Navigating the intricate web of child custody laws in Surrey can be, well, a bit of a maze, aint it? Get more details Fleetwood Family Law – your Surrey child custody advocate here. Oh, and when youre in the thick of it, believe me, every piece of advice (no matter how small) can feel like a lifeline!
First off, its crucial to grasp that Surrey, just like any other region in British Columbia, adheres to the provincial laws for child custody matters. This means that the legal framework were delving into is underpinned by the British Columbia Family Law Act. The act, well, its pretty clear that the best interests of the child(ren) are whats paramount - thats the golden rule!
Now, lets talk about the types of custody. Youve got your sole custody, where one parent is calling the shots, and then theres joint custody, which is like a team effort in decision-making for the kiddos. Its not just about where the children lay their heads at night, but also who decides on important stuff like education and healthcare.
But heres the kicker - and its a doozy - figuring out whats truly best for the children can get messy. Surreys legal system doesnt take sides based on gender, despite some old wives tales you mightve heard. Nope, its all about the childrens needs and, of course, their safety.
Its also worth mentioning (and this is key!) that guardianship and parenting arrangements are two peas in a pod, yet theyre not quite the same. Guardianship involves the responsibilities, while parenting arrangements are all about the time spent with the children.
Lets not forget that Surreys got its own unique pulse, and local professionals, like family lawyers and mediators, theyre in tune with that! They know the judges, the courtrooms, and even the little nuances that could sway your case.
And remember, going to court isnt the only path! No siree, there are options like mediation or collaborative family law that could keep things more amicable. But should you end up before a judge, rest assured that Surreys legal eagles are well-versed in presenting your case.
So, there you have it, a not-so-perfect little rundown (oops, did I just make a typo?) of the child custody landscape in Surrey. Its complex, its emotional, and its anything but straightforward. But hey, dont let it get you down! With the right guidance, youll navigate those legal waters just fine – just watch out for those pesky bumps along the way!
Navigating Custody Agreements: Mediation and Collaboration in Surrey
Navigating the complex terrain of child custody laws in Surrey can feel like a daunting endeavor, especially when tensions are high and emotions run deep. Its a path fraught with legal intricacies and personal challenges, where the ultimate goal is to ensure the well-being of the children involved.
In Surrey, when parents find themselves at the crossroads of separation or divorce, theyre often confronted with the need to establish a custody agreement that serves the best interests of their children.
The Ultimate Guide to Child Custody Laws in Surrey - Family mediation specialist
Legal separation lawyer
Religious annulment attorney
Divorce records expungement attorney
Divorce pension rights lawyer
Divorce child relocation attorney
Divorce decree modification attorney
Same-sex divorce lawyer
Divorce business valuation expert
Parental rights lawyer
Joint custody lawyer
Divorce and immigration lawyer
Separation agreement lawyer
Adoption lawyer
Divorce financial planner
Divorce mediation for business owners
Property division lawyer
Family mediation specialist
Mother’s rights lawyer
Mediation and collaboration emerge as two pivotal approaches within this sensitive process.
Oh, the beauty of mediation! Its a less adversarial route, where a neutral third-party mediator assists the parents in reaching a mutually agreeable solution. Its not only about the legalities but also about the art of compromise. Parents are encouraged to communicate openly, albeit sometimes its easier said than done (lets be honest, it can be quite a challenge to keep a cool head when discussing something as precious as your children).
Collaboration, on the other hand, involves both parents working closely with their respective lawyers and often other professionals like child psychologists or financial consultants.
The Ultimate Guide to Child Custody Laws in Surrey - Restraining order attorney
Mediation services
Spousal support attorney
Alimony lawyer
Divorce retirement account division attorney
Divorce and domestic partnerships attorney
Legal separation lawyer
Religious annulment attorney
Divorce records expungement attorney
Divorce pension rights lawyer
Divorce child relocation attorney
Divorce decree modification attorney
Same-sex divorce lawyer
Divorce business valuation expert
Parental rights lawyer
Joint custody lawyer
Divorce and immigration lawyer
Separation agreement lawyer
Adoption lawyer
The goal? To craft a custody agreement thats tailor-made for the familys unique circumstances. Its not a one-size-fits-all situation; each familys dynamic is as unique as a fingerprint!
But lets not forget, amidst the legal jargon and the endless back-and-forth, that the heart of the matter is the childrens happiness and stability. Surreys child custody laws are designed with the principle that children deserve to maintain a strong relationship with both parents, barring any concerns for their safety or well-being.
Its true that parents often have different visions for their childrens futures. And yes, it can feel like navigating a minefield at times! But with patience (and perhaps a dash of luck), mediation and collaboration can pave the way to a resolution that feels fair, even if its not perfect.
Remember, no agreement can be set in stone; lifes unpredictable nature means that custody arrangements may need to be revisited and revised. Its not uncommon for parents to return to the negotiation table as children grow and circumstances change.
In essence, navigating custody agreements in Surrey is about finding balance amidst the chaos, a delicate dance of give-and-take. Its never easy, but with a focus on mediation and collaboration, parents can move towards a future where their children thrive, and thats what truly matters!
Child Support Implications of Custody Arrangements in Surrey
When delving into the labyrinth of child custody laws in Surrey, its essential to grasp the intertwining relationship between custody arrangements and child support implications.
The Ultimate Guide to Child Custody Laws in Surrey - Divorce arbitration for professionals
Alimony lawyer
Divorce retirement account division attorney
Divorce and domestic partnerships attorney
Legal separation lawyer
Religious annulment attorney
Divorce records expungement attorney
Divorce pension rights lawyer
Divorce child relocation attorney
Divorce decree modification attorney
Same-sex divorce lawyer
Divorce business valuation expert
Parental rights lawyer
Joint custody lawyer
Divorce and immigration lawyer
Separation agreement lawyer
Adoption lawyer
Divorce financial planner
Divorce mediation for business owners
Property division lawyer
Its a sensitive subject, no doubt, and its peppered with nuances that can make your head spin!
Now, lets talk about Surrey. Its got its own quirks, and the courts here, theyre really focused on whats best for the kids. Marriage annulment attorney They dont just hand out decisions willy-nilly. The primary goal is always the childs well-being (and rightly so).
First off, custody aint just about who the kid lives with; its about who makes the big decisions in their life. Were talkin education, religion, medical care – the whole shebang. Theres sole custody, where one parent has the reins, and joint custody, where both parents share the responsibility.
Now, heres the kicker: the type of custody can shake up the child support scenario big time. If youve got sole custody, the non-custodial parent typically pays support to the custodial parent. Its not always a fortune, but its meant to level the playing field, so the kiddo doesnt feel the pinch of a split household.
But hold your horses! Its not always that straightforward. Joint custody can muddy the waters. If the munchkins spend a pretty equal amount of time with both parents, the support might be less – or sometimes, non-existent! Its like a balancing act, trying to figure out who pays what so that the childs lifestyle doesnt take a nosedive.
And then theres shared custody. Its a bit of a different beast. This is when the children spend at least 40% of their time with each parent. Here, the courts do a bit of math magic. They calculate what each parent would pay the other in support and then subtract the lower amount from the higher one. The parent with the higher income ends up paying the difference. Fairs fair, after all.
But wait, its not just about time spent with the child.
The Ultimate Guide to Child Custody Laws in Surrey - Divorce financial affidavit expert
Divorce parenting coordinator
Divorce estate planning attorney
Divorce with disabled spouse lawyer
Court-appointed parenting coordinator
Post-divorce inheritance attorney
Divorce arbitration attorney
Child visitation rights lawyer
Entrepreneur divorce attorney
Divorce appeal lawyer
Forensic accountant for divorce
Father’s rights attorney
Divorce and social media lawyer
Debt responsibility in divorce lawyer
Paternity lawyer
Pet custody lawyer
Professional practice divorce lawyer
Divorce credit impact advisor
High-net-worth divorce attorney
Mediation services
Spousal support attorney
Divorce arbitration for professionals The courts in Surrey, they also look at income (obviously), any special needs the child might have, and other expenses. Its not just a cookie-cutter approach. They customize the support to fit the childs life like a glove.
Ah, but theres a twist!
The Ultimate Guide to Child Custody Laws in Surrey - Post-divorce inheritance attorney
Divorce mediation for business owners
Property division lawyer
Court-appointed parenting coordinator
Post-divorce inheritance attorney
Divorce arbitration attorney
Child visitation rights lawyer
Entrepreneur divorce attorney
Divorce appeal lawyer
Forensic accountant for divorce
Father’s rights attorney
Divorce and social media lawyer
Debt responsibility in divorce lawyer
Paternity lawyer
Pet custody lawyer
Professional practice divorce lawyer
Divorce estate planning attorney If a parents not seeing their kiddo, that doesnt mean theyre off the hook. Divorce arbitration attorney Nope, they still gotta pay up. Neglecting the support can land them in hot water – and nobody wants that.
