Vyhledávat v databázi titulů je možné dle ISBN, ISSN, EAN, č. ČNB, OCLC či vlastního identifikátoru. Vyhledávat lze i v databázi autorů dle id autority či jména.
Projekt ObalkyKnih.cz sdružuje různé zdroje informací o knížkách do jedné, snadno použitelné webové služby. Naše databáze v tuto chvíli obsahuje 3152121 obálek a 950676 obsahů českých a zahraničních publikací. Naše API využívá většina knihoven v ČR.
Judicial deliberations : a comparative analysis of transparency and legitimacy
Autor: Mitchel de S.-O.-L'E. Lasser
Rok: 2009
ISBN: 9780199575169
ISBN: 9780199274123
NKP-CNB: bod010-mub01000654941
OCLC Number: (OCoLC)320492882
OCLC Number: (ocolc)320492882
OKCZID: 110702172
Vydání: 1st pbk ed.
Citace (dle ČSN ISO 690):
LASSER, Mitchel de S.-O.-L'E.. Judicial deliberations: a comparative analysis of transparency and legitimacy. 1st pbk ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009, 382 s. Oxford studies in European law. ISBN 978-0-19-957516-9.
Anotace
Judicial Deliberations compares how and why the European Court of Justice, the French Cour de cassation and the US Supreme Court offer different approaches for generating judicial accountability and control, judicial debate and deliberation, and ultimately judicial legitimacy. Examining the judicial argumentation of the United States Supreme Court and of the French Cour de cassation, the book first reorders the traditional comparative understanding of the difference between French civil law and American common law judicial decision-making. It then uses this analysis to offer the first detailed comparative examination of the interpretive practice of the European Court of Justice. Lasser demonstrates that the French judicial system rests on a particularly unified institutional and ideological framework founded on explicitly republican notions of meritocracy and managerial expertise. Law-making per se may be limited to the legislature; but significant judicial normative administration is entrusted to State selected, trained, and sanctioned elites who are policed internally through hierarchical institutional structures. The American judicial system, by contrast, deploys a more participatory and democratic approach that reflects a more populist vision. Shunning the unifying, controlling, and hierarchical French structures, the American judicial system instead generates its legitimacy primarily by argumentative means. American judges engage in extensive debates that subject them to public scrutiny and control. The ECJ hovers delicately between the institutional/argumentative and republican/democratic extremes. On the one hand, the ECJ reproduces the hierarchical French discursive structure on which it was originally patterned. On the other, it transposes this structure into a transnational context of fractured political and legal assumptions. This drives the ECJ towards generating legitimacy by adopting a somewhat more transparent argumentative approach.