一个小档案中的差异:女权主义活动家和同居学者

IF 1.3 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW American Journal of Comparative Law Pub Date : 2022-12-30 DOI:10.1093/ajcl/avac039
Robert Leckey
{"title":"一个小档案中的差异:女权主义活动家和同居学者","authors":"Robert Leckey","doi":"10.1093/ajcl/avac039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In an act of minor comparativism, this Article studies feminist writings on unmarried cohabitation from Canada’s jurisdictions of the common law and civil law. It examines activist texts and legal scholarship for and against regulating cohabitants. Reading the English-language literature from the common law provinces and the French-language literature from Quebec, it reports differences in substance, in emphasis, and in what is