Year by year, law seems to penetrate ever larger realms of social, political, and economic life, generating both praise and blame. Nonet and Selznick's Law and Society in Transition explains in accessible language the primary forms of law as a social, political, and normative phenomenon. They illustrate with great clarity the fundamental difference between repressive law, riddled with raw conflict and the accommodation of special interests, and responsive law, the reasoned effort to realize an ideal of polity.To make jurisprudence relevant, legal, political, and social theory must be reintegrated. As a step in this direction, Nonet and Selznick attempt to recast jurisprudential issues in a social science perspective. They construct a valuable framework for analyzing and assessing the worth of alternative modes of legal ordering. The volume's most enduring contribution is the authors' typology -- repressive, autonomous, and responsive law. This typology of law is original and especially useful because it incorporates both political and jurisprudential aspects of law and speaks directly to contemporary struggles over the proper place of law in democratic governance.In his new introduction, Robert A. Kagan recasts this classic text for the contemporary world. He sees a world of responsive law in which legal institutions -- courts, regulatory agencies, alternative dispute resolution bodies, police departments -- are periodically studied and redesigned to improve their ability to fulfill public expectations. Schools, business corporations, and governmental bureaucracies are more fully pervaded by legal values. Law and Society in Transition describes ways in which law changes anddevelops. It is an inspiring vision of a politically responsive form of governance, of special interest to those in sociology, law, philosophy, and politics.
塞尔茨尼克师徒合著的这本小册子,隶属于美国法律社会学运动中的伯克利学派,按照季卫东教授的说法,属于规范主义的法社会学,和科学主义进路相对。书中作者特别强调了法律的目的对于法律发展的重要性。所谓法律的目的,即法律内含的价值。法律目的与法律规则相对。以目的为中...
评分《转变中的法律与社会》与经济法变迁 美国在上个世纪六十年代涌现出种种社会危机,学者们认识到原有的法律体系无法完成其维持社会秩序的任务,因此需要新的法律理论指导法律的转变。针对当时兴起的批判法学思潮,作者也试图通过建立对法律的新认识加以回应。 在第一章中,作者...
评分曾经读哈特的The Concept of Law时,Hart提出Legal System存在的充要条件是:(1)最终承认规则得到整个社会的广泛认可,以及(2)裁判规则和变更规则得到Offical的认可。但Hart并未对Official进行界定,本书中在回应法一章中提到在后官僚时代,要以牺牲官方的完整性为代价以实...
评分曾经读哈特的The Concept of Law时,Hart提出Legal System存在的充要条件是:(1)最终承认规则得到整个社会的广泛认可,以及(2)裁判规则和变更规则得到Offical的认可。但Hart并未对Official进行界定,本书中在回应法一章中提到在后官僚时代,要以牺牲官方的完整性为代价以实...
评分曾经读哈特的The Concept of Law时,Hart提出Legal System存在的充要条件是:(1)最终承认规则得到整个社会的广泛认可,以及(2)裁判规则和变更规则得到Offical的认可。但Hart并未对Official进行界定,本书中在回应法一章中提到在后官僚时代,要以牺牲官方的完整性为代价以实...
他援引的Chayes在他写这篇文章之前就开始对回应型法律提出一种悲观的看法,再往前Marc Galanter也提出同样的想法。想一想第一版出版的同一年UC REGENT V. BAKKE 中Powell的Plurality意见对后来Croson以及Parent Involved的影响直接杀死racial-subordination doctrine,他在终章问的那个问题:回应型法律的尽头是什么,还是蛮让人唏嘘的。
评分他援引的Chayes在他写这篇文章之前就开始对回应型法律提出一种悲观的看法,再往前Marc Galanter也提出同样的想法。想一想第一版出版的同一年UC REGENT V. BAKKE 中Powell的Plurality意见对后来Croson以及Parent Involved的影响直接杀死racial-subordination doctrine,他在终章问的那个问题:回应型法律的尽头是什么,还是蛮让人唏嘘的。
评分他援引的Chayes在他写这篇文章之前就开始对回应型法律提出一种悲观的看法,再往前Marc Galanter也提出同样的想法。想一想第一版出版的同一年UC REGENT V. BAKKE 中Powell的Plurality意见对后来Croson以及Parent Involved的影响直接杀死racial-subordination doctrine,他在终章问的那个问题:回应型法律的尽头是什么,还是蛮让人唏嘘的。
评分他援引的Chayes在他写这篇文章之前就开始对回应型法律提出一种悲观的看法,再往前Marc Galanter也提出同样的想法。想一想第一版出版的同一年UC REGENT V. BAKKE 中Powell的Plurality意见对后来Croson以及Parent Involved的影响直接杀死racial-subordination doctrine,他在终章问的那个问题:回应型法律的尽头是什么,还是蛮让人唏嘘的。
评分他援引的Chayes在他写这篇文章之前就开始对回应型法律提出一种悲观的看法,再往前Marc Galanter也提出同样的想法。想一想第一版出版的同一年UC REGENT V. BAKKE 中Powell的Plurality意见对后来Croson以及Parent Involved的影响直接杀死racial-subordination doctrine,他在终章问的那个问题:回应型法律的尽头是什么,还是蛮让人唏嘘的。
本站所有内容均为互联网搜索引擎提供的公开搜索信息,本站不存储任何数据与内容,任何内容与数据均与本站无关,如有需要请联系相关搜索引擎包括但不限于百度,google,bing,sogou 等
© 2026 qciss.net All Rights Reserved. 小哈图书下载中心 版权所有