In this quote, Guido Calabresi questions the relevance of the unitary view of Economic Analysis of Law by identifying two separate areas of study, respectively Economic Analysis of Law and Law and Economics. According to the author, the first area covers the use of economics to analyse and modify the legal word when the second area is the use of Law as a descriptive tool of reality on which economic analysis is built. This issue might appear to be one of terminology, of semantic. But it is far more an issue of definition of this academic field, issue that raises several questions: how can we define Economic Analysis of Law? What are its aims? Is Law and Economics different from Economic Analysis of Law? In this short essay, I will argue that …show more content…
If we stick to the semantic meaning of Economic Analysis of Law, we ought to see it as the “application of economic theory to the study of law as an object or as a mechanism” . This definition is broadly shared from Guido Calabresi to Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy or even from non-Anglo-Saxon scholars such as Yannick Gabuthy as he states that “Economic Analysis of Law consists in using economists’ tools and evaluation criteria in order to study legal issues”. However, if Law and Economics and Economic Analysis of Law cover the exact same study field, and if we keep the definition above-mentioned, then how should we call the other fields of study involving both law and economics? Thus, I suggest that Law and Economics should be understood in a broad meaning as describing any work involving law and economics, integrating the Economic Analysis of Law in this broader field of study. Indeed, the combined application of law and economics outside of the strict definition of Economic Analysis of Law has been historically rich, and predominant before Coase, and is nowadays subject to great innovations. Thierry Kirat, besides of Economic Analysis of Law, identifies the revival of the interactions between economic and legal normativities, mostly in continental Europe, and the integration of legal
Criminal law attempts to balance the rights of individuals to freedom from interference with person or property, and society’s need for order. Procedural matters, the rights of citizens and powers of the state, specific offences and defences, and punishment and compensation are some of the ways society and the criminal justice system interact.
The case of Francovich had a significant impact on the European Union (EU) law. If a conflict arises between the EU law and the national law, the EU law highly prevails. The European Union law is a framework of treaties and legislation, which have a direct or indirect effect on the laws of the member states which are bound to the European Union. Primary and Secondary laws are the two sources of the EU law. This essay will firstly analyse the main institutions of the European Union and define various legal terms. It will then move on, to discuss the case of Francovich and the importance it had for state liability. Furthermore, it will refer to subsequent cases which are linked with state liability and had an impact on the EU Law. Lastly, my own views about State Liability will be presented.
In Nils Christie’s “Conflicts as Property”, Christie develops an argument in which depicts the concept of perceiving conflict as property and the measure that it impacts individuals and the legal system. This summary will further examine and comply with Christie’s perception, that conflict can be seen as property. In order to examine the argument and perspective of the author, understanding his implementation is of great importance. The ways in which professionals in the area of law can be perceived as “professional thieves”, and the example of laws pertaining to domestic violence, will be further discussed to validate the key concept of conflict as property. In summary; Christie believes that conflict is adverse to growth of the society
Economics can have controversial ideas, and this can be expressed in terms of crime. Economic theory would suggest that there is an ‘optimal level of crime’. As Stigler (1970) argues, ‘there is one decisive reason why society must forego ‘complete’ enforcement of the rule: enforcement is costly.’ The extent of enforcement of laws depends upon the amount of resources devoted to the task. Stigler goes on to argue that society could make certain crime does not pay by paying enough to apprehend most criminals, but such a level of enforcement would of course be expensive.
This theory looks at how the sovereign and its officials created the law based on social norms and the institutions (Hart, 1958). However, hard cases such as this makes for bad law, which test the validity of the law at hand based on what the objective of the law was in the first place. The law should not be so easily dismissed just because it does not achieve justice in the most morally sound manner (Hart, 1958). Bentham and Austin understood that there are two errors in the way law is understood, what the law is and what the law should be (Hart, 1958). He knew that if law was to become what humans perceived the law ought to be, the law itself would be lost, but he also recognized that if the opposite was to occur where the law replaced morality, than any man would escape liability and there would be no retribution (Hart, 1958). This theory looks at the point of view of the dissenting judge, Justice Gray, which is that the law is what it is, even if it may conflict with morals. Austin stated that “The existence of law is one thing; its merit and demerit another. Whether it be or be not is one enquiry; whether it be or be not conformable to an assumed standard, is a different enquiry (Hart, 1958).” This case presents the same conflict that Bentham and Austin addressed, that the law based on the statute of the
Common law is “judge made-law” and “includes law by judges when they interpret law (lecture notes, 11/16)”. Common law authors trusted that “natural law was too abstract and theoretical for their pragmatic, concretely focused minds…simply out of touch with concrete human affairs (Coleman 593)”. Therefore, common law was developed.
