赔偿要求框架

Keith N. Hylton
{"title":"赔偿要求框架","authors":"Keith N. Hylton","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.392080","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"These remarks, prepared for the Boston College Third World Law Journal Reparations Symposium, compare different reparations claims in terms of their goals and viability as tort suits. I contrast two approaches observed in the claims: a \"doing justice\" model, which involves seeking compensation in important cases of uncorrected or uncompensated injustice; and a \"social welfare\" model that seeks to change the distribution of wealth. Claims under the first category are far more consistent with tort doctrine and likely to meet their goals than the social welfare-based claims.","PeriodicalId":80722,"journal":{"name":"Boston College Third World law journal","volume":"24 1","pages":"31"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Framework for Reparations Claims\",\"authors\":\"Keith N. Hylton\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.392080\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"These remarks, prepared for the Boston College Third World Law Journal Reparations Symposium, compare different reparations claims in terms of their goals and viability as tort suits. I contrast two approaches observed in the claims: a \\\"doing justice\\\" model, which involves seeking compensation in important cases of uncorrected or uncompensated injustice; and a \\\"social welfare\\\" model that seeks to change the distribution of wealth. Claims under the first category are far more consistent with tort doctrine and likely to meet their goals than the social welfare-based claims.\",\"PeriodicalId\":80722,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Boston College Third World law journal\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"31\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2003-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Boston College Third World law journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.392080\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Boston College Third World law journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.392080","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

这些评论是为波士顿学院第三世界法律杂志赔偿研讨会准备的,从其作为侵权诉讼的目标和可行性方面比较了不同的赔偿要求。我对比了在索赔中观察到的两种方法:“做正义”模式,涉及在未纠正或未补偿的不公正的重要案件中寻求赔偿;还有一种“社会福利”模式,旨在改变财富分配。与基于社会福利的索赔相比,第一类索赔更符合侵权原则,更有可能实现其目标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Framework for Reparations Claims
These remarks, prepared for the Boston College Third World Law Journal Reparations Symposium, compare different reparations claims in terms of their goals and viability as tort suits. I contrast two approaches observed in the claims: a "doing justice" model, which involves seeking compensation in important cases of uncorrected or uncompensated injustice; and a "social welfare" model that seeks to change the distribution of wealth. Claims under the first category are far more consistent with tort doctrine and likely to meet their goals than the social welfare-based claims.
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