Journal Article Abusive Constitutional Borrowing: Legal Globalization and the Subversion of Liberal Democracy Get access Rosalind Dixon & David Landau, Abusive Constitutional Borrowing: Legal Globalization and the Subversion of Liberal Democracy ( Oxford University Press, 2021) Mila Versteeg Mila Versteeg Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law, Charlottesville, VA, USA versteeg@law.virginia.edu Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The American Journal of Comparative Law, avad027, https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/avad027 Published: 02 September 2023
期刊文章滥用宪法借用:法律全球化与自由民主的颠覆获取罗莎琳德·迪克森和大卫·兰道，滥用宪法借用:法律全球化与自由民主的颠覆(牛津大学出版社，2021)Mila Versteeg Mila Versteeg法学教授，弗吉尼亚大学法学院，夏洛茨维尔，弗吉尼亚州，美国versteeg@law.virginia.edu搜索作者的其他作品:牛津学术谷歌学者美国比较法杂志，avad027, https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/avad027出版:2023年9月2日
{"title":"Abusive Constitutional Borrowing: Legal Globalization and the Subversion of Liberal Democracy","authors":"Mila Versteeg","doi":"10.1093/ajcl/avad027","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/avad027","url":null,"abstract":"Journal Article Abusive Constitutional Borrowing: Legal Globalization and the Subversion of Liberal Democracy Get access Rosalind Dixon & David Landau, Abusive Constitutional Borrowing: Legal Globalization and the Subversion of Liberal Democracy ( Oxford University Press, 2021) Mila Versteeg Mila Versteeg Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law, Charlottesville, VA, USA versteeg@law.virginia.edu Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The American Journal of Comparative Law, avad027, https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/avad027 Published: 02 September 2023","PeriodicalId":51579,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Comparative Law","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134949097","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Journal Article Legal Reasoning Across Commercial Disputes: Comparing Judicial and Arbitral Analyses Get access S.I. Strong, Legal Reasoning Across Commercial Disputes: Comparing Judicial and Arbitral Analyses ( Oxford University Press, 2020) Victor Ferreres Comella Victor Ferreres Comella Professor of Constitutional Law, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, SpainVisiting Professor, University of Texas at Austin, Texas, USA vferreres@law.utexas.edu Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The American Journal of Comparative Law, avad024, https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/avad024 Published: 31 August 2023
{"title":"Legal Reasoning Across Commercial Disputes: Comparing Judicial and Arbitral Analyses","authors":"Victor Ferreres Comella","doi":"10.1093/ajcl/avad024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/avad024","url":null,"abstract":"Journal Article Legal Reasoning Across Commercial Disputes: Comparing Judicial and Arbitral Analyses Get access S.I. Strong, Legal Reasoning Across Commercial Disputes: Comparing Judicial and Arbitral Analyses ( Oxford University Press, 2020) Victor Ferreres Comella Victor Ferreres Comella Professor of Constitutional Law, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, SpainVisiting Professor, University of Texas at Austin, Texas, USA vferreres@law.utexas.edu Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The American Journal of Comparative Law, avad024, https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/avad024 Published: 31 August 2023","PeriodicalId":51579,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Comparative Law","volume":"57 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135831869","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Although the terms “inquisitorial” and “accusatorial” (or as those in the common law world prefer, “adversarial”) are fixtures of the comparative literature on procedure, there remains considerable disagreement regarding their definitions and indeed whether to continue using them at all. Yet, despite these debates, we know remarkably little about how the terms first emerged as central to comparative analysis. This Article begins the work of recovering this neglected history. It argues that the immediate spark—especially in Germany, Italy, and France—was the ongoing debate over the French Code of Criminal Procedure, introduced through Napoleonic conquest into large portions of Europe. After the 1815 Congress of Vienna and its pact of restoration, extensive discussion arose regarding whether, and to what extent, to preserve French law—including criminal procedure. So too, in the ensuing nationalist awakening, debates raged over the constitutional foundations of government, pitting defenders of the old order against proponents of more liberal regimes. As these debates regarding criminal procedure and constitutional politics unfurled, they came to intertwine, and were framed in the 1830s in terms of the accusatorial/inquisitorial divide. Since no comprehensive account of these distinct, but intersecting, debates is possible within these brief pages, the Article focuses primarily on France—the country whose revolution and subsequent wars of conquest played such a decisive role in launching these pan-European arguments in the first place. Profoundly influenced by their liberal nationalist (and imperialist) commitments, as well as by their embrace of an historicist approach to law that was widespread among contemporary scholars, French jurists developed the accusatorial/inquisitorial distinction in ways that continue to reflect these core aspects of their mindset. This forgotten history highlights several deep-rooted continuities in how the accusatorial/inquisitorial terminology has long been deployed, affording valuable cautionary notes, while also pointing toward more fruitful lines of procedural inquiry.