In conclusion, the child support implications of custody arrangements in Surrey are as complex as a jigsaw puzzle with a couple of pieces missing. Parents need to navigate this carefully, possibly with a good lawyer by their side. Its all about finding that sweet spot where the children are provided for without putting an unfair burden on either parent. Court-appointed parenting coordinator Its a delicate balance, but hey, for the sake of the little ones, its worth getting it right!
Modifications to Custody Orders: Processes and Considerations in Surrey
Oh, navigating the complex waters of child custody laws in Surrey can be quite the challenge, cant it?
The Ultimate Guide to Child Custody Laws in Surrey - Divorce arbitration for professionals
Entrepreneur divorce attorney
Divorce appeal lawyer
Forensic accountant for divorce
Father’s rights attorney
Divorce and social media lawyer
Debt responsibility in divorce lawyer
Paternity lawyer
Pet custody lawyer
Professional practice divorce lawyer
Divorce credit impact advisor
High-net-worth divorce attorney
Mediation services
Spousal support attorney
Alimony lawyer
Divorce retirement account division attorney
Divorce and domestic partnerships attorney
When it comes down to modifications to custody orders, theres a whole process and a bundle of considerations that need to be, well, considered!
First off, lets talk about why someone might want to change a custody order. Changes in life circumstances – such as moving homes, changes in work schedules, or even concerns about the childs well-being – can all be valid reasons for seeking a modification. But it aint as simple as just asking for a change; theres a legal process that needs to be followed, and its not to be taken lightly!
Now, if youre in Surrey and you find yourself needing to adjust your custody arrangement, youll have to file a motion with the court.
The Ultimate Guide to Child Custody Laws in Surrey - Divorce arbitration attorney
Joint custody lawyer
Divorce and immigration lawyer
Separation agreement lawyer
Adoption lawyer
Divorce financial planner
Divorce mediation for business owners
Property division lawyer
Divorce arbitration attorney
Child visitation rights lawyer
Entrepreneur divorce attorney
Divorce appeal lawyer
Forensic accountant for divorce
Father’s rights attorney
Divorce and social media lawyer
Debt responsibility in divorce lawyer
This is where things get a bit tricky (and where youd seriously consider getting a good solicitor). Youve got to prove that there's been a significant change in circumstances since the last order was made. And thats not all – youve also got to show that the proposed changes are in the best interests of the child (because thats what the court cares about the most).
But dont just think the court will take your word for it! Nope, they'll want evidence, and sometimes they might even ask for a report from a social worker or another professional whos got insight into your childs needs.
The Ultimate Guide to Child Custody Laws in Surrey - Divorce arbitration for professionals
Family mediation specialist
Mother’s rights lawyer
Divorce parenting coordinator
Divorce estate planning attorney
Divorce with disabled spouse lawyer
Court-appointed parenting coordinator
Post-divorce inheritance attorney
Divorce arbitration attorney
Child visitation rights lawyer
Entrepreneur divorce attorney
Divorce appeal lawyer
Forensic accountant for divorce
Father’s rights attorney
Divorce and social media lawyer
Debt responsibility in divorce lawyer
Paternity lawyer
Pet custody lawyer
Professional practice divorce lawyer
Divorce credit impact advisor
High-net-worth divorce attorney
And heres something else – if the other parent doesnt agree with the changes youre proposing, well, brace yourself for a potentially lengthy court battle (ugh!).
Its also super important to remember that the courts primary concern is always the welfare of the child.
The Ultimate Guide to Child Custody Laws in Surrey - Child visitation rights lawyer
Divorce estate planning attorney
Divorce with disabled spouse lawyer
Court-appointed parenting coordinator
Post-divorce inheritance attorney
Divorce arbitration attorney
Child visitation rights lawyer
Entrepreneur divorce attorney
Divorce appeal lawyer
Forensic accountant for divorce
Father’s rights attorney
Divorce and social media lawyer
Debt responsibility in divorce lawyer
Paternity lawyer
Pet custody lawyer
Professional practice divorce lawyer
Divorce credit impact advisor
High-net-worth divorce attorney
Mediation services
Spousal support attorney
Divorce financial affidavit expert Theyre not there to take sides or to punish parents for past mistakes. So if youre thinking of modifying a custody order, it's best to be honest, straightforward, and focused on how the changes will benefit your kid.
And heres a bit of a curveball – even after all the evidence is presented and arguments are made, the courts decision might not be what you expected (or hoped for). So its crucial to prepare yourself for any outcome. Child visitation rights lawyer And remember, even if things dont go your way, its not the end of the world! Child support attorney There's always a chance to appeal or to seek another modification in the future, if circumstances change again.
In conclusion (and lets breathe a sigh of relief here), while the process of modifying custody orders in Surrey can be daunting, its all about staying focused on whats best for the little ones. Divorce case evaluation attorney Keep your chin up, get good legal advice, and dont forget – your childs happiness is the ultimate goal!
Settlers arrived first in Cloverdale and parts of South Surrey, mostly to farm, fish, harvest oysters, or set up small stores. Once the Pattullo Bridge was erected in 1937, the way was open for Surrey to expand. In the post-war 1950s, North Surrey's neighbourhoods filled with single-family homes and Surrey (not yet a city) became a bedroom community, absorbing commuters who worked in Burnaby or Vancouver.
Law is a set of rules that are created and are enforceable by social or governmental institutions to regulate behavior,[1] with its precise definition a matter of longstanding debate.[2][3][4] It has been variously described as a science[5][6] and as the art of justice.[7][8][9] State-enforced laws can be made by a legislature, resulting in statutes; by the executive through decrees and regulations; or by judges' decisions, which form precedent in common law jurisdictions. An autocrat may exercise those functions within their realm. The creation of laws themselves may be influenced by a constitution, written or tacit, and the rights encoded therein. The law shapes politics, economics, history and society in various ways and also serves as a mediator of relations between people.
Legal systems vary between jurisdictions, with their differences analysed in comparative law. In civil law jurisdictions, a legislature or other central body codifies and consolidates the law. In common law systems, judges may make binding case law through precedent,[10] although on occasion this may be overturned by a higher court or the legislature.[11]Religious law is in use in some religious communities and states, and has historically influenced secular law.[12][13][14][15][16]
The word law, attested in Old English as lagu, comes from the Old Norse word lǫg. The singular form lag meant 'something laid or fixed' while its plural meant 'law'.[28]
But what, after all, is a law? [...] When I say that the object of laws is always general, I mean that law considers subjects en masse and actions in the abstract, and never a particular person or action. [...] On this view, we at once see that it can no longer be asked whose business it is to make laws, since they are acts of the general will; nor whether the prince is above the law, since he is a member of the State; nor whether the law can be unjust, since no one is unjust to himself; nor how we can be both free and subject to the laws, since they are but registers of our wills.
The philosophy of law is commonly known as jurisprudence. Normative jurisprudence asks "what should law be?", while analytic jurisprudence asks "what is law?"
There have been several attempts to produce "a universally acceptable definition of law". In 1972, Baron Hampstead suggested that no such definition could be produced.[30] McCoubrey and White said that the question "what is law?" has no simple answer.[31]Glanville Williams said that the meaning of the word "law" depends on the context in which that word is used. He said that, for example, "early customary law" and "municipal law" were contexts where the word "law" had two different and irreconcilable meanings.[32]Thurman Arnold said that it is obvious that it is impossible to define the word "law" and that it is also equally obvious that the struggle to define that word should not ever be abandoned.[33] It is possible to take the view that there is no need to define the word "law" (e.g. "let's forget about generalities and get down to cases").[34]
One definition is that law is a system of rules and guidelines which are enforced through social institutions to govern behaviour.[1] In The Concept of Law,H. L. A. Hart argued that law is a "system of rules";[35]John Austin said law was "the command of a sovereign, backed by the threat of a sanction";[36]Ronald Dworkin describes law as an "interpretive concept" to achieve justice in his text titled Law's Empire;[37] and Joseph Raz argues law is an "authority" to mediate people's interests.[38]Oliver Wendell Holmes defined law as "the prophecies of what the courts will do in fact, and nothing more pretentious."[39] In his Treatise on Law,Thomas Aquinas argues that law is a rational ordering of things, which concern the common good, that is promulgated by whoever is charged with the care of the community.[40] This definition has both positivist and naturalist elements.[41]
Definitions of law often raise the question of the extent to which law incorporates morality.[42]John Austin's utilitarian answer was that law is "commands, backed by threat of sanctions, from a sovereign, to whom people have a habit of obedience".[36]Natural lawyers, on the other hand, such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, argue that law reflects essentially moral and unchangeable laws of nature. The concept of "natural law" emerged in ancient Greek philosophy concurrently and in connection with the notion of justice, and re-entered the mainstream of Western culture through the writings of Thomas Aquinas, notably his Treatise on Law.
