2553 la786 week 3 class (1 july 2010) slideshow

698 views

Published on

สไลด์ประกอบการบรรยายวิชา น.๗๘๖ ครั้งที่ ๓ (๑ กรกฎาคม ๒๕๕๓)

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
698
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
23
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

2553 la786 week 3 class (1 july 2010) slideshow

  1. 1. ครั้งที่ ๓ ๑ กรกฎาคม ๒๕๕๓ Thursday, 24 June 2010 1
  2. 2. เทคนิค การเปรียบเทียบกฎหมาย Thursday, 24 June 2010 2
  3. 3. an introduction ข้อควรพิจารณาในการ เปรียบเทียบระบบศาล ข้อควรพิจารณาเกี่ยวกับ กฎหมายปกครอง Thursday, 24 June 2010 3
  4. 4. an introduction Thursday, 24 June 2010 4
  5. 5. Peter de Cruz, "Techniques of comparative law", in Comparative law in a changing world (London, 2007), pp. 219-249. Thursday, 24 June 2010 5
  6. 6. • major pitfalls & perils • quest for methodology • methods Thursday, 24 June 2010 6
  7. 7. major pitfalls & perils • linguistic & • comparability terminological problems • legal pattern • cultural • bias differences • exclusion & • objects of study ignorance Thursday, 24 June 2010 7
  8. 8. linguistic & terminological problems Thursday, 24 June 2010 8
  9. 9. cultural differences between legal systems Thursday, 24 June 2010 9
  10. 10. arbitrary selection of objects of study Thursday, 24 June 2010 10
  11. 11. comparability in comparison Thursday, 24 June 2010 11
  12. 12. viability of theory of a common legal pattern Thursday, 24 June 2010 12
  13. 13. imposition of one’s own legal conceptions Thursday, 24 June 2010 13
  14. 14. the four ‘law jobs’ • social control • conflict resolution • adaptation & social change • norm enforcement Thursday, 24 June 2010 14
  15. 15. omission of extra-legal factors Thursday, 24 June 2010 15
  16. 16. the quest for methodology • general character • suitability of of comparative topics law • comparative • subject matter method requirements • macro v micro • test of functionality Thursday, 24 June 2010 16
  17. 17. clarifying the general character of comparative law Thursday, 24 June 2010 17
  18. 18. the subject matter of the comparison Thursday, 24 June 2010 18
  19. 19. macro-comparison & micro-comparison Thursday, 24 June 2010 19
  20. 20. comparative method: requirements Thursday, 24 June 2010 20
  21. 21. the test of functionality Thursday, 24 June 2010 21
  22. 22. comparative legal methods • Kamba’s three-stage approach • a blueprint Thursday, 24 June 2010 22
  23. 23. Kamba’s three-stage-approach Thursday, 24 June 2010 23
  24. 24. • the descriptive phase • the identification phase • the explanatory phase Thursday, 24 June 2010 24
  25. 25. the descriptive phase • norms • concepts • institutions • socio-economic problems • legal problems • legal solutions Thursday, 24 June 2010 25
  26. 26. the identification phase • differences • similarities Thursday, 24 June 2010 26
  27. 27. the explanatory phase • resemblances • dissimilarities Thursday, 24 June 2010 27
  28. 28. “no one single method applicable” Thursday, 24 June 2010 28
  29. 29. a blueprint Thursday, 24 June 2010 29
  30. 30. 1. Identify the problem. 5. Organise the material. 2. Identify the foreign 6. Provisinally map out the jurisdiction & its parent possible answers to the legal family. problem. 3. Decide the primary 7. Critically analyse the sources of law & legal principles. materials. 8. Set out conclusions 4. Gather & assemble the within the comparative material relevant to the framework with caveats jurisdiction being & with critical examined. commentary. Thursday, 24 June 2010 30
  31. 31. คําถาม? Thursday, 24 June 2010 31
  32. 32. ข้อควรพิจารณาในการ เปรียบเทียบระบบศาล Thursday, 24 June 2010 32
  33. 33. • comparative law in courts • comparative law & legislator • comparativism & the verdict • case law in non-common law jurisdictions • styles of judicial decision • overriding general principles Thursday, 24 June 2010 33
  34. 34. comparative law in courts Thursday, 24 June 2010 34
  35. 35. • a tool of interpretation • a tool of law reform Thursday, 24 June 2010 35
  36. 36. sovereignty v “uniformity of outcome” Thursday, 24 June 2010 36
  37. 37. “comparison illuminate our understanding” Thursday, 24 June 2010 37
  38. 38. “The discipline of comparative does not aim at a poll of solutions adopted in different countries. It has the different and inestimable value of sharpening our focus on the weight of competing consideration.” Thursday, 24 June 2010 38
  39. 39. functional use of foreign law • a tool of interpretation • to look for solutions • to promote a change • to fill in a gap • to discard an unsatisfactory solution Thursday, 24 June 2010 39
  40. 40. the three phases • discovering: what is found • understanding: what is to be used • applying: how far Thursday, 24 June 2010 40
  41. 41. certain practical considerations • language skills • national insularity or pride: rule of proof; common law as a whole • pressures: time & volume of work • budget Thursday, 24 June 2010 41
  42. 42. “[A]ll judges cannot be expected to be comparatists, but it is their duty to consult those who are in a position to supply the information needed ...” Thursday, 24 June 2010 42
  43. 43. “[It] cannot be right to attempt to construe ‘acquiesced’ by reference only to its possible meaning at common law or equity.” Thursday, 24 June 2010 43
  44. 44. comparative law & legislator Thursday, 24 June 2010 44
  45. 45. • a tool of interpretation • a tool of law reform Thursday, 24 June 2010 45
  46. 46. justification of comparativism & the verdict Thursday, 24 June 2010 46
  47. 47. the authority of case law in non-common law jurisdictions Thursday, 24 June 2010 47
  48. 48. interpreters v law makers Thursday, 24 June 2010 48
  49. 49. lower courts v superior courts Thursday, 24 June 2010 49
  50. 50. styles of judicial decision Thursday, 24 June 2010 50
  51. 51. • English • French • German • Swedish • American Thursday, 24 June 2010 51
  52. 52. the relevance of overriding general principles Thursday, 24 June 2010 52
  53. 53. • aequitas • bona fides/good faith • good morals and public order • custom Thursday, 24 June 2010 53
  54. 54. คําถาม? Thursday, 24 June 2010 54
  55. 55. ข้อควรพิจารณาเกี่ยวกับ กฎหมายปกครอง Thursday, 24 June 2010 55
  56. 56. Administrative law? The subjects? Power allocation? The procedure? The instutions? The judicial control? Liability? Thursday, 24 June 2010 56
  57. 57. What is administrative law? Thursday, 24 June 2010 57
  58. 58. What are the subjects of administrative law? Thursday, 24 June 2010 58
  59. 59. the allocation of powers Thursday, 24 June 2010 59
  60. 60. administrative procedure Thursday, 24 June 2010 60
  61. 61. institutions providing legal redress Thursday, 24 June 2010 61
  62. 62. the judicial control of power Thursday, 24 June 2010 62
  63. 63. liability of the administration Thursday, 24 June 2010 63
  64. 64. conclusion Thursday, 24 June 2010 64
  65. 65. คําถาม? Thursday, 24 June 2010 65

×