{"title":"Toward an Account of the Nineteenth-Century Emergence of the Comparative Accusatorial/Inquisitorial Divide","authors":"Amalia D Kessler","doi":"10.1093/ajcl/avad022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/avad022","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Although the terms “inquisitorial” and “accusatorial” (or as those in the common law world prefer, “adversarial”) are fixtures of the comparative literature on procedure, there remains considerable disagreement regarding their definitions and indeed whether to continue using them at all. Yet, despite these debates, we know remarkably little about how the terms first emerged as central to comparative analysis. This Article begins the work of recovering this neglected history. It argues that the immediate spark—especially in Germany, Italy, and France—was the ongoing debate over the French Code of Criminal Procedure, introduced through Napoleonic conquest into large portions of Europe. After the 1815 Congress of Vienna and its pact of restoration, extensive discussion arose regarding whether, and to what extent, to preserve French law—including criminal procedure. So too, in the ensuing nationalist awakening, debates raged over the constitutional foundations of government, pitting defenders of the old order against proponents of more liberal regimes. As these debates regarding criminal procedure and constitutional politics unfurled, they came to intertwine, and were framed in the 1830s in terms of the accusatorial/inquisitorial divide. Since no comprehensive account of these distinct, but intersecting, debates is possible within these brief pages, the Article focuses primarily on France—the country whose revolution and subsequent wars of conquest played such a decisive role in launching these pan-European arguments in the first place. Profoundly influenced by their liberal nationalist (and imperialist) commitments, as well as by their embrace of an historicist approach to law that was widespread among contemporary scholars, French jurists developed the accusatorial/inquisitorial distinction in ways that continue to reflect these core aspects of their mindset. This forgotten history highlights several deep-rooted continuities in how the accusatorial/inquisitorial terminology has long been deployed, affording valuable cautionary notes, while also pointing toward more fruitful lines of procedural inquiry.","PeriodicalId":51579,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Comparative Law","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136242801","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This Article traces the concept of transnational public policy as developed in the context of international arbitration at the intersection between legal theory and practice. The emergence of such a transnational public policy, it is claimed, would enable arbitrators to safeguard and ultimately to define the public interests that need to be protected in a globalized economy, irrespective of national laws. A historical contextualization of efforts to empower merchants and their practices in Germany and the United States in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries highlights their reliance on the mythical lex mercatoria that shaped English commercial law. Further contextualization is offered by the postwar invocation of “general principles of law recognized by civilized nations,” to keep at bay the application of supposedly less civilized, parochial legal orders, and by the consequent emergence of the “new” lex mercatoria as conceptualized especially in France. These developments paved the way, on the theory side, for later conceptualizations of self-constitutionalizing law beyond the state, especially by Gunther Teubner, and, on the practice side, for the notion of transnational public policy developed by arbitrators, especially by Emmanuel Gaillard, culminating in jurisprudential claims of an autonomous arbitral legal order with a regulatory dimension. In all these constructions, the recourse to comparative law has been a crucial element. Against this rough intellectual history, the Article offers a critique of today’s construction of transnational public policy by probing into its constitutional dimension and the respective roles of private and public interests. This allows, in particular, to draw on parallels to historic U.S. constitutional debates on the allocation of regulatory powers in federalism.
{"title":"The Myth of Transnational Public Policy in International Arbitration","authors":"Jan Kleinheisterkamp","doi":"10.1093/ajcl/avad021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/avad021","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This Article traces the concept of transnational public policy as developed in the context of international arbitration at the intersection between legal theory and practice. The emergence of such a transnational public policy, it is claimed, would enable arbitrators to safeguard and ultimately to define the public interests that need to be protected in a globalized economy, irrespective of national laws. A historical contextualization of efforts to empower merchants and their practices in Germany and the United States in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries highlights their reliance on the mythical lex mercatoria that shaped English commercial law. Further contextualization is offered by the postwar invocation of “general principles of law recognized by civilized nations,” to keep at bay the application of supposedly less civilized, parochial legal orders, and by the consequent emergence of the “new” lex mercatoria as conceptualized especially in France. These developments paved the way, on the theory side, for later conceptualizations of self-constitutionalizing law beyond the state, especially by Gunther Teubner, and, on the practice side, for the notion of transnational public policy developed by arbitrators, especially by Emmanuel Gaillard, culminating in jurisprudential claims of an autonomous arbitral legal order with a regulatory dimension. In all these constructions, the recourse to comparative law has been a crucial element. Against this rough intellectual history, the Article offers a critique of today’s construction of transnational public policy by probing into its constitutional dimension and the respective roles of private and public interests. This allows, in particular, to draw on parallels to historic U.S. constitutional debates on the allocation of regulatory powers in federalism.","PeriodicalId":51579,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Comparative Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2023-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44007535","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Israeli legal feminists have largely overlooked the constitutive theoretical developments that introduced the “third wave” to global feminism. Drawing on the critical insights of black and postcolonial feminist discourse, this Article introduces Mizrahi feminism to Israeli jurisprudence. It aims to lay the groundwork for a new theoretical school of critical legal scholarship in Israel and expose the multidimensional oppression endured by Mizrahi women in Israeli law and history. To this end, the Article focuses on a particular slice of the legal history of the Israeli abortion law reform of the 1970s. Analyzing extensive parliamentary protocols and institutional archival records, the Article pioneers the deconstructive toolbox of Mizrahi feminism in order to extract the subversive ethno-class narrative that has been left invisible in the feminist story of Israeli abortion law—a sorely neglected history of a separatist, quality-control regulatory mechanism that restrains the Mizrahi womb and Orientalizes its female carrier as “unqualified” vis-à-vis the “dignified” Ashkenazi womb. This intellectual exercise in legal historical study does more than unveil the complex dynamics behind the regulation of the female body in Israel. It also gives a voice to an intra-Jewish ethnic female minority that otherwise remains a transparent and denied gender category in the sociolegal literature.
