不违反CISG

Joseph Lookofsky
{"title":"不违反CISG","authors":"Joseph Lookofsky","doi":"10.5195/JLC.2011.27","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In determining the boundaries of supranational legislation some courts adopt an expansionist (dynamic) line. To take a well-known regional example, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has long been engaged in an exercise in expansionist interpretation, thus broadening the scope of European Union legislation at the expense of the political discretion of EU Member States. Though surely seeking to advance what it sees as the Union’s best interests, the ECJ sometimes “runs amok,” actively extending regional rules in ways that constrain national sovereignty beyond what the Members had originally intended. Or, as one of my Copenhagen colleagues  once put it: the ECJ is “running wild.”","PeriodicalId":319905,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Treaties & Other Sources of International Law (Topic)","volume":"69 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Not Running Wild with the CISG\",\"authors\":\"Joseph Lookofsky\",\"doi\":\"10.5195/JLC.2011.27\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In determining the boundaries of supranational legislation some courts adopt an expansionist (dynamic) line. To take a well-known regional example, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has long been engaged in an exercise in expansionist interpretation, thus broadening the scope of European Union legislation at the expense of the political discretion of EU Member States. Though surely seeking to advance what it sees as the Union’s best interests, the ECJ sometimes “runs amok,” actively extending regional rules in ways that constrain national sovereignty beyond what the Members had originally intended. Or, as one of my Copenhagen colleagues  once put it: the ECJ is “running wild.”\",\"PeriodicalId\":319905,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"LSN: Treaties & Other Sources of International Law (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"69 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"LSN: Treaties & Other Sources of International Law (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5195/JLC.2011.27\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Treaties & Other Sources of International Law (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5195/JLC.2011.27","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

在确定超国家立法的界限时,一些法院采取了扩张主义(动态)路线。举一个众所周知的区域性例子,欧洲法院(ECJ)长期以来一直从事扩张主义解释,从而以牺牲欧盟成员国的政治自由裁量权为代价扩大了欧盟立法的范围。尽管欧洲法院确实在寻求推进它所认为的欧盟的最佳利益,但它有时会“胡作非为”,积极扩展地区规则,以超出成员国最初意图的方式限制国家主权。或者,正如我在哥本哈根的一位同事曾经说过的那样:欧洲法院正在“失控”。
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
Not Running Wild with the CISG
In determining the boundaries of supranational legislation some courts adopt an expansionist (dynamic) line. To take a well-known regional example, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has long been engaged in an exercise in expansionist interpretation, thus broadening the scope of European Union legislation at the expense of the political discretion of EU Member States. Though surely seeking to advance what it sees as the Union’s best interests, the ECJ sometimes “runs amok,” actively extending regional rules in ways that constrain national sovereignty beyond what the Members had originally intended. Or, as one of my Copenhagen colleagues  once put it: the ECJ is “running wild.”
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
A Network-Based Taxonomy of the World's Legal Systems Law and Governance as Checks and Balances in Transatlantic Security: Rights, Redress, and Remedies in EU-US Passenger Name Records and the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program The Validity of International Sales Contracts: Irrelevance of the 'Validity Exception' in Article 4 Vienna Sales Convention and a Novel Approach to Determining the Convention's Scope Italy's Investment Treaty Practice and Case-Law: What Balance between Investors’ Protection and General Interests of States? US Public Education as a Form of Thick Injustice
×
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