民主的基础

M. Hesselink
{"title":"民主的基础","authors":"M. Hesselink","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780192843654.003.0003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter concerns the relationship between contract law and democracy. The central question is whether contract law, in order to be legitimate, must have a democratic basis, and what this would entail. This leads to a normative institutional comparison between legislators, courts, legal academics, and economic-sectoral experts as the protagonists in contract law making. In addition, beyond the matter of institutional choice, the question of democratic legitimacy may lead to the question of whether there are any limits as to the kind of reasons (‘public reasons’) that can justify the law, in our case European contract law.","PeriodicalId":105562,"journal":{"name":"Justifying Contract in Europe","volume":"67 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Democratic Basis\",\"authors\":\"M. Hesselink\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oso/9780192843654.003.0003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This chapter concerns the relationship between contract law and democracy. The central question is whether contract law, in order to be legitimate, must have a democratic basis, and what this would entail. This leads to a normative institutional comparison between legislators, courts, legal academics, and economic-sectoral experts as the protagonists in contract law making. In addition, beyond the matter of institutional choice, the question of democratic legitimacy may lead to the question of whether there are any limits as to the kind of reasons (‘public reasons’) that can justify the law, in our case European contract law.\",\"PeriodicalId\":105562,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Justifying Contract in Europe\",\"volume\":\"67 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Justifying Contract in Europe\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192843654.003.0003\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Justifying Contract in Europe","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192843654.003.0003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本章探讨合同法与民主的关系。核心问题是,为了使合同法具有合法性,是否必须有一个民主的基础,以及这将带来什么。这导致了立法者、法院、法律学者和经济部门专家作为合同法制定的主角之间的规范性制度比较。此外,除了制度选择的问题之外,民主合法性的问题可能会导致这样一个问题,即是否存在任何限制的理由(“公共理由”),可以证明法律的正当性,在我们的案例中是欧洲合同法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Democratic Basis
This chapter concerns the relationship between contract law and democracy. The central question is whether contract law, in order to be legitimate, must have a democratic basis, and what this would entail. This leads to a normative institutional comparison between legislators, courts, legal academics, and economic-sectoral experts as the protagonists in contract law making. In addition, beyond the matter of institutional choice, the question of democratic legitimacy may lead to the question of whether there are any limits as to the kind of reasons (‘public reasons’) that can justify the law, in our case European contract law.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Democratic Basis Binding Force and Remedies Weaker Party Protection National, European, or Global Public Policy and Good Morals
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1