Judicial Precedents

Nyhet

Uniformity and Pluralism

Inbunden, Engelska, 2026

1 939 kr

Kommande

This book considers what kind of binding force judicial decisions (should) hold in modern societies. It focuses on the two most prominent legal traditions, common law and civil law. It explores the developing trend in civil law countries to expand the influence of judicial precedents, discusses the fundamental issues which arise from this trend, and looks at recent developments in common law countries.Through this prism, the book looks at the implications of the doctrine of judicial precedents and how it is construed in jurisdictions that recognise it. It investigates the impact of newly recognised legislative or quasi-legislative powers vested in high courts on the doctrine of separation of powers. It considers whether courts in common law and civil law systems share a uniform understanding of precedents.The book goes on to consider whether these developments are beneficial when it comes to addressing existing challenges or whether they lead to a host of new problems, potentially exacerbating the crisis of judicial legitimacy. In relation to the hierarchical nature of civil law justice systems, it asks whether binding rulings from higher courts pose a potential threat to substantive judicial independence, limiting the open and pluralistic dialogue between lower and higher courts. It then goes on to reflect whether binding opinions from the highest judicial instances encroach upon the prerogatives of legislative bodies, resulting in the creation of suboptimal laws.

Produktinformation

Utgivningsdatum2026-06-11
Mått156 x 234 x undefined mm
FormatInbunden
SpråkEngelska
Antal sidor432
FörlagBloomsbury Publishing PLC
ISBN9781509991198

Tillhör följande kategorier

Juristyrken inom Juridik
Rättsordning inom Juridik
Författningsrätt och förvaltningsrätt inom Juridik

1. Introduction, Stefaan Voet (KU Leuven, Belgium) and Alan Uzelac is (University of Zagreb, Croatia)2. Potential Perils of Precedent: Reflections on the American Experience, Richard L Marcus (UC Law San Francisco, USA)3. The Evolution of Precedent in England and Wales in the Light of Digitisation, John Sorabji (University College London, UK)4. Deciding Once and for All? Past and Present Debates on Procedural Mechanisms of the Supreme Courts in Austria and Germany to Decide More Than the Cases Before Them, Julius Schumann (University of Vienna, Austria)5. Lights and Shadows of the Polish Supreme Court's Instruments to Ensure Uniformity in Civil Case Law, Piotr Rylski (University of Warsaw, Poland)6. Introducing the Limited Precedent System in Hungarian Procedural Law, Viktória Harsági (Pázmány Péter Catholic University, Hungary)7. The “Italian Style” Precedent, Francesca Ferrari (Università degli Studi dell'Insubria, Italy)8. Rules that Enhance the “Rule” of Persuasive Precedent, João Marques Martins (University of Lisbon, Portugal)9. Precedential Effects of Judicial Decisions under Slovak Law on Civil Litigation. The Road to Uniformity or Deformity? Marek Ivanco (Judicial Academy of the Slovak Republic, Slovakia)10. Methods for Securing the Uniformity of the Law? Tatjana Zoroska Kamilovska (Methodius University in Skopje, North Macedonia)11. Between Tradition and European Integration: Methods for Ensuring the Uniform Application of Law in the Republic of Serbia, Branka Babovic Vuksanovic (University of Belgrade, Serbia)12. “But Do Material Facts Match?” The Problem of Mechanical Application of Precedents in Europe, Aleš Galic (University of Ljubljana, Slovenia)13. The Dutch Preliminary Rulings Technique as a Model for Contentious and Non-Contentious Procedures, Stefaan Voet (KU Leuven, Belgium)14. Building Uniformity through Case Management. The Case of the Chileans High Courts, Ramón García Odgers (Universidad Católica de la Santisima Concepción, Chile)15. The Rationality of Binding Precedents in Brazilian Civil Procedure: From Samba to Stare Decisis a New Paradigm, Hermes Zaneti Jr. (Federal University of Espírito Santo, Brazil)16. Does the Preliminary Rulings Procedure Ensure Uniformity of Case-Law in EU Member States? Jorg Sladic (KU Leuven, Belgium)17. The 'Systemic' Effects of the 'Non-binding' Opinions Rendered by the European Court of Human Rights under Protocol N. 16, Albert Henke (Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy)