Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Pages: e1 - e14 Abstract: This is the Eighteenth Annual Bibliography of Private International Law compiled by the undersigned as a service to fellow teachers and students of this subject. It includes 124 books and 291 journal articles that appeared in print in 2023.11 PubDate: Fri, 20 Sep 2024 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/ajcl/avae023 Issue No:Vol. 72, No. 2 (2024)
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Pages: 247 - 291 Abstract: Introduction ...........................................................................................248I. Choice of Law...................................................................................249 A. Torts .........................................................................................249 1. Personal Injury and Wrongful Death ...............................249 2. Insurance Bad Faith .........................................................250 3. Public Policy.................................................250 4. Transfer Cases.................................................251 B. Contracts.................................................252 C. Other Subjects.................................................254 1. Marriage and Divorce.................................................254 2. Substance and Procedure.................................................255 3. Statutes of Limitations.................................................256 D.Extraterritorial Application of State Statutes.................................................257II.Party Autonomy .................................................258 A. Choice-of-Law Clauses.................................................258 1. Interpretation.................................................258 2. Enforceability.................................................259 a. Section .................................................259 b. State Statutes.................................................261 B.Forum Selection Clauses.................................................263 1. Choice of Law.................................................263 2. Interpretation.................................................263 3. Enforceability.................................................264III.Federal Law.................................................266 A. Extraterritorial Application of Federal Law.................................................266 B. International Human Rights.................................................269 C. Anti-Terrorism Act.................................................270 D. Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.................................................272IV.Adjudicative Jurisdiction.................................................273 A. Personal Jurisdiction.................................................273 1. Consent.................................................273 2. Specific Jurisdiction.................................................277 a. Purposefulness.................................................277 i. Purposeful Availment vs. Purposeful Direction.................................................277 ii. Online Activity.................................................279 iii. Statutory Claims.................................................281... PubDate: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/ajcl/avae022 Issue No:Vol. 72, No. 2 (2024)
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Pages: 292 - 323 Abstract: AbstractWhenever discussions arise about the generality or specificity of law and legal provisions, they occur on at least two different levels. On the external level, there is an expectation that law should be general insofar as similar cases and factual situations are concerned, and specific with regards to different and exceptional cases. This is often invoked as a requirement for what constitutes good law or proper governance. On the internal level, generality refers to the expectation that law must offer coherent rules, principles, or standards of action in some form. General and specific language (al-ʿām wal-khāṣṣ) in Islamic legal theory (uṣūl al-fiqh) enjoyed a noteworthy degree of attention in modern scholarship. This attention largely centers on those concepts’ external potential for driving reform in specific areas of law. This Article, by contrast, focuses on the generality–specificity binary as a tool for ensuring the law’s internal cohesiveness, including its claims to legitimacy and its enforceability. To this end, the Article offers an overview of the examination of general and specific expressions in the thought of two influential twelfth-century C.E. (sixth-centuryA.H.)jurist-theologians of different juristic and theological affiliation: the Shāfiʿī-Ashʿarī Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī (d. 1111C.E./505 A.H.) and the Central Asian Ḥanafī-Māturīdī ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn al-Samarqandī (d. 1145C.E./539A.H.). The Article then goes on to argue that ensuring a coherent relation between intent, language, and norms was a central guiding purpose of these studies. We can see this with particular clarity in the fact that, despite reaching comparable practical positions concerning how norms ought to follow from general language, each jurist attained his conclusion through a different path, reflecting different understandings of the relation of norms to divine intent. PubDate: Fri, 26 Jul 2024 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/ajcl/avae024 Issue No:Vol. 72, No. 2 (2024)
