公法教学:内容、语境和连贯性

IF 0.7 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Graeme Orr
{"title":"公法教学:内容、语境和连贯性","authors":"Graeme Orr","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2581360","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Modern law owes its provenance and enforcement to one branch of government or another. But not all law is ‘public law’ simply because it emanates from public bodies, affects the public or serves public purposes. This paper begins by defining public law, compares its Australian, UK and US conceptions, and contrasts it with private law. It charts the conventional paradigm of public law as an umbrella sheltering constitutional and administrative law, built on the concept of government. This neat, if narrowing, idea of public law is reflected in the dominant themes in contemporary public law teaching and scholarship (such as accountability or representative democracy). Yet given the diversity of ideological and functional accounts of what government is ‘for’, public law lacks any unifying account. A descriptive definition based on the notion of government captures the core content of public law, but a normative smorgasbord lies at its heart. This creates challenges – both positive and negative – for teachers of public law. As a result, and alongside the decline in black letter teaching in favour of case-study approaches, thematic first level courses in ‘principles’ of Australian public law have flourished. To engage commencing students who are often civics-ignorant, the pedagogical response has been to draw on contemporary policy and politics to lend context to such courses in public law. However such a ‘magazine-y’ approach poses challenges for coherence.","PeriodicalId":43058,"journal":{"name":"Legal Education Review","volume":"25 1","pages":"299-315"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2015-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Teaching public law: Content, context and coherence\",\"authors\":\"Graeme Orr\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2581360\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Modern law owes its provenance and enforcement to one branch of government or another. But not all law is ‘public law’ simply because it emanates from public bodies, affects the public or serves public purposes. This paper begins by defining public law, compares its Australian, UK and US conceptions, and contrasts it with private law. It charts the conventional paradigm of public law as an umbrella sheltering constitutional and administrative law, built on the concept of government. This neat, if narrowing, idea of public law is reflected in the dominant themes in contemporary public law teaching and scholarship (such as accountability or representative democracy). Yet given the diversity of ideological and functional accounts of what government is ‘for’, public law lacks any unifying account. A descriptive definition based on the notion of government captures the core content of public law, but a normative smorgasbord lies at its heart. This creates challenges – both positive and negative – for teachers of public law. As a result, and alongside the decline in black letter teaching in favour of case-study approaches, thematic first level courses in ‘principles’ of Australian public law have flourished. To engage commencing students who are often civics-ignorant, the pedagogical response has been to draw on contemporary policy and politics to lend context to such courses in public law. However such a ‘magazine-y’ approach poses challenges for coherence.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43058,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Legal Education Review\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"299-315\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-02-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Legal Education Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2581360\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Legal Education Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2581360","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

现代法律的起源和执行要归功于政府的一个或另一个部门。但并非所有法律都是“公法”,仅仅因为它源于公共机构,影响公众或服务于公共目的。本文从公法的定义入手,比较了澳大利亚、英国和美国的公法概念,并将公法与私法进行了对比。它描绘了公法作为宪法和行政法的保护伞的传统范式,建立在政府的概念之上。这种简洁的公法观念反映在当代公法教学和学术(如问责制或代议制民主)的主导主题中。然而,考虑到意识形态和功能对政府“目的”的解释的多样性,公法缺乏任何统一的解释。基于政府概念的描述性定义抓住了公法的核心内容,但其核心是规范性的大杂烩。这给公法教师带来了积极和消极的挑战。因此,随着黑体字教学的减少,案例研究方法的兴起,澳大利亚公法“原则”的一级专题课程蓬勃发展。为了吸引那些通常对公民一无所知的新生,教学上的回应是利用当代政策和政治为公法课程提供背景。然而,这种“杂志式”的方法对连贯性提出了挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Teaching public law: Content, context and coherence
Modern law owes its provenance and enforcement to one branch of government or another. But not all law is ‘public law’ simply because it emanates from public bodies, affects the public or serves public purposes. This paper begins by defining public law, compares its Australian, UK and US conceptions, and contrasts it with private law. It charts the conventional paradigm of public law as an umbrella sheltering constitutional and administrative law, built on the concept of government. This neat, if narrowing, idea of public law is reflected in the dominant themes in contemporary public law teaching and scholarship (such as accountability or representative democracy). Yet given the diversity of ideological and functional accounts of what government is ‘for’, public law lacks any unifying account. A descriptive definition based on the notion of government captures the core content of public law, but a normative smorgasbord lies at its heart. This creates challenges – both positive and negative – for teachers of public law. As a result, and alongside the decline in black letter teaching in favour of case-study approaches, thematic first level courses in ‘principles’ of Australian public law have flourished. To engage commencing students who are often civics-ignorant, the pedagogical response has been to draw on contemporary policy and politics to lend context to such courses in public law. However such a ‘magazine-y’ approach poses challenges for coherence.
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
Legal Education Review
Legal Education Review EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
自引率
66.70%
发文量
7
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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