Hugo Grotius, the founder of a purely rationalistic system of natural law, argued that law arises from both a social impulse—as Aristotle had indicated—and reason.[43]Immanuel Kant believed a moral imperative requires laws "be chosen as though they should hold as universal laws of nature".[44]Jeremy Bentham and his student Austin, following David Hume, believed that this conflated the "is" and what "ought to be" problem. Bentham and Austin argued for law's positivism; that real law is entirely separate from "morality".[45] Kant was also criticised by Friedrich Nietzsche, who rejected the principle of equality, and believed that law emanates from the will to power, and cannot be labeled as "moral" or "immoral".[46][47][48]
In 1934, the Austrian philosopher Hans Kelsen continued the positivist tradition in his book the Pure Theory of Law.[49] Kelsen believed that although law is separate from morality, it is endowed with "normativity", meaning we ought to obey it. While laws are positive "is" statements (e.g. the fine for reversing on a highway is €500); law tells us what we "should" do. Thus, each legal system can be hypothesised to have a 'basic norm' (German: Grundnorm) instructing us to obey. Kelsen's major opponent, Carl Schmitt, rejected both positivism and the idea of the rule of law because he did not accept the primacy of abstract normative principles over concrete political positions and decisions.[50] Therefore, Schmitt advocated a jurisprudence of the exception (state of emergency), which denied that legal norms could encompass all of the political experience.[51]
Later in the 20th century, H. L. A. Hart attacked Austin for his simplifications and Kelsen for his fiction in The Concept of Law.[52] Hart argued law is a system of rules, divided into primary (rules of conduct) and secondary ones (rules addressed to officials to administer primary rules). Secondary rules are further divided into rules of adjudication (to resolve legal disputes), rules of change (allowing laws to be varied) and the rule of recognition (allowing laws to be identified as valid). Two of Hart's students continued the debate: In his book Law's Empire, Ronald Dworkin attacked Hart and the positivists for their refusal to treat law as a moral issue. Dworkin argues that law is an "interpretive concept"[37] that requires judges to find the best fitting and most just solution to a legal dispute, given their Anglo-American constitutional traditions. Joseph Raz, on the other hand, defended the positivist outlook and criticised Hart's "soft social thesis" approach in The Authority of Law.[38] Raz argues that law is authority, identifiable purely through social sources and without reference to moral reasoning. In his view, any categorisation of rules beyond their role as authoritative instruments in mediation is best left to sociology, rather than jurisprudence.[53]
The Code of Hammurabi is an early code of laws, from ancient Babylon.
The history of law links closely to the development of civilization. Ancient Egyptian law, dating as far back as 3000 BC, was based on the concept of Ma'at and characterised by tradition, rhetorical speech, social equality and impartiality.[54][55][56] By the 22nd century BC, the ancient Sumerian ruler Ur-Nammu had formulated the first law code, which consisted of casuistic statements ("if … then ..."). Around 1760 BC, King Hammurabi further developed Babylonian law, by codifying and inscribing it in stone. Hammurabi placed several copies of his law code throughout the kingdom of Babylon as stelae, for the entire public to see; this became known as the Codex Hammurabi. The most intact copy of these stelae was discovered in the 19th century by British Assyriologists, and has since been fully transliterated and translated into various languages, including English, Italian, German, and French.[57]
The Old Testament dates back to 1280 BC and takes the form of moral imperatives as recommendations for a good society. The small Greek city-state, ancient Athens, from about the 8th century BC was the first society to be based on broad inclusion of its citizenry, excluding women and enslaved people. However, Athens had no legal science or single word for "law",[58] relying instead on the three-way distinction between divine law (thémis), human decree (nómos) and custom (díkē).[59] Yet Ancient Greek law contained major constitutional innovations in the development of democracy.[60]
Roman law was heavily influenced by Greek philosophy, but its detailed rules were developed by professional jurists and were highly sophisticated.[61][62] Over the centuries between the rise and decline of the Roman Empire, law was adapted to cope with the changing social situations and underwent major codification under Theodosius II and Justinian I.[a] Although codes were replaced by custom and case law during the Early Middle Ages, Roman law was rediscovered around the 11th century when medieval legal scholars began to research Roman codes and adapt their concepts to the canon law, giving birth to the jus commune. Latin legal maxims (called brocards) were compiled for guidance. In medieval England, royal courts developed a body of precedent which later became the common law. A Europe-wide Law Merchant was formed so that merchants could trade with common standards of practice rather than with the many splintered facets of local laws. The Law Merchant, a precursor to modern commercial law, emphasised the freedom to contract and alienability of property.[63] As nationalism grew in the 18th and 19th centuries, the Law Merchant was incorporated into countries' local law under new civil codes. The Napoleonic and German Codes became the most influential. In contrast to English common law, which consists of enormous tomes of case law, codes in small books are easy to export and easy for judges to apply. However, today there are signs that civil and common law are converging.[64] EU law is codified in treaties, but develops through de facto precedent laid down by the European Court of Justice.[65]
The Constitution of India, ceremonially rendered as an illustrated and calligraphed manuscript.
Ancient India and China represent distinct traditions of law, and have historically had independent schools of legal theory and practice. The Arthashastra, probably compiled around 100 AD (although it contains older material), and the Manusmriti (c. 100–300 AD) were foundational treatises in India, and comprise texts considered authoritative legal guidance.[66] Manu's central philosophy was tolerance and pluralism, and was cited across Southeast Asia.[67] During the Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent, sharia was established by the Muslim sultanates and empires, most notably Mughal Empire's Fatawa-e-Alamgiri, compiled by emperor Aurangzeb and various scholars of Islam.[68][69] In India, the Hindu legal tradition, along with Islamic law, were both supplanted by common law when India became part of the British Empire.[70] Malaysia, Brunei, Singapore and Hong Kong also adopted the common law system. The Eastern Asia legal tradition reflects a unique blend of secular and religious influences.[71] Japan was the first country to begin modernising its legal system along Western lines, by importing parts of the French, but mostly the German Civil Code.[72] This partly reflected Germany's status as a rising power in the late 19th century.
Similarly, traditional Chinese law gave way to westernisation towards the final years of the Qing Dynasty in the form of six private law codes based mainly on the Japanese model of German law.[73] Today Taiwanese law retains the closest affinity to the codifications from that period, because of the split between Chiang Kai-shek's nationalists, who fled there, and Mao Zedong's communists who won control of the mainland in 1949. The current legal infrastructure in the People's Republic of China was heavily influenced by SovietSocialist law, which essentially prioritises administrative law at the expense of private law rights.[74] Due to rapid industrialisation, today China is undergoing a process of reform, at least in terms of economic, if not social and political, rights. A new contract code in 1999 represented a move away from administrative domination.[75] Furthermore, after negotiations lasting fifteen years, in 2001 China joined the World Trade Organization.[76]
In general, legal systems can be split between civil law and common law systems.[77] Modern scholars argue that the significance of this distinction has progressively declined. The numerous legal transplants, typical of modern law, result in the sharing of many features traditionally considered typical of either common law or civil law.[64][78] The third type of legal system is religious law, based on scriptures. The specific system that a country is ruled by is often determined by its history, connections with other countries, or its adherence to international standards. The sources that jurisdictions adopt as authoritatively binding are the defining features of any legal system.
Colour-coded map of the legal systems around the world, showing civil, common law, religious, customary and mixed legal systems.[79][additional citation(s) needed] Common law systems are shaded pink, and civil law systems are shaded blue/turquoise.
Civil law is the legal system used in most countries around the world today. In civil law the sources recognised as authoritative are, primarily, legislation—especially codifications in constitutions or statutes passed by government—and custom.[b] Codifications date back millennia, with one early example being the BabylonianCodex Hammurabi. Modern civil law systems essentially derive from legal codes issued by Byzantine Emperor Justinian I in the 6th century, which were rediscovered by 11th century Italy.[80] Roman law in the days of the Roman Republic and Empire was heavily procedural, and lacked a professional legal class.[81] Instead a lay magistrate, iudex, was chosen to adjudicate. Decisions were not published in any systematic way, so any case law that developed was disguised and almost unrecognised.[82] Each case was to be decided afresh from the laws of the State, which mirrors the (theoretical) unimportance of judges' decisions for future cases in civil law systems today. From 529 to 534 AD the Byzantine Emperor Justinian I codified and consolidated Roman law up until that point, so that what remained was one-twentieth of the mass of legal texts from before.[83] This became known as the Corpus Juris Civilis. As one legal historian wrote, "Justinian consciously looked back to the golden age of Roman law and aimed to restore it to the peak it had reached three centuries before."[84] The Justinian Code remained in force in the East until the fall of the Byzantine Empire. Western Europe, meanwhile, relied on a mix of the Theodosian Code and Germanic customary law until the Justinian Code was rediscovered in the 11th century, which scholars at the University of Bologna used to interpret their own laws.[85] Civil law codifications based closely on Roman law, alongside some influences from religious laws such as canon law, continued to spread throughout Europe until the Enlightenment. Then, in the 19th century, both France, with the Code Civil, and Germany, with the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, modernised their legal codes. Both these codes heavily influenced not only the law systems of the countries in continental Europe but also the Japanese and Korean legal traditions.[86][87] A central doctrine in continental European legal thinking, originating in Germanjurisprudence, is the cocpet of a Rechtsstaat, meaning that everyone is subjected to the law, especially governments.[88] Today, countries that have civil law systems range from Russia and Turkey to most of Central and Latin America.[89]
In common law legal systems, decisions by courts are explicitly acknowledged as "law" on equal footing with legislative statutes and executive regulations. The "doctrine of precedent", or stare decisis (Latin for "to stand by decisions") means that decisions by higher courts bind lower courts to assure that similar cases reach similar results. In contrast, in civil law systems, legislative statutes are typically more detailed, and judicial decisions are shorter and less detailed because the adjudicator is only writing to decide the single case, rather than to set out reasoning that will guide future courts.