{"title":"The Womb Monologues: Toward A Mizrahi Feminist Theory of Israeli Law","authors":"Karin Carmit Yefet","doi":"10.1093/ajcl/avad014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/avad014","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Israeli legal feminists have largely overlooked the constitutive theoretical developments that introduced the “third wave” to global feminism. Drawing on the critical insights of black and postcolonial feminist discourse, this Article introduces Mizrahi feminism to Israeli jurisprudence. It aims to lay the groundwork for a new theoretical school of critical legal scholarship in Israel and expose the multidimensional oppression endured by Mizrahi women in Israeli law and history.\u0000 To this end, the Article focuses on a particular slice of the legal history of the Israeli abortion law reform of the 1970s. Analyzing extensive parliamentary protocols and institutional archival records, the Article pioneers the deconstructive toolbox of Mizrahi feminism in order to extract the subversive ethno-class narrative that has been left invisible in the feminist story of Israeli abortion law—a sorely neglected history of a separatist, quality-control regulatory mechanism that restrains the Mizrahi womb and Orientalizes its female carrier as “unqualified” vis-à-vis the “dignified” Ashkenazi womb.\u0000 This intellectual exercise in legal historical study does more than unveil the complex dynamics behind the regulation of the female body in Israel. It also gives a voice to an intra-Jewish ethnic female minority that otherwise remains a transparent and denied gender category in the sociolegal literature.","PeriodicalId":51579,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Comparative Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2023-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43600014","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Recent disputes between the Republic of Korea and Japan over colonial compensation have dealt a severe blow to their bilateral relations. In 2018, the Supreme Court of Korea ordered two Japanese corporations to pay damages to Korean laborers who had been forced to work at their factories under Japanese rule. The judgments, which ran directly counter to the earlier rulings of the Japanese Supreme Court for the same parties, reflected longstanding disagreement over the legality of Japan’s annexation of Korea in 1910 and differences of interpretation concerning the 1965 treaties that restored diplomatic relations. Examination of judicial decisions in South Korea over the years indicates that the forced-laborer compensation issue had consistently been viewed as an internal problem, until it became an issue in domestic and judicial politics. In early 2023, the South Korean government announced that it would no longer demand that Japanese companies compensate Korean plaintiffs, who would instead be paid from a government fund. The forced laborer litigation and its aftermath have revealed the limits of the judicial process in resolving historical problems surrounding South Korea–Japan relations in ways that may be relevant to efforts around the globe to redress past injustices through adjudication.
{"title":"Colonial Compensation and the Judicial Process: South Korea–Japan Disputes Revisited","authors":"M. Kim","doi":"10.1093/ajcl/avad010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/avad010","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Recent disputes between the Republic of Korea and Japan over colonial compensation have dealt a severe blow to their bilateral relations. In 2018, the Supreme Court of Korea ordered two Japanese corporations to pay damages to Korean laborers who had been forced to work at their factories under Japanese rule. The judgments, which ran directly counter to the earlier rulings of the Japanese Supreme Court for the same parties, reflected longstanding disagreement over the legality of Japan’s annexation of Korea in 1910 and differences of interpretation concerning the 1965 treaties that restored diplomatic relations. Examination of judicial decisions in South Korea over the years indicates that the forced-laborer compensation issue had consistently been viewed as an internal problem, until it became an issue in domestic and judicial politics. In early 2023, the South Korean government announced that it would no longer demand that Japanese companies compensate Korean plaintiffs, who would instead be paid from a government fund. The forced laborer litigation and its aftermath have revealed the limits of the judicial process in resolving historical problems surrounding South Korea–Japan relations in ways that may be relevant to efforts around the globe to redress past injustices through adjudication.","PeriodicalId":51579,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Comparative Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2023-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48155392","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This Article puts forward a novel analogy between animal welfare law and international humanitarian law—two seemingly unrelated bodies of law that are both marked by the aporia of humanizing the inhumane. Through the comparative lens of the international laws of war and peace, this Article argues that existing animal welfare law is best understood as a kind of warfare law that regulates violent activities within an ongoing “war on animals.” It further submits that this animal warfare law needs to be complemented and counterbalanced by an animal law of peace, consisting of a jus animalis contra bellum and peacetime animal rights.
