Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBOBEK, Michal
dc.date.accessioned2014-01-21T10:49:32Z
dc.date.available2014-01-21T10:49:32Z
dc.date.issued2013
dc.identifier.citationOxford : Oxford University Press, 2013, Oxford scholarship online : Law moduleen
dc.identifier.isbn9780199680382
dc.identifier.isbn9780191760280
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1814/29337
dc.description.abstractThe last two decades have witnessed an exponential growth in debates on the use of foreign law by courts. Different labels have been attached to the same phenomenon: judges drawing inspiration from outside of their national legal systems for solving purely domestic disputes. By doing so, the judges are said to engage in cross-border judicial dialogues. They are creating a larger, transnational community of judges. This book puts similar claims to test in relation to highest national jurisdictions (supreme and constitutional courts) in Europe today. How often and why do judges choose to draw inspiration from foreign materials in solving domestic cases? The book addresses these questions from both an empirical and a theoretical angle. Empirically, the genuine use of comparative arguments by national highest courts in five European jurisdictions is examined: England and Wales, France, Germany, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia. On the basis of comparative discussion of the practice and its national theoretical underpinning in these and partially also in other European systems, an overreaching theoretical framework for the current judicial use of comparative arguments is developed. Drawing on the author's own past judicial experience in a national supreme court, this book is a critical account of judicial engagement with foreign authority in Europe today. The sober middle ground inductively conceptualized and presented in this book provides solid jurisprudential foundations for the ongoing use of comparative arguments by courts as well as its further scholarly discussion.en
dc.description.tableofcontents-- Introduction -- 1. The Debate on Comparative Reasoning by Courts -- 2. Foreign Law in Courts: A Typology -- 3. Factors Influencing the Use of Comparative Law by Courts -- 4. Prologue: The Methodology and its Pitfalls -- 5. England and Wales -- 6. France -- 7. Germany -- 8. Czech Republic -- 9. Slovakia -- 10. Empirical Epilogue -- 11. Comparative Reasoning in Courts: The Theoretical Playing Field -- 12. On Authority, Citation, and Silence -- 13. Comparative Reasoning by Courts: Some Classical Points Revisited -- 14. Deviations: On Political (Non)Comparisons -- Conclusionsen
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherOUPen
dc.relation.isversionofhttp://hdl.handle.net/1814/17176en
dc.titleComparative reasoning in European supreme courtsen
dc.typeBooken
dc.identifier.doi10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199680382.001.0001
eui.subscribe.skiptrue
dc.description.versionPublished version EUI PhD thesis, 2011en


Files associated with this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record