17世纪衡平法原则的发展:非律师导论

J. Campbell
{"title":"17世纪衡平法原则的发展:非律师导论","authors":"J. Campbell","doi":"10.4324/9781315452692-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"When an identifiable Court of Chancery emerged in the fifteenth century it supplemented the common law by using the notion of conscience. Its account of conscience derived from Thomist ethics, and was that the requirements of conscience in a particular fact situation were derivable from what the law of God and nature required to be done, which was objectively knowable. The English Reformation led to conscience losing its objectivity, because different understandings of scripture emerged from individuals having access to the Bible in English and interpreting it for themselves. in the course of the seventeenth century Chancery ceased to apply the notion of conscience directly, and increasingly articulated principles and rules that were applied to decide what behaviour was required. This process was assisted by numerous diverse contingent historical events and trends. Because all the equitable principles and rules developed in the context of an adversary system of litigation, with issues arrived at by pleading, the principles and rules did not take the form of a simple proposition that behaviour of a certain type was required in a certain situation. Rather, the principles and rules led to a conclusion that an equity, or claim, to require behaviour arose in a particular type of situation. Whether the court actually required that behaviour to occur depended on whether there was a better equity.","PeriodicalId":255520,"journal":{"name":"English & Commonwealth Law eJournal","volume":"129 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Development of Principles in Equity in the Seventeenth Century: An Introduction for Non-Lawyers\",\"authors\":\"J. Campbell\",\"doi\":\"10.4324/9781315452692-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"When an identifiable Court of Chancery emerged in the fifteenth century it supplemented the common law by using the notion of conscience. Its account of conscience derived from Thomist ethics, and was that the requirements of conscience in a particular fact situation were derivable from what the law of God and nature required to be done, which was objectively knowable. The English Reformation led to conscience losing its objectivity, because different understandings of scripture emerged from individuals having access to the Bible in English and interpreting it for themselves. in the course of the seventeenth century Chancery ceased to apply the notion of conscience directly, and increasingly articulated principles and rules that were applied to decide what behaviour was required. This process was assisted by numerous diverse contingent historical events and trends. Because all the equitable principles and rules developed in the context of an adversary system of litigation, with issues arrived at by pleading, the principles and rules did not take the form of a simple proposition that behaviour of a certain type was required in a certain situation. Rather, the principles and rules led to a conclusion that an equity, or claim, to require behaviour arose in a particular type of situation. Whether the court actually required that behaviour to occur depended on whether there was a better equity.\",\"PeriodicalId\":255520,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"English & Commonwealth Law eJournal\",\"volume\":\"129 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-03-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"English & Commonwealth Law eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315452692-3\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"English & Commonwealth Law eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315452692-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

当一个可识别的衡平法院在15世纪出现时,它通过使用良心的概念来补充普通法。它对良心的描述来源于托马斯主义伦理学,在特定的事实情境中,良心的要求可以从上帝和自然法则的要求中推导出来,这是客观可知的。英国的宗教改革导致良心失去了客观性,因为对圣经的不同理解来自于个人接触到英语圣经并为自己解释圣经。在17世纪大法官制度不再直接使用良心的概念,越来越多的原则和规则被用来决定什么行为是必需的。这一过程得到了许多不同的偶然历史事件和趋势的帮助。因为所有公平原则和规则都是在对抗性诉讼制度的背景下发展起来的,问题都是通过辩护来解决的,所以这些原则和规则并没有采取一种简单命题的形式,即在某种情况下需要采取某种行为。相反,这些原则和规则得出的结论是,要求行为的公平或索赔是在特定类型的情况下产生的。法院是否真的要求这种行为发生取决于是否有更好的衡平法。
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
The Development of Principles in Equity in the Seventeenth Century: An Introduction for Non-Lawyers
When an identifiable Court of Chancery emerged in the fifteenth century it supplemented the common law by using the notion of conscience. Its account of conscience derived from Thomist ethics, and was that the requirements of conscience in a particular fact situation were derivable from what the law of God and nature required to be done, which was objectively knowable. The English Reformation led to conscience losing its objectivity, because different understandings of scripture emerged from individuals having access to the Bible in English and interpreting it for themselves. in the course of the seventeenth century Chancery ceased to apply the notion of conscience directly, and increasingly articulated principles and rules that were applied to decide what behaviour was required. This process was assisted by numerous diverse contingent historical events and trends. Because all the equitable principles and rules developed in the context of an adversary system of litigation, with issues arrived at by pleading, the principles and rules did not take the form of a simple proposition that behaviour of a certain type was required in a certain situation. Rather, the principles and rules led to a conclusion that an equity, or claim, to require behaviour arose in a particular type of situation. Whether the court actually required that behaviour to occur depended on whether there was a better equity.
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
Pith and Marrow is Dead… Long Live Pith and Marrow: The Doctrine of Equivalents After Actavis THE ATO TR 2021/D4 - Taxation of Software Payments as Royalties - Comments on the Draft Ruling The Internal Market: An Historical Perspective AI in the Boardroom: Let the Law be in the Driving Seat Back to School - and After
×
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