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Pages: 324 - 379 Abstract: AbstractThis Article concerns the legislative regulation of administrative procedure in Europe. Two main themes are discussed. The first is the spread of administrative procedure legislation. The vast majority of the member states of the European Union, though not all, have adopted some type of code of administrative procedure. Arguably, this constitutes a significant change in the pattern of modern administrative law. The second theme concerns commonality and diversity in European laws. Both common and distinctive features are considered from a twofold point of view: functional and structural. Functionally, attention is devoted to the rationales for such a legislative instrument, including procedural fairness and administrative efficiency. The structural features of administrative procedure acts (APAs) include, first, their size and scope and the nature of their provisions; second, their legal status, in particular whether some of them can be regarded as “super-statutes”; third, their provisions concerning the rights and duties of the individual. Interestingly, despite numerous differences between national APAs, deriving from both context and policy choices, there are certain basic requirements, such as the right to be heard and the duty to give reasons, which seem to prevail everywhere. The Article suggests that such common features depend on a mix of factors, including functional needs, prestige, and the influence of supranational legal orders. PubDate: Thu, 08 Aug 2024 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/ajcl/avae016 Issue No:Vol. 72, No. 2 (2024)
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Pages: 380 - 427 Abstract: AbstractHow do judges engage with foreign case law' While prior research has identified some instances of courts willing to cite foreign judgments, details about the mode of engagement and the motivation of such cross-citations have often been left unexplored. This Article fills these gaps. It presents the results of the coding of a sample of 456 judgments with cross-citations between the private law supreme courts of twenty-eight European countries. Twenty-five variables were coded for each citation: for example, the length of the discussion of foreign case law, whether the court was interested in the result or the reasoning of foreign judgments, and whether the citations occurred within the context of EU law, international law and/or specific areas of the law. This Article presents and contextualizes (i.e., “decodes”) this quantitative information. Amongst others, we find that courts from common law countries more often cite older foreign case law and provide a greater depth of engagement with it than courts from civil law countries, that many of the courts are mainly interested in the result and not the reasoning of foreign judgments, that most cross-citations are driven by reasons of comparative law (and not, for example, EU law or international law), and that cross-citations due to EU law are particularly prevalent in IP law and conflict of laws. More generally, we observe a form of bifurcation of citations across many of the topics analyzed, suggesting a divide, not between common and civil law countries, but between courts from smaller and larger jurisdictions (e.g., with smaller jurisdictions using citations in more traditional areas of law, citing mainly one other court, citing older cases, and more often being interested in the reasoning of foreign judgments). PubDate: Sat, 28 Sep 2024 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/ajcl/avae021 Issue No:Vol. 72, No. 2 (2024)
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Pages: 428 - 473 Abstract: AbstractBefore their encounters with Western powers in the nineteenth century, Chinese and Japanese societies were deeply embedded in traditional family systems that formed the backbone of their social structures. However, with the onset of legal modernization, these nations adopted nearly diametrically opposed strategies for reforming their customary family laws. Primarily, Japanese legal reformers under the Meiji regime bolstered the family’s authority and emphasized its political role. In stark contrast, the Chinese legal reformers during the late Qing and Republican periods curtailed family authority and diminished its significance. While the modernization of family laws in Japan and China has been the subject of scholarly research, the differences between the two countries and the reasons behind their distinct approaches have not been adequately explored. This Article seeks to fill this gap.Through a comparative analysis of the legislative histories of both countries, this Article argues that their divergent paths stemmed from differences in the historical functions of family systems and the modern political contexts encountered by legal reformers during the period of legal modernization. In Japan, the family system was historically politically connected with the state, and the Meiji regime solidified its control over this system through modern codification efforts. Consequently, Meiji political elites saw the integration of the populace into the new absolutist imperial regime as advantageous, leveraging the political loyalty of families to achieve this. In contrast, the Chinese family system had become politically disconnected from the state by the late imperial era. In the aftermath of the Republican Revolution, the Guomindang regime navigated a landscape of rival political forces that significantly challenged its authority. Political elites aimed to dismantle customary family laws to weaken the traditional family system, which they viewed as a threat to governmental centralization and societal unity. They also sought to project a modern, liberal image to garner wider political support. PubDate: Thu, 08 Aug 2024 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/ajcl/avae019 Issue No:Vol. 72, No. 2 (2024)
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Pages: 474 - 479 Abstract: TewYvonne, Constitutional Statecraft in Asian Courts (Oxford University Press, 2020) PubDate: Sun, 07 Apr 2024 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/ajcl/avae008 Issue No:Vol. 72, No. 2 (2024)
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Pages: 480 - 486 Abstract: SukJulie, After Misogyny: How the Law Fails Women and What to Do About It (University of California Press, 2023) PubDate: Sat, 10 Aug 2024 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/ajcl/avae025 Issue No:Vol. 72, No. 2 (2024)
Subscription journal
[1 journal]