Common law originated from England and has been inherited by almost every country once tied to the British Empire (except Malta, Scotland, the U.S. state of Louisiana, and the Canadian province of Quebec). In medieval England during the Norman Conquest, the law varied shire-to-shire based on disparate tribal customs. The concept of a "common law" developed during the reign of Henry II during the late 12th century, when Henry appointed judges who had the authority to create an institutionalised and unified system of law common to the country. The next major step in the evolution of the common law came when King John was forced by his barons to sign a document limiting his authority to pass laws. This "great charter" or Magna Carta of 1215 also required that the King's entourage of judges hold their courts and judgments at "a certain place" rather than dispensing autocratic justice in unpredictable places about the country.[90] A concentrated and elite group of judges acquired a dominant role in law-making under this system, and compared to its European counterparts the English judiciary became highly centralised. In 1297, for instance, while the highest court in France had fifty-one judges, the English Court of Common Pleas had five.[91] This powerful and tight-knit judiciary gave rise to a systematised process of developing common law.[92]
As time went on, many felt that the common law was overly systematised and inflexible, and increasing numbers of citizens petitioned the King to override the common law. On the King's behalf, the Lord Chancellor started giving judgments to do what was equitable in a case. From the time of Sir Thomas More, the first lawyer to be appointed as Lord Chancellor, a systematic body of equity grew up alongside the rigid common law, and developed its own Court of Chancery. At first, equity was often criticised as erratic.[93] Over time, courts of equity developed solid principles, especially under Lord Eldon.[94] In the 19th century in England, and in 1937 in the U.S., the two systems were merged.
In developing the common law, academic writings have always played an important part, both to collect overarching principles from dispersed case law and to argue for change. William Blackstone, from around 1760, was the first scholar to collect, describe, and teach the common law.[95] But merely in describing, scholars who sought explanations and underlying structures slowly changed the way the law actually worked.[96]
Religious law is explicitly based on religious precepts. Examples include the Jewish Halakha and Islamic Sharia—both of which translate as the "path to follow". Christian canon law also survives in some church communities. Often the implication of religion for law is unalterability because the word of God cannot be amended or legislated against by judges or governments.[97] Nonetheless, most religious jurisdictions rely on further human elaboration to provide for thorough and detailed legal systems. For instance, the Quran has some law, and it acts as a source of further law through interpretation, Qiyas (reasoning by analogy), Ijma (consensus) and precedent.[98] This is mainly contained in a body of law and jurisprudence known as Sharia and Fiqh respectively. Another example is the Torah or Old Testament, in the Pentateuch or Five Books of Moses. This contains the basic code of Jewish law, which some Israeli communities choose to use. The Halakha is a code of Jewish law that summarizes some of the Talmud's interpretations.
Roman Catholic canon law is a fully developed legal system, with all the necessary elements: courts, lawyers, judges, a fully articulated legal code, principles of legal interpretation, and coercive penalties, though it lacks civilly-binding force in most secular jurisdictions.[106]
Until the 18th century, Sharia law was practiced throughout the Muslim world in a non-codified form, with the Ottoman Empire's Mecelle code in the 19th century being a first attempt at codifying elements of Sharia law. Since the mid-1940s, efforts have been made, in country after country, to bring Sharia law more into line with modern conditions and conceptions.[107][108] In modern times, the legal systems of many Muslim countries draw upon both civil and common law traditions as well as Islamic law and custom. The constitutions of certain Muslim states, such as Egypt and Afghanistan, recognise Islam as the religion of the state, obliging legislature to adhere to Sharia.[109]Saudi Arabia recognises the Quran as its constitution, and is governed on the basis of Islamic law.[110] Iran has also witnessed a reiteration of Islamic law into its legal system after 1979.[111] During the last few decades, one of the fundamental features of the movement of Islamic resurgence has been the call to restore the Sharia, which has generated a vast amount of literature and affected world politics.[112]
Socialist law is the legal systems in communist states such as the former Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China.[113] Academic opinion is divided on whether it is a separate system from civil law, given major deviations based on Marxist–Leninist ideology, such as subordinating the judiciary to the executive ruling party.[113][114][115]
There are distinguished methods of legal reasoning (applying the law) and methods of interpreting (construing) the law. The former are legal syllogism, which holds sway in civil law legal systems, analogy, which is present in common law legal systems, especially in the US, and argumentative theories that occur in both systems. The latter are different rules (directives) of legal interpretation such as directives of linguistic interpretation, teleological interpretation or systemic interpretation as well as more specific rules, for instance, golden rule or mischief rule. There are also many other arguments and cannons of interpretation which altogether make statutory interpretation possible.
Law professor and former United States Attorney GeneralEdward H. Levi noted that the "basic pattern of legal reasoning is reasoning by example"—that is, reasoning by comparing outcomes in cases resolving similar legal questions.[116] In a U.S. Supreme Court case regarding procedural efforts taken by a debt collection company to avoid errors, Justice Sotomayor cautioned that "legal reasoning is not a mechanical or strictly linear process".[117]
Jurimetrics is the formal application of quantitative methods, especially probability and statistics, to legal questions. The use of statistical methods in court cases and law review articles has grown massively in importance in the last few decades.[118][119]
It is a real unity of them all in one and the same person, made by covenant of every man with every man, in such manner as if every man should say to every man: I authorise and give up my right of governing myself to this man, or to this assembly of men, on this condition; that thou givest up, thy right to him, and authorise all his actions in like manner.
Max Weber and others reshaped thinking on the extension of state. Modern military, policing and bureaucratic power over ordinary citizens' daily lives pose special problems for accountability that earlier writers such as Locke or Montesquieu could not have foreseen. The custom and practice of the legal profession is an important part of people's access to justice, whilst civil society is a term used to refer to the social institutions, communities and partnerships that form law's political basis.
The judiciary is the system of courts that interprets, defends, and applies the law in the name of the state. The judiciary can also be thought of as the mechanism for the resolution of disputes. Under the doctrine of the separation of powers, the judiciary generally does not make statutory law (which is the responsibility of the legislature) or enforce law (which is the responsibility of the executive), but rather interprets, defends, and applies the law to the facts of each case. However, in some countries the judiciary does make common law.
In many jurisdictions the judicial branch has the power to change laws through the process of judicial review. Courts with judicial review power may annul the laws and rules of the state when it finds them incompatible with a higher norm, such as primary legislation, the provisions of the constitution, treaties or international law. Judges constitute a critical force for interpretation and implementation of a constitution, thus in common law countries creating the body of constitutional law.
Prominent examples of legislatures are the Houses of Parliament in London, the Congress in Washington, D.C., the Bundestag in Berlin, the Duma in Moscow, the Parlamento Italiano in Rome and the Assemblée nationale in Paris. By the principle of representative government people vote for politicians to carry out their wishes. Although countries like Israel, Greece, Sweden and China are unicameral, most countries are bicameral, meaning they have two separately appointed legislative houses.[123]
In the 'lower house' politicians are elected to represent smaller constituencies. The 'upper house' is usually elected to represent states in a federal system (as in Australia, Germany or the United States) or different voting configuration in a unitary system (as in France). In the UK the upper house is appointed by the government as a house of review. One criticism of bicameral systems with two elected chambers is that the upper and lower houses may simply mirror one another. The traditional justification of bicameralism is that an upper chamber acts as a house of review. This can minimise arbitrariness and injustice in governmental action.[123]
To pass legislation, a majority of the members of a legislature must vote for a bill (proposed law) in each house. Normally there will be several readings and amendments proposed by the different political factions. If a country has an entrenched constitution, a special majority for changes to the constitution may be required, making changes to the law more difficult. A government usually leads the process, which can be formed from Members of Parliament (e.g. the UK or Germany). However, in a presidential system, the government is usually formed by an executive and his or her appointed cabinet officials (e.g. the United States or Brazil).[d]
The G20 meetings are composed of representatives of each country's executive branch.
The executive in a legal system serves as the centre of political authority of the State. In a parliamentary system, as with Britain, Italy, Germany, India, and Japan, the executive is known as the cabinet, and composed of members of the legislature. The executive is led by the head of government, whose office holds power under the confidence of the legislature. Because popular elections appoint political parties to govern, the leader of a party can change in between elections.[124]
Although the role of the executive varies from country to country, usually it will propose the majority of legislation, and propose government agenda. In presidential systems, the executive often has the power to veto legislation. Most executives in both systems are responsible for foreign relations, the military and police, and the bureaucracy. Ministers or other officials head a country's public offices, such as a foreign ministry or defence ministry. The election of a different executive is therefore capable of revolutionising an entire country's approach to government.
