The Role of Private Ordering in Family Law: A Law and Economics Perspective

1991 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. 533 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J. Trebilcock ◽  
Rosemin Keshvani
Author(s):  
Sonia Harris-Short ◽  
Joanna Miles ◽  
Rob George

All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing able students with a stand-alone resource. This chapter begins with an overview of families and family law in England and Wales today. It then discusses themes and issues in contemporary family law, covering rules versus discretion; women’s and men’s perspectives on family law; sex and gender identity; sexual orientation; cultural diversity; and state intervention versus private ordering, including the role of the family court and of non-court dispute resolution in family cases.


Author(s):  
Thomas W. Merrill

This chapter explores the relationship between private and public law. In civil law countries, the public-private distinction serves as an organizing principle of the entire legal system. In common law jurisdictions, the distinction is at best an implicit design principle and is used primarily as an informal device for categorizing different fields of law. Even if not explicitly recognized as an organizing principle, however, it is plausible that private and public law perform distinct functions. Private law supplies the tools that make private ordering possible—the discretionary decisions that individuals make in structuring their lives. Public law is concerned with providing public goods—broadly defined—that cannot be adequately supplied by private ordering. In the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, various schools of thought derived from utilitarianism have assimilated both private and public rights to the same general criterion of aggregate welfare analysis. This has left judges with no clear conception of the distinction between private and public law. Another problematic feature of modern legal thought is a curious inversion in which scholars who focus on fields of private law have turned increasingly to law and economics, one of the derivatives of utilitarianism, whereas scholars who concern themselves with public law are increasingly drawn to new versions of natural rights thinking, in the form of universal human rights.


2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 95-122 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kassia Watanabe ◽  
Nunziata Stefania Paiva ◽  
Ana Elisa Bressan Smith Lourenzani

Abstract Contract farming is based on agreements settled prior to the farmer deciding about agricultural production, and influence their judgment regarding inputs and production systems. Therefore, they provide means of production coordination and safety for both farmer and agro-industry/distributor. However, contract farming has its gaps since it is written in abscence of complete information, due to the behavioral assumption of bounded rationality of economic agents. A specific law might generate legal certainty for economic agents, insofar as the Judiciary fulfills the contractual gaps. From the other side, private agents may also fulfill the contractual gaps. As an effort to understand the role of institutions in contract farming, this study aims to analyze the Bill 6,459/2013, which intends to rule contract farming and takes private instituctions into account, through the agency of the Monitoring, Development and Reconciliation of Integration Committee (Cadec). This is an applied research with qualitative approach. The research concludes that the approval of bill might lead to effective typical law for contract farming, provided that the creation of Cadec is encouraged.


Global Jurist ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Guido Calabresi

Abstract This is the first chapter of The Future of Law and Economics: Essays in Reform and Recollection by Guido Calabresi, first published by Yale University Press in 2016.


2020 ◽  
Vol 70 (4) ◽  
pp. 471-491
Author(s):  
Paul Hare

AbstractKornai's earlier works embodied the idea that state institutions formed a system with a strong tendency to reproduce itself, and hence to resist minor reforms. Thus, at the end of socialism, huge changes were needed in politics, economics, and the law to build a new system oriented towards the market-type economy, which would again be stable, self-reinforcing and self-sustaining. Transition promoted the development of new states in Eastern Europe that conformed to the Copenhagen criteria for the EU accession. Were we too hasty in thinking that we had succeeded? The new systems are not returning to the previous one, and only in a few areas have the basic norms of a market-type economy been set aside in Hungary or Poland. But concerns arise at the interface between politics, law and economics – to do with the rule of law, the nature and role of the state, and the interactions between parliament, the executive and the judiciary. Unavoidably, there is also an interesting international dimension here, represented by the shift from the Warsaw Pact and CMEA to NATO and the EU. This paper explores these issues in the light of some of Kornai's recent analysis of developments in Hungary, while also drawing on his very insightful earlier works.


2017 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 71
Author(s):  
Sławomir Godek

SOME REMARKS ON THE STUDY OF THE ROMANIZATION OF LITHUANIAN STATUTESSummary The article is dedicated to the issues connected with the reception of Roman Law in the Lithuanian statutes of 1529, 1566, and 1588. After an analysis of the existing scholarly accomplishments in the field, one cannot but conclude that the study of the influence of the Roman Law on Lithuanian codifications has hardly been started yet. Despite the fairly long tradition of research in this field, so far only selected elements of the first and second statutes have been analyzed in order to identify Roman constituents. The research carried out in 1930s by Raphael Taubenschlag, Franciszek Bossowski, and Karol Koranyi demonstrated which Roman Law noticeably influenced the statutory regulations pertaining to family law, law of property, law of succession, criminal and procedural law. Their observations partly confirmed the findings previously made in the nineteenth century by Aleksander Mickiewicz, Franciszek Morze, and Ignacy Daniłowicz. At the same time, nothing is still known about the scope of Romanization in the third Lithuanian statute or about the transformations which Roman elements underwent in each of the statutes. Without further study of the subject, one cannot assess the role of Roman law in the Commonwealth (Rzeczpospolita).It seems that the most fertile ground for identification of Roman elements in the third Lithuanian statute is tutorship and succession law, especially testamentary succession. Some interesting and original observations could be made on the basis of a more thorough comparative analysis of the pertinent Roman and Lithuanian regulations.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document