodies in accordance with national rules, and judges in state courts are chosen in each state in accordance with the state's rules. The existence of such parallel judicial structures is unusual among federalist nations. Most federalist systems rely on a single set of lower courts, commonly identified with the subnational units, to apply both national and subnational law. (3) In view of the existence of parallel state and federal judicial tracks, the allocation of issues between state and federal courts becomes an important concern. The different structural features of state and federal courts in the United States magnifies the importance of the choice. Among other characteristics, the electoral accountability of most state, but not federal, judges may lead the state and federal courts to develop different perspectives on issues, particularly those relating to hotly contested matters of public policy. (4) The existence of a dual court system creates the possibility of allocating cases based on the law at issue. Federal questions could be sent to federal court and state questions to state court, though of course cases raising both kinds of issues would pose allocational difficulties. Instead, in the United States, the jurisdictions of the state and federal courts overlap extensively. Issues of state law commonly arise in and are adjudicated by federal courts; issues of federal law commonly arise in and are adjudicated by state courts. Such intersystemic adjudication, by which I mean the interpretation by a court operating within one political system of laws of another political system, is pervasive. This Article seeks to situate intersystemic adjudication within the larger framework of federalism in the United States. Federalism today is characterized by a sharing of state and federal power, rather than by a rigid division between state and federal authority. Dual federalism, the idea that the states and the national government each enjoy independent and largely autonomous spheres of authority, has given way to other visions of federalism that contemplate a greater sharing of power. (5) Elsewhere, I have developed the concept of "polyphonic federalism" to describe the appropriate understanding of federalism in the contemporary United States. (6) Polyphonic federalism understands the state and federal governments to be sources of power that are distinctive, but not mutually exclusive. State and federal governments serve as alternative mechanisms for accomplishing ends that legitimately lie within the prerogative of either system. Although conceptions of federalism have changed over time, the basic goals of federalism have remained stable. One of the key purposes of federalism is to offer enhanced protection for individual rights. (7) This Article contends that intersystemic adjudication provides a way for state and federal courts to work together to safeguard important liberties. Many scholars of federal jurisdiction treat intersystemic adjudication as a necessary evil. The verbal formulas vary somewhat, but these scholars express a preference for the courts of a particular legal system interpreting the law of that jurisdiction. (8) Contrary to that general critical backdrop, this Article offers a limited defense of intersystemic adjudication. Specifically, I make two primary arguments in support of intersystemic adjudication. First, I contend that intersystemic adjudication sometimes proves beneficial to the enforcement of rights. …
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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