While military organisations have existed as long as government itself, the idea of a standing police force is a relatively modern concept. For example, Medieval England's system of travelling criminal courts, or assizes, used show trials and public executions to instill communities with fear to maintain control.[126] The first modern police were probably those in 17th-century Paris, in the court of Louis XIV,[127] although the Paris Prefecture of Police claim they were the world's first uniformed policemen.[128]
Max Weber famously argued that the state is that which controls the monopoly on the legitimate use of force.[129][130] The military and police carry out enforcement at the request of the government or the courts. The term failed state refers to states that cannot implement or enforce policies; their police and military no longer control security and order and society moves into anarchy, the absence of government.[e]
The etymology of bureaucracy derives from the French word for office (bureau) and the Ancient Greek for word power (kratos).[131][better source needed] Like the military and police, a legal system's government servants and bodies that make up its bureaucracy carry out the directives of the executive. One of the earliest references to the concept was made by Baron de Grimm, a German author who lived in France. In 1765, he wrote:
The real spirit of the laws in France is that bureaucracy of which the late Monsieur de Gournay used to complain so greatly; here the offices, clerks, secretaries, inspectors and intendants are not appointed to benefit the public interest, indeed the public interest appears to have been established so that offices might exist.[132]
Cynicism over "officialdom" is still common, and the workings of public servants is typically contrasted to private enterprise motivated by profit.[133] In fact private companies, especially large ones, also have bureaucracies.[134] Negative perceptions of "red tape" aside, public services such as schooling, health care, policing or public transport are considered a crucial state function making public bureaucratic action the locus of government power.[134]
Writing in the early 20th century, Max Weber believed that a definitive feature of a developed state had come to be its bureaucratic support.[135] Weber wrote that the typical characteristics of modern bureaucracy are that officials define its mission, the scope of work is bound by rules, and management is composed of career experts who manage top down, communicating through writing and binding public servants' discretion with rules.[136]
A corollary of the rule of law is the existence of a legal profession sufficiently autonomous to invoke the authority of the independent judiciary; the right to assistance of a barrister in a court proceeding emanates from this corollary—in England the function of barrister or advocate is distinguished from legal counselor.[137] As the European Court of Human Rights has stated, the law should be adequately accessible to everyone and people should be able to foresee how the law affects them.[138]
Many Muslim countries have developed similar rules about legal education and the legal profession, but some still allow lawyers with training in traditional Islamic law to practice law before personal status law courts.[141] In China and other developing countries there are not sufficient professionally trained people to staff the existing judicial systems, and, accordingly, formal standards are more relaxed.[142]
Once accredited, a lawyer will often work in a law firm, in a chambers as a sole practitioner, in a government post or in a private corporation as an internal counsel. In addition a lawyer may become a legal researcher who provides on-demand legal research through a library, a commercial service or freelance work. Many people trained in law put their skills to use outside the legal field entirely.[143]
Significant to the practice of law in the common law tradition is the legal research to determine the current state of the law. This usually entails exploring case-law reports, legal periodicals and legislation. Law practice also involves drafting documents such as court pleadings, persuasive briefs, contracts, or wills and trusts. Negotiation and dispute resolution skills (including ADR techniques) are also important to legal practice, depending on the field.[143]
Hegel believed that civil society and the state were polar opposites, within the scheme of his dialectic theory of history. The modern dipole state–civil society was reproduced in the theories of Alexis de Tocqueville and Karl Marx.[148][149] In post-modern theory, civil society is necessarily a source of law, by being the basis from which people form opinions and lobby for what they believe law should be. As Australian barrister and author Geoffrey Robertson QC wrote of international law, "one of its primary modern sources is found in the responses of ordinary men and women, and of the non-governmental organizations which many of them support, to the human rights abuses they see on the television screen in their living rooms."[150]
Freedom of speech, freedom of association and many other individual rights allow people to gather, discuss, criticise and hold to account their governments, from which the basis of a deliberative democracy is formed. The more people are involved with, concerned by and capable of changing how political power is exercised over their lives, the more acceptable and legitimate the law becomes to the people. The most familiar institutions of civil society include economic markets, profit-oriented firms, families, trade unions, hospitals, universities, schools, charities, debating clubs, non-governmental organisations, neighbourhoods, churches, and religious associations. There is no clear legal definition of the civil society, and of the institutions it includes. Most of the institutions and bodies who try to give a list of institutions (such as the European Economic and Social Committee) exclude the political parties.[151][152][153]
All legal systems deal with the same basic issues, but jurisdictions categorise and identify their legal topics in different ways. A common distinction is that between "public law" (a term related closely to the state, and including constitutional, administrative and criminal law), and "private law" (which covers contract, tort and property).[f] In civil law systems, contract and tort fall under a general law of obligations, while trusts law is dealt with under statutory regimes or international conventions. International, constitutional and administrative law, criminal law, contract, tort, property law and trusts are regarded as the "traditional core subjects",[g] although there are many further disciplines.
International law, also known as public international law and the law of nations, is the set of rules, norms, legal customs and standards that states and other actors feel an obligation to, and generally do, obey in their mutual relations. In international relations, actors are simply the individuals and collective entities, such as states, international organizations, and non-state groups, which can make behavioral choices, whether lawful or unlawful. Rules are formal, typically written expectations that outline required behavior, while norms are informal, often unwritten guidelines about appropriate behavior that are shaped by custom and social practice.[154] It establishes norms for states across a broad range of domains, including war and diplomacy, economic relations, and human rights.
International law differs from state-based domestic legal systems in that it operates largely through consent, since there is no universally accepted authority to enforce it upon sovereign states. States and non-state actors may choose to not abide by international law, and even to breach a treaty, but such violations, particularly of peremptory norms, can be met with disapproval by others and in some cases coercive action including diplomacy, economic sanctions, and war. The lack of a final authority in international law can also cause far reaching differences. This is partly the effect of states being able to interpret international law in a manner which they seem fit. This can lead to problematic stances which can have large local effects.[155]
Constitutional and administrative law govern the affairs of the state. Constitutional law concerns both the relationships between the executive, legislature and judiciary and the human rights or civil liberties of individuals against the state. Most jurisdictions, like the United States and France, have a single codified constitution with a bill of rights. A few, like the United Kingdom, have no such document. A "constitution" is simply those laws which constitute the body politic, from statute, case law and convention.