Over the years, different jurisdictions had built their specific system of rules of conduct to govern behaviour. These legal systems, influenced by historical and cultural roots, can be distinguished in two families, the Civil law and the Common law legal systems. The distinctions lies in the process in which each decision is make by the judge and on the legal sources that shapes the law. Indeed, by contrast to the Common law system, which is largely based on Precedents, meaning the decisions that have already been made by judges in similar cases, the Civil law system is based on legislator’s decisions and legal codes with which judges have to justify their judgment . Consequently, instead of referencing to concepts and rules
In his book on ?The Behavior of Law? Donald Black attempts to describe and explain the conduct of law as a social phenomenon. His theory of law does not consider the purpose, value, impact of law, neither proposes any kind of solutions, guidance or judgment; it plainly ponders on the behavior of law. The author grounds his theory purely on sociology and excludes the psychology of the individual from his assumptions on the behavior of law (Black 7). The theory of law comes to the same outcome as other theories scrutinizing the legal environment, such as deprivation theory or criminal theory; however, the former concentrates on the patterns of behavior of law, not involving the motivation of an individual as such. In this respect, Black?s theory is blind for social life, which is beyond the behavior of law.
Brink says that then we can clear Mill of the charge of inconsistency about legal moralism. Since, Mill seems pretty consistent with his rejection towards legal moralism. This seems to bring up the debate between Mill and Stephen. Stephen is the author of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity: in which he talks about his defense of the uses of criminal law to promote virtue and curb vice. Mill is the one who provokes Stephen’s criticism, rendering that Mill is an anti-moralist. A century later, Lord Devlin revived Mill and Stephen’s arguments in which Devlin’s defense of legal regulation of homosexuality, prostitution, and pornography, and liberal criticisms. It can be tempting to reject legal moralism of Stephen and Devlin because of Mill’s anti-moralism, but temptation can be resisted.
The central aim of this essay will be to support the legal-positivist that law and morality are strictly separable. In its simplest form many understand legal positivism to be the existence and content of law, which depends on social facts, and not on its merits. I will engage closely with the work of John Austin and his concept of law, which offered a developed and progressive piece of work from Bentham, focusing on Austin’s The Province of Jurisprudence Determined (1832) in order to demonstrate one of the earlier accounts of legal positivism. By exploring Austin’s theory of sovereignty, in which he outlines that in every state there exists an authority to which a large mass of citizens show compliance, I will address the consideration that
United Kingdom is a country with a distinctive set of legal system. It is fairly different from other countries having civil law based legal systems. The legal system in the United Kingdom consists of various sources of law, where other civil law based countries rely only on a written set of law. European influences on the English Legal System came much later in near decades. This essay will aim to examine the development of the English Legal System by reviewing applications of various sources of law in the English Legal System furthermore to discuss the recent European influences on the law of England.
Martin, A. D., & Hazelton, M. W. (2012). What Political Science Can Contribute to the Study of Law. Review Of Law & Economics, 8(2), 511-529. doi:10.1515/1555-5879.158
The judicial statement of Roskill LJ observed in The Albazero [1977] AC774 held plenty of arguments in modern world today. To reach an extent of agree or disagree the judicial statement, it should be critically analysed from a legal perspective:
The crucial importance and relevance of economics related disciplines to the modern world have led me to want to pursue the study of these social sciences at a higher level. My study of Economics has shown me the fundamental part it plays in our lives and I would like to approach it with an open mind - interested but not yet fully informed.
Everyone know that Law is a system of rules which are developed in community with a aim to govern a society maintaining, justice, protect individuals and property. There are a lot of countries and they have own set of rules and norms including itself constitutional, criminal, contract, trust, international, tort, administrative and property. During the long time law improving and developing a lot and become more invulnerable and fair. Therefore, in a modern society and most of countries law has become similar with similar legal system. Nowadays there are several general types of legal system in the world and two main most popular of them, which had mostly spread through the world. They