Search Results

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2007 DOI: 10.1163/026805507X197848 Arab Law Quarterly 21 (2007) 91-104 Arab Law Quarterly Th e Law of the Dubai International Financial Centre: Common Law Oasis or Mirage Within the UAE? Alejandro Carballo * Abstract Despite the increasing trends

In: Arab Law Quarterly
Author: Ian Williams

Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 79 (2011) 47-80 Revue d’Histoire du Droit 79 (2011) 47-80 The Legal History Review 79 (2011) 47-80 © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2011 DOI: 10.1163/157181911X563057 A medieval book and early-modern law: Bracton ’s authority and application in the common law

In: Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis / Revue d'Histoire du Droit / The Legal History Review
The Process of Decisionmaking in International Legal Disputes between States and Foreign Investors
In A Nascent Common Law: The Process of Decisionmaking in International Legal Disputes Between States and Foreign Investors Frédéric Gilles Sourgens submits that investor-state dispute resolution relies upon an inductive, common law decisionmaking process, which reveals a necessary plurality of first principles within investor-state dispute resolution. Relying upon, amongst others, Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations, the book explains how this plurality of first principles does not devolve into arbitrary indeterminacy.

A Nascent Common Law provides an alternative account to current theoretical conceptions of investor-state arbitration. It explains that these theories cannot adequately resolve a key empirical challenge: tribunals frequently reach facially inconsistent results on similar questions of law. Sourgens makes an inductive approach, focused on the manner of decisionmaking by tribunals in the context of specific records that can explain this inconsistency.
There have been many introductory texts on the common law over the years, but among the more recent Professor Cappalli's The American Common Law Method has been most widely praised. It focuses on the system of judicial precedent, recognized as one of the great achievements of Anglo-American genius, and especially on its development in American jurisprudence since Holmes and Cardozo. It comprehensively details both the theory underlying case law and the methodology and thinking employed by American judges in applying that theory to specific fact-patterns.

Special classroom adoption prices are available.

Published under the Transnational Publishers imprint.
Does religious confession privilege exist at common law? Most evidence law texts answer ‘no’. This analysis shows that most of the cases relied upon for the ‘no religious confession privilege conclusion’ are not authority for that conclusion. The origin of the privilege in the canon law in the first millennium AD is traced and its reception into common law is documented. Proof that religious confession privilege continues unbroken at common law through to the present day is of obvious importance in jurisdictions where there is no relevant statute. A correct understanding of the common law extant before statutes were passed will influence whether those statutes are broadly or narrowly interpreted. The book also brings the reader up to date on the state of religious confession privilege in the United States, Canada, England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.
Author: Finn Seyersted
This work provides a comprehensive theory of the system of legal norms that are developed partly in the internal written (constitutional) law of intergovernmental organizations and partly through their consistent practice, and that are therefore common to intergovernmental organizations.
The legal construction presented in this volume consists of the following main elements:
As for all other self-governing communities all intergovernmental organizations possess their own internal law governing their relations with 1) the organs of the organization, 2) the officials and 3) the member states in their capacity as members of the organization. Some organizations exercise in addition extended (delegated) jurisdiction over states, other organizations and/or individuals.
Secondly, as for other self-governing communities all intergovernmental organizations are subjects of public international law in their relations with other self-governing communities (states and other intergovernmental organizations), and in the case of extended jurisdiction, also in relations with individuals and private entities.
Thirdly, as for all other self-governing communities possessing its own internal law (its distinct lex personalis), intergovernmental organizations enter into relations of a private law nature with both public and private entities. Governed by the rules on conflict of laws, these relations must be determined by assessing relevant 1) personal, 2) territorial and 3) organic connecting factors.
Thus Common Law of Intergovernmental Organizations brings together all those elements pertaining to the theory of objective legal personality that have been presented in a scattered fashion, in bits and pieces.
Common Law of Intergovernmental Organizations, starting out from the position of objective legal personality, is fully compatible with modern requirements of good governance and accountability of international organizations, and particularly adaptable to the ideal of “systemic integration” of legal regimes constituting internal law of the organization.