The fundamental constitutional principle, inspired by John Locke, holds that the individual can do anything except that which is forbidden by law, and the state may do nothing except that which is authorised by law.[156][157] Administrative law is the chief method for people to hold state bodies to account. People (wheresoever allowed) may potentially have prerogative to legally challenge (or sue) an agency, local council, public service, or government ministry for judicial review of the offending edict (law, ordinance, policy order). Such challenge vets the ability of actionable authority under the law, and that the government entity observed required procedure. The first specialist administrative court was the Conseil d'État set up in 1799, as Napoleon assumed power in France.[158]
Criminal law, also known as penal law, pertains to crimes and punishment.[159] It thus regulates the definition of and penalties for offences found to have a sufficiently deleterious social impact but, in itself, makes no moral judgment on an offender nor imposes restrictions on society that physically prevent people from committing a crime in the first place.[160][161] Investigating, apprehending, charging, and trying suspected offenders is regulated by the law of criminal procedure.[162] The paradigm case of a crime lies in the proof, beyond reasonable doubt, that a person is guilty of two things. First, the accused must commit an act which is deemed by society to be criminal, or actus reus (guilty act).[163] Second, the accused must have the requisite malicious intent to do a criminal act, or mens rea (guilty mind). However, for so called "strict liability" crimes, an actus reus is enough.[164] Criminal systems of the civil law tradition distinguish between intention in the broad sense (dolus directus and dolus eventualis), and negligence. Negligence does not carry criminal responsibility unless a particular crime provides for its punishment.[165][166]
Adolf Eichmann (standing in glass booth at left) being sentenced to death at the conclusion of his 1961 trial, an example of a criminal law proceeding
Examples of crimes include murder, assault, fraud and theft. In exceptional circumstances defences can apply to specific acts, such as killing in self defence, or pleading insanity. Another example is in the 19th-century English case of R v Dudley and Stephens, which tested whether a defence of "necessity" could justify murder and cannibalism to survive a shipwreck.[167]
Criminal law offences are viewed as offences against not just individual victims, but the community as well.[160][161] The state, usually with the help of police, takes the lead in prosecution, which is why in common law countries cases are cited as "The People v ..." or "R (for Rex or Regina) v ...". Also, lay juries are often used to determine the guilt of defendants on points of fact: juries cannot change legal rules. Some developed countries still condone capital punishment for criminal activity, but the normal punishment for a crime will be imprisonment, fines, state supervision (such as probation), or community service. Modern criminal law has been affected considerably by the social sciences, especially with respect to sentencing, legal research, legislation, and rehabilitation.[168] On the international field, 111 countries are members of the International Criminal Court, which was established to try people for crimes against humanity.[169]
Consideration indicates the fact that all parties to a contract have exchanged something of value. Some common law systems, including Australia, are moving away from the idea of consideration as a requirement. The idea of estoppel or culpa in contrahendo, can be used to create obligations during pre-contractual negotiations.[171]
Civil law jurisdictions treat contracts differently in a number of respects, with a more interventionist role for the state in both the formation and enforcement of contracts.[172] Compared to common law jurisdictions, civil law systems incorporate more mandatory terms into contracts, allow greater latitude for courts to interpret and revise contract terms and impose a stronger duty of good faith, but are also more likely to enforce penalty clauses and specific performance of contracts.[172] They also do not require consideration for a contract to be binding.[173] In France, an ordinary contract is said to form simply on the basis of a "meeting of the minds" or a "concurrence of wills". Germany has a special approach to contracts, which ties into property law. Their 'abstraction principle' (Abstraktionsprinzip) means that the personal obligation of contract forms separately from the title of property being conferred. When contracts are invalidated for some reason (e.g. a car buyer is so drunk that he lacks legal capacity to contract)[174] the contractual obligation to pay can be invalidated separately from the proprietary title of the car. Unjust enrichment law, rather than contract law, is then used to restore title to the rightful owner.[175]
Certain civil wrongs are grouped together as torts under common law systems and delicts under civil law systems.[176] To have acted tortiously, one must have breached a duty to another person, or infringed some pre-existing legal right. A simple example might be unintentionally hitting someone with a ball.[177] Under the law of negligence, the most common form of tort, the injured party could potentially claim compensation for their injuries from the party responsible. The principles of negligence are illustrated by Donoghue v Stevenson.[h] A friend of Donoghue ordered an opaque bottle of ginger beer (intended for the consumption of Donoghue) in a café in Paisley. Having consumed half of it, Donoghue poured the remainder into a tumbler. The decomposing remains of a snail floated out. She claimed to have suffered from shock, fell ill with gastroenteritis and sued the manufacturer for carelessly allowing the drink to be contaminated. The House of Lords decided that the manufacturer was liable for Mrs Donoghue's illness. Lord Atkin took a distinctly moral approach and said:
The liability for negligence [...] is no doubt based upon a general public sentiment of moral wrongdoing for which the offender must pay. [...] The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law, you must not injure your neighbour; and the lawyer's question, Who is my neighbour? receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour.[178]
This became the basis for the four principles of negligence, namely that:
Stevenson owed Donoghue a duty of care to provide safe drinks;
Another example of tort might be a neighbour making excessively loud noises with machinery on his property.[179] Under a nuisance claim the noise could be stopped. Torts can also involve intentional acts such as assault, battery or trespass. A better known tort is defamation, which occurs, for example, when a newspaper makes unsupportable allegations that damage a politician's reputation.[180] More infamous are economic torts, which form the basis of labour law in some countries by making trade unions liable for strikes,[181] when statute does not provide immunity.[i]
Property law governs ownership and possession. Real property, sometimes called 'real estate', refers to ownership of land and things attached to it.[183]Personal property, refers to everything else; movable objects, such as computers, cars, jewelry or intangible rights, such as stocks and shares. A right in rem is a right to a specific piece of property, contrasting to a right in personam which allows compensation for a loss, but not a particular thing back. Land law forms the basis for most kinds of property law, and is the most complex. It concerns mortgages, rental agreements, licences, covenants, easements and the statutory systems for land registration. Regulations on the use of personal property fall under intellectual property, company law, trusts and commercial law.
A representative example of property law is the 1722 suit of Armory v Delamirie, applying English law.[184] A child was deprived of possession of the gemstones that had been set in piece of jewellery, by the businessperson entrusted to appraise the piece. The court articulated that, according to the view of property in common law jurisdictions, the person who can show the best claim to a piece of property, against any contesting party, is the owner.[185] By contrast, the classic civil law approach to property, propounded by Friedrich Carl von Savigny, is that it is a right good against the world. Obligations, like contracts and torts, are conceptualised as rights good between individuals.[186] The idea of property raises many further philosophical and political issues. Locke argued that our "lives, liberties and estates" are our property because we own our bodies and mix our labour with our surroundings.[187]
In historical English law, the common law did not permit dividing the ownership from the control of one piece of property—but the law of equity did recognize this through an arrangement known as a trust. Trustees control property whereas the beneficial, or equitable, ownership of trust property is held by people known as beneficiaries. Trustees owe duties to their beneficiaries to take good care of the entrusted property.[188] Another example of a trustee's duty might be to invest property wisely or sell it.[189] This is especially the case for pension funds, the most important form of trust, where investors are trustees for people's savings until retirement. But trusts can also be set up for charitable purposes.
Some international norms for the structure and regulation of trusts are set out in the Hague Trust Convention of 1985.
In the 18th century, Adam Smith presented a philosophical foundation for explaining the relationship between law and economics.[j] The discipline arose partly out of a critique of trade unions and U.S. antitrust law.[citation needed]
The most prominent economic analyst of law[citation needed] is Ronald Coase, whose first major article, The Nature of the Firm (1937), argued that the reason for the existence of firms (companies, partnerships, etc.) is the existence of transaction costs.[190]Rational individuals trade through bilateral contracts on open markets until the costs of transactions mean that using corporations to produce things is more cost-effective. His second major article, The Problem of Social Cost (1960), argued that if we lived in a world without transaction costs, people would bargain with one another to create the same allocation of resources, regardless of the way a court might rule in property disputes. He contended that law ought to be pre-emptive, and be guided by the most efficient solution.[191]
The sociology of law examines the interaction of law with society and overlaps with jurisprudence, philosophy of law, social theory and more specialised subjects such as criminology.[193][194] It is a transdisciplinary and multidisciplinary study focused on the theorisation and empirical study of legal practices and experiences as social phenomena. The institutions of social construction, social norms, dispute processing and legal culture are key areas for inquiry in this knowledge field. In the United States, the field is usually called law and society studies; in Europe, it is more often referred to as socio-legal studies. At first, jurists and legal philosophers were suspicious of sociology of law. Kelsen attacked one of its founders, Eugen Ehrlich, who sought to make clear the differences and connections between positive law, which lawyers learn and apply, and other forms of 'law' or social norms that regulate everyday life, generally preventing conflicts from reaching lawyers and courts.[195] Contemporary research in the sociology of law is concerned with the way that law develops outside discrete state jurisdictions, being produced through social interaction in social arenas, and acquiring a diversity of sources of authority in national and transnational communal networks.[196]
Max Weber, who began his career as a lawyer, and is regarded as one of the founders of sociology and sociology of law
Around 1900, Max Weber defined his "scientific" approach to law, identifying the "legal rational form" as a type of domination, not attributable to personal authority but to the authority of abstract norms.[197] Formal legal rationality was his term for the key characteristic of the kind of coherent and calculable law that was a precondition for modern political developments and the modern bureaucratic state. Weber saw this law as having developed in parallel with the growth of capitalism.[193][194] Another sociologist, Émile Durkheim, wrote in his classic work The Division of Labour in Society that as society becomes more complex, the body of civil law concerned primarily with restitution and compensation grows at the expense of criminal laws and penal sanctions.[198][199] Other notable early legal sociologists included Hugo Sinzheimer, Theodor Geiger, Georges Gurvitch and Leon Petrażycki in Europe, and William Graham Sumner in the U.S.[200][201]
^As a legal system, Roman law has affected the development of law worldwide. It also forms the basis for the law codes of most countries of continental Europe and has played an important role in the creation of the idea of a common European culture (Stein, Roman Law in European History, 2, 104–107).
^Civil law jurisdictions recognise custom as "the other source of law"; hence, scholars tend to divide the civil law into the broad categories of "written law" (ius scriptum) or legislation, and "unwritten law" (ius non-scriptum) or custom. Yet they tend to dismiss custom as being of slight importance compared to legislation (Georgiadis, General Principles of Civil Law, 19; Washofsky, Taking Precedent Seriously, 7).
^«In one of his elaborate orations in the United States Senate Mr. Charles Sumner spoke of "the generous presumption of the common law in favor of the innocence of an accused person;" yet it must be admitted that such a presumption cannot be found in Anglo-Saxon law, where sometimes the presumption seems to have been the other way. And in a very recent case in the Supreme Court of the United States, the case of Coffin, 156 U. S. 432, it is pointed out that this presumption was fully established in the Roman law, and was preserved in the canon law.»[105]
^About "cabinet accountability" in both presidential and parliamentary systems, see Shugart–Haggard, Presidential Systems, 67 etc.
^In these cases sovereignty is eroded, and often warlords acquire excessive powers (Fukuyama, State-Building, 166–167).
^Although many scholars argue that "the boundaries between public and private law are becoming blurred", and that this distinction has become mere "folklore" (Bergkamp, Liability and Environment, 1–2).