{"title":"Animal Warfare Law and the Need for an Animal Law of Peace: A Comparative Reconstruction","authors":"Saskia Stucki","doi":"10.1093/ajcl/avad018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/avad018","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This Article puts forward a novel analogy between animal welfare law and international humanitarian law—two seemingly unrelated bodies of law that are both marked by the aporia of humanizing the inhumane. Through the comparative lens of the international laws of war and peace, this Article argues that existing animal welfare law is best understood as a kind of warfare law that regulates violent activities within an ongoing “war on animals.” It further submits that this animal warfare law needs to be complemented and counterbalanced by an animal law of peace, consisting of a jus animalis contra bellum and peacetime animal rights.","PeriodicalId":51579,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Comparative Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2023-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45846488","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Response to Professor Ruskola","authors":"D. Clarke","doi":"10.1093/ajcl/avad003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/avad003","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51579,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Comparative Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2023-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48620658","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This Article examines the historical origins of the horizontal effect problem in the United States and Japan. In the United States, from the founding era to the nineteenth century, jurists considered common law rights and constitutional rights had the same scope. Lawyers in the nineteenth century considered that the Due Process Clauses protected common law rights, which originally developed in private litigations. For example, private parties as well as the government shall not infringe on liberty of contract. However, this circumstance changed after the constitutional revolution in 1937. The concept of constitutional rights, distinct from common law rights, has gradually developed since then. The problem of horizontality appears because of the historical fact that constitutional rights and common law rights diverged at that time. In 1946, the framers and lawyers in Japan had the idea that the Constitution applied to private spheres. They expected the government to enforce the Constitution in all legal areas, including private relations. This is because just after World War II, Japan experienced various liberal and progressive social reforms. However, Japanese politics ultimately became conservative. The conservative Liberal Democratic Party had constantly ruled the government. Japanese liberal scholars could no longer expect the government to impose liberal ideologies upon society and they needed an intellectual weapon to combat the government. Japanese lawyers have rebuilt a constitutional theory that constitutional rights are a bulwark of individual liberties against the government, and that the rights only apply to governmental actions. From the time that constitutional theory emerged on, Japanese jurists have had to tackle the horizontality problem.
{"title":"The Historical Origins of the Horizontal Effect Problem in the United States and Japan: How the Reach of Constitutional Rights into the Private Sphere Became a Problem","authors":"Jun Shimizu","doi":"10.1093/ajcl/avad013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/avad013","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This Article examines the historical origins of the horizontal effect problem in the United States and Japan. In the United States, from the founding era to the nineteenth century, jurists considered common law rights and constitutional rights had the same scope. Lawyers in the nineteenth century considered that the Due Process Clauses protected common law rights, which originally developed in private litigations. For example, private parties as well as the government shall not infringe on liberty of contract. However, this circumstance changed after the constitutional revolution in 1937. The concept of constitutional rights, distinct from common law rights, has gradually developed since then. The problem of horizontality appears because of the historical fact that constitutional rights and common law rights diverged at that time. In 1946, the framers and lawyers in Japan had the idea that the Constitution applied to private spheres. They expected the government to enforce the Constitution in all legal areas, including private relations. This is because just after World War II, Japan experienced various liberal and progressive social reforms. However, Japanese politics ultimately became conservative. The conservative Liberal Democratic Party had constantly ruled the government. Japanese liberal scholars could no longer expect the government to impose liberal ideologies upon society and they needed an intellectual weapon to combat the government. Japanese lawyers have rebuilt a constitutional theory that constitutional rights are a bulwark of individual liberties against the government, and that the rights only apply to governmental actions. From the time that constitutional theory emerged on, Japanese jurists have had to tackle the horizontality problem.","PeriodicalId":51579,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Comparative Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2023-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41951452","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"National Security Secrecy: Comparative Effects on Democracy and the Rule of Law","authors":"M. Reid","doi":"10.1093/ajcl/avad016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/avad016","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51579,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Comparative Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2023-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46647345","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：