14 June 2012
NOTICE: COMPARATIVE LAW ARTICLES (thanks to the Irish Society of Comparative Law)
Additional articles from SSRN have been noted by our friend in the Irish Society of Comparative Law:
· Giesen, Ivo, The Use and Influence of Comparative Law in ‘Wrongful Life’ Cases (May 10, 2012). Utrecht Law Review, Vol. 8, No. 2, p. 35-54, May 2012.
In analysing 'wrongful life' cases, comparative law is used extensively. This article examines these wrongful life cases, especially in light of the contradicting outcomes in different jurisdictions across the world, with the Dutch Kelly case and the South African decision in Stewart v Botha as its main examples. I will test the hypothesis that it is not so much the outcomes and (more importantly) the arguments found elsewhere through the comparative law method that are decisive in highly debated cases like those concerning wrongful life, but that instead it is something else that decides the issue, something I would define as the cultural background of, or the legal policies within a tort law system.
· Kuo, Ming-Sung, From Administrative Law to Administrative Legitimation? The Spatiality of Law and Transnational Administrative Law in Comparative Perspective (2012). International & Comparative Law Quarterly, Forthcoming ; Warwick School of Law Research Paper No. 2012/12.
Globalisation redefines the relationship between law and space, resulting in the emergence of transnational administrative law in a globalising legal space. I aim to shed light on transnational administrative law by examining how administrative law relates to the process of European integration. I argue that the idea of administrative legitimation is at the core of this relationship. In the European Union, transnational administration grounds its legitimacy on the fulfilment of administrative law requirements. However, given that in the European Union, administrative legitimation is rooted in Europe’s constitutional transformation, I caution against the projection of Europe’s experience onto global governance.
· Emmert, Frank, Stare Decisis - A Universally Misunderstood Idea? (May 7, 2012).
In this article, I argue against the overstatement of the binding effects of precedent in common law and against the understatement of the relevance of precedent in civil law. I try to show that judges and courts in both kind of systems have to acknowledge relevant precedents and then provide persuasive reasons for following or not following them. Blindly following precedent, just as blind application of statutes, is acceptable only in the 'empire of mechanical jurisprudence'. Ignoring precedent in the name of judicial independence, on the other hand, is acceptable only in the empire of arbitrary jurisprudence. Legal systems subscribing to the rule of law can neither be mechanical nor arbitrary. They have to care about legitimacy of the judicial process. They have to explain themselves and they have to do so persuasively.