^E.g. in England these seven subjects, with EU law substituted for international law, make up a "qualifying law degree". For criticism, see Peter Birks' poignant comments attached to a previous version of the Notice to Law SchoolsArchived 20 June 2009 at the Wayback Machine.
^According to Malloy, Smith established "a classical liberal philosophy that made individuals the key referential sign while acknowledging that we live not alone but in community with others".(Law and Economics, 114)
^Núñez Vaquero, Álvaro (10 June 2013). "Five Models of Legal Science". Revus. Journal for Constitutional Theory and Philosophy of Law / Revija za ustavno teorijo in filozofijo prava (19): 53–81. doi:10.4000/revus.2449. ISSN1581-7652. Archived from the original on 31 December 2019. Retrieved 31 December 2019.
^Mason, Anthony (1996). "The Judge as Law-maker"(PDF). James Cook University Mayo Lecture. Archived(PDF) from the original on 31 December 2019. Retrieved 31 December 2019.
^Berman, Harold J. (1983). "Religious Foundations of Law in the West: An Historical Perspective". Journal of Law and Religion. 1 (1). Cambridge University Press: 3–43. doi:10.2307/1051071. JSTOR1051071. S2CID146933872.
^Fox, Jonathan; Sandler, Shmuel (1 April 2005). "Separation of Religion and State in the Twenty-First Century: Comparing the Middle East and Western Democracies". Comparative Politics. 37 (3): 317. doi:10.2307/20072892. JSTOR20072892.
^Otto, Jan Michiel, ed. (2010). Sharia incorporated: a comparative overview of the legal systems of twelve Muslim countries in past and present. Leiden University Press. ISBN9789087280574.
^Bor, Fredric L. (1974). "The nexus between philosophy and law". Journal of Legal Education. 26 (4): 539–543. ISSN0022-2208. JSTOR42896964.
^Rubin, Paul H. "Law and Economics". The Library of Economics and Liberty. Liberty Fund, Inc. Archived from the original on 2 July 2019. Retrieved 31 December 2019.
^Banakar, Reza (2003). Merging law and sociology : beyond the dichotomies in socio-legal research. Berlin/Wisconsin: Galda and Wilch Publishing. ISBN1-931255-13-X.
^Williams, Glanville. International Law and the Controversy Concerning the Meaning of the Word "Law". Revised version published in Laslett (Editor), Philosophy, Politics and Society (1956) p. 134 et seq. The original was published in (1945) 22 BYBIL 146.
^Holmes, Oliver Wendell. "The Path of Law" (1897) 10 Harvard Law Review 457 at 461.
^Aquinas, St Thomas. Summa Theologica. 1a2ae, 90.4. Translated by J G Dawson. Ed d'Entreves. (Basil Blackwell). Latin: "nihil est aliud qau edam rationis ordinatio ad bonum commune, ab eo qi curam communitatis habet, promulgata".
^McCoubrey, Hilaire and White, Nigel D. Textbook on Jurisprudence. Second Edition. Blackstone Press Limited. 1996. ISBN1-85431-582-X. p. 73.
^Taylor, T. W. (January 1896). "The Conception of Morality in Jurisprudence". The Philosophical Review. 5 (1): 36–50. doi:10.2307/2176104. JSTOR2176104.
^Marmor, Andrei (1934). "The Pure Theory of Law". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Archived from the original on 9 June 2007. Retrieved 9 February 2007.
^Bielefeldt, Carl Schmitt's Critique of Liberalism, 25–26
^Clarke, M. A.; Hooley, R. J. A.; Munday, R. J. C.; Sealy, L. S.; Tettenborn, A. M.; Turner, P. G. (2017). Commercial Law. Oxford University Press. p. 14. ISBN9780199692088. Archived from the original on 15 April 2021. Retrieved 10 December 2020.
^McAuliffe, Karen (21 February 2013). "Precedent at the Court of Justice of the European Union: The Linguistic Aspect". In Michael Freeman; Fiona Smith (eds.). Law and Language: Current Legal Issues, Volume 15. Oxford University Press. ISBN9780199673667. Archived from the original on 1 January 2020. Retrieved 1 January 2020.
^For discussion of the composition and dating of these sources, see Olivelle, Manu's Code of Law, 18–25.
^Pollock (ed) Table Talk of John Selden (1927) 43; "Equity is a roguish thing. For law we have a measure... equity is according to the conscience of him that is Chancellor, and as that is longer or narrower, so is equity. 'Tis all one as if they should make the standard for the measure a Chancellor's foot."
^Ferrari, Silvio (2012). "Chapter 4: Canon Law as a Religious Legal System". In Huxley, Andrew (ed.). Religion, Law and Tradition: Comparative Studies in Religious Law. Routledge. p. 51. ISBN978-1-136-13250-6. Divine law... is eternal and cannot be changed by any human authority.
^Boudinhon, Auguste (1910). "Canon Law". The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 9. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Archived from the original on 31 March 2019. Retrieved 9 August 2013.
^Wiesner-Hanks, Merry (2011). Gender in History: Global Perspectives. Wiley Blackwell. p. 37.
^Raymond Wacks, Law: A Very Short Introduction, 2nd Ed. (Oxford University Press, 2015) pg. 13.
^Peters, Edward. "Home Page". CanonLaw.info. Archived from the original on 28 September 2011. Retrieved 24 September 2019.
^Friedman, Lawrence M., American Law: An Introduction (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1984), pg. 70.
^William Wirt Howe, Studies in the Civil Law, and its Relation to the Law of England and America (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1896), pg. 51.
^A. Brundag, James (2010). he Medieval Origins of the Legal Profession: Canonists, Civilians, and Courts. University of Chicago Press. p. 116. ISBN978-0226077598.
^Quigley, J. (1989). "Socialist Law and the Civil Law Tradition". The American Journal of Comparative Law. 37 (4): 781–808. doi:10.2307/840224. JSTOR840224.
^Heise, Michael (1999). "The Importance of Being Empirical". Pepperdine Law Review. 26 (4): 807–834. Archived from the original on 25 February 2021. Retrieved 18 December 2019.
^Olson, The New Parliaments of Central and Eastern Europe, 7
^See, e.g. Tuberville v Savage (1669), 1 Mod. Rep. 3, 86 Eng. Rep. 684, where a knight said in a threatening tone to a layperson, "If it were not assize time, I would not take such language from you."
^(Pelczynski, The State and Civil Society, 1–13; Warren, Civil Society, 5–9)
^Zaleski, Pawel (2008). "Tocqueville on Civilian Society. A Romantic Vision of the Dichotomic Structure of Social Reality". Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte. 50.
^Erakat, Noura (2019). Justice for some: law and the question of Palestine. Stanford (Calif.): Stanford University Press. pp. 7–10. ISBN978-0-8047-9825-9.
^About R v Dudley and Stephens [1884] 14 QBD 273 DCArchived 28 February 2005 at the Wayback Machine, see Simpson, Cannibalism and the Common Law, 212–217, 229–237
^Ehrlich, Fundamental Principles, Hertogh, Living Law, Rottleuthner, La Sociologie du Droit en Allemagne, 109, Rottleuthner, Rechtstheoritische Probleme der Sociologie des Rechts, 521
Ahmad, Ahmad Atif (2009). "Lawyers: Islamic Law"(PDF). Oxford Encyclopedia of Legal History. Oxford University Press. Archived from the original(PDF) on 26 March 2009.
Akhlaghi, Behrooz (2005). "Iranian Commercial Law and the New Investment Law FIPPA". In Yassari, Nadjma (ed.). The Sharīʻa in the Constitutions of Afghanistan, Iran, and Egypt. Mohr Siebeck. ISBN978-3-16-148787-3.
Albrow, Martin (1970). Bureaucracy (Key Concepts in Political Science). London: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN978-0-333-11262-5.
Anderson, J.N.D. (January 1956). "Law Reform in the Middle East". International Affairs. 32 (1): 43–51. doi:10.2307/2607811. JSTOR2607811.
Arnold, Thurman W. (1935). "The Symbols of Government". American Political Science Review. New Haven: Yale University Press: 379.
Auby, Jean-Bernard (2002). "Administrative Law in France". In Stroink, F.A.M.; Seerden, René (eds.). Administrative Law of the European Union, its Member States and the United States. Intersentia. ISBN978-90-5095-251-4.
Barzilai, Gad (2003). Communities and Law: Politics and Cultures of Legal Identities. The University of Michigan Press. ISBN978-0-472-11315-6.
Bayles, Michael D. (1992). "A Critique of Austin". Hart's Legal Philosophy. Springer. ISBN978-0-7923-1981-8.
Brody, David C.; Acker, James R.; Logan, Wayne A. (2001). "Introduction to the Study of Criminal Law". Criminal Law. Jones & Bartlett Publishers. ISBN978-0-8342-1083-7.
Campbell, Tom D. (1993). "The Contribution of Legal Studies". In Robert E. Goodin; Philip Pettit (eds.). A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishing. ISBN978-0-631-19951-9.
Churchill, Winston (1986). "Problems of War and Peace". The Hinge of Fate. Houghton Mifflin Books. ISBN978-0-395-41058-5.
Clarke, Paul A. B.; Linzey, Andrew (1996). Dictionary of Ethics, Theology and Society. London: Routledge. ISBN978-0-415-06212-1.
Curtin, Deirdre; Wessel, Ramses A. (2005). "A Survey of the Content of Good Governance for some International Organisations". Good Governance and the European Union: Reflections on Concepts, Institutions and Substance. Intersentia nv. ISBN978-90-5095-381-8.
Demirgüç-Kunt, Asli; Levine, Ross (2001). Financial Structures and Economic Growth. MIT Press. ISBN978-0-262-54179-4.
Dicey, Albert Venn (2005). "Parliamentary Sovereignty and Federalism". Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution. Adamant Media Corporation. ISBN978-1-4021-8555-7.
Dörmann, Knut; Doswald-Beck, Louise; Kolb, Robert (2003). "Appendix". Elements of War Crimes. Cambridge University Press. ISBN978-0-521-81852-0.
Ehrlich, Eugen (2002) [1936]. Fundamental Principles of the Sociology of Law. Transaction Books reprint.
Farah, Paolo (August 2006). "Five Years of China WTO Membership. EU and US Perspectives about China's Compliance with Transparency Commitments and the Transitional Review Mechanism". Legal Issues of Economic Integration. 33 (3): 263–304. doi:10.54648/LEIE2006016. S2CID153128973. SSRN916768.
Fine, Tony F. (2001). "The Globalization of Legal Education in the United States". In Drolshammer, Jens I.; Pfeifer, Michael (eds.). The Internationalization of the Practice of Law. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. ISBN978-90-411-1620-8.
Goldhaber, Michael D. (2007). "Europe's Supreme Court". A People's History of the European Court of Human Rights. Rutgers University Press. ISBN978-0-8135-3983-6.
Gordley, James R.; von Mehren, Arthur Taylor (2006). An Introduction to the Comparative Study of Private Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN978-0-521-68185-8.
Haggard, Stephan; Shugart, Matthew Soberg (2001). "Institutions and Public Policy in Presidential Systems". In Haggard, Stephan; McCubbins, Mathew Daniel (eds.). Presidents, Parliaments and Policy. Cambridge University Press. ISBN978-0-521-77485-7.
Hallaq, Wael Bahjat (2005). "Introduction". The Origins and Evolution of Islamic Law. Cambridge University Press. ISBN978-0-521-00580-7.
Hamilton, Michael S., and George W. Spiro (2008). The Dynamics of Law, 4th ed. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc. ISBN978-0-7656-2086-6.
Hatzis, Aristides N. (November 2002). "The Nature of the Firm". European Journal of Law and Economics. 14 (3): 253–263. doi:10.1023/A:1020749518104. S2CID142679220.
Jensen, Eric G.; Heller, Thomas C. (2003). "Introduction". In Jensen, Eric G.; Heller, Thomas C. (eds.). Beyond Common Knowledge. Stanford University Press. ISBN978-0-8047-4803-2.
Kaiser, Dagmar (2005). "Leistungsstōrungen". In Staudinger, Julius von; Martinek, Michael; Beckmann, Roland Michael (eds.). Eckpfeiler Des Zivilrechts. Walter de Gruyter. ISBN978-3-8059-1019-4.
Kaldor, Mary; Anheier, Helmut; Glasius, Marlies (2003). "Global Civil Society in an Era of Regressive Globalisation". In Kaldor, Mary; Anheier, Helmut; Glasius, Marlies (eds.). Global Civil Society Yearbook 2003. Oxford University Press. ISBN978-0-19-926655-5.
Karkatsoulis, Panagioti (2004). "Civil Society and New Public Management". The State in Transitions(PDF) (in Greek). Athens: I. Sideris. ISBN978-960-08-0333-4. Archived from the original(PDF) on 17 August 2007. Retrieved 2 September 2008.
Kazantzakis, Nikos (1998) [1909]. "Law". Friedrich Nietzsche and the Philosophy of Law and Polity (in Greek). Athens: Editions Kazantzakis.
Kelly, J.M. (1992). A Short History of Western Legal Theory. Oxford University Press. ISBN978-0-19-876244-7.
Mattei, Ugo (1997). "The Distinction between Common Law and Civil Law". Comparative Law and Economics. University of Michigan Press. ISBN978-0-472-06649-0.
Nietzsche, Friedrich (1887). "Zweite Abhandlung: "Schuld", "schlechtes Gewissen" und Verwandtes". Zur Genealogie der Moral – Eine Streitschrift (in German).
Ober, Josiah (1996). "The Nature of Athenian Democracy". The Athenian Revolution: Essays on Ancient Greek Democracy and Political Theory. Princeton University Press. ISBN978-0-691-00190-6.
Olivelle, Patrick (2005). Manu's Code of Law: A Critical Edition and Translation of the Manava-Dharmasastra. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN978-0-19-517146-4.
Pelczynski, A.Z. (1984). The State and Civil Society. Cambridge University Press.
Petersmann, Ernst-Ulrich (1997). "Rule of Law and Constitutionalism". The GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement System. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. ISBN978-90-411-0933-0.
Rasekh, Mohammad (2005). "Are Islamism and Republicanism Compatible?". In Yassari, Nadjma (ed.). The Sharīʻa in the Constitutions of Afghanistan, Iran, and Egypt. Mohr Siebeck. ISBN978-3-16-148787-3.
Redfem, Alan (2004). "Regulation of International Arbitration". Law and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration. Sweet & Maxwell. ISBN978-0-421-86240-1.
Rheinstein, M. (1954). Max Weber on Law and Economy in Society. Harvard University Press.
Roeber, A. G. (October 2001). "What the Law Requires Is Written on Their Hearts: Noachic and Natural Law among German-Speakers in Early Modern North America". William and Mary Quarterly. Third Series. 58 (4): 883–912. doi:10.2307/2674504. JSTOR2674504.
Rottleuthner, Hubert (1984). "Rechtstheoritische Probleme der Sociologie des Rechts. Die Kontroverse zwischen Hans Kelsen und Eugen Ehrlich (1915/17)". Rechtstheorie (in German). 5: 521–551.
Schermers, Henry G.; Blokker, Niels M. (1995). "Supervision and Sanctions". International Institutional Law. The Hague/London/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publisher.
Sherif, Adel Omar (2005). "Constitutions of Arab Countries and the Position of Sharia". In Yassari, Nadjma (ed.). The Sharīʻa in the Constitutions of Afghanistan, Iran, and Egypt. Mohr Siebeck. ISBN978-3-16-148787-3.
Simpson, A.W.B. (1984). Cannibalism and the Common Law. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN978-0-226-75942-5.
Tamanaha, Brian Z. (2004). "Locke, Montesquieu the Federalist Papers". On the Rule of Law. Cambridge University Press. ISBN978-0-521-60465-9.
Théodoridés, Aristide (1999). "law". Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt. Routledge (UK). 0-415-18589-0.
VerSteeg, Russ (2002). Law in Ancient Egypt. Durham, N.C.: Carolina Academic Press. ISBN978-0-89089-978-6.
Warren, Mark E. (1999). Civil Society and Good Governance(PDF). Washington DC: Center for the Study of Voluntary Organisations and Services, Georgetown University. Archived from the original(PDF) on 29 October 2008.
Washofsky, Mark (2002). "Taking Precedent Seriously". Re-Examining Progressive Halakhah edited by Walter Jacob, Moshe Zemer. Berghahn Books. ISBN978-1-57181-404-3.
Weber, Max (1978). "Bureaucracy and Political Leadership". Economy and Society, Volume I (Translated and edited by Claus Wittich, Ephraim Fischoff, and Guenther Roth). University of California Press. ISBN978-0-520-03500-3.
Weber, Max (1964). The Theory of Social and Economic Organization (Edited with Introduction by Talcott Parsons – Translated in English by A. M. Henderson). The Free Press of Glencoe. ASIN B-000-LRHAX-2.
How Does Fleetwood Family Law Incorporate Technology to Streamline Communication and Document Sharing With Clients?
Fleetwood Family Law uses cutting-edge technology to make your life easier. You'll enjoy streamlined communication and effortless document sharing, ensuring you're always up-to-date and can access your case details anytime, anywhere.
How Does Fleetwood Family Law Support Clients in Dealing With Emotional Abuse or Manipulation From a Spouse During the Divorce Process?
You'll get support from them in handling emotional abuse or manipulation from your spouse during the divorce. They provide legal strategies and emotional support to protect your interests and help you navigate through this tough time.
Can Fleetwood Family Law Assist With Enforcing or Challenging Prenuptial Agreements During a Divorce?
Yes, Fleetwood Family Law can help you enforce or challenge prenuptial agreements during your divorce. They've got the expertise to navigate these complex issues, ensuring your interests are protected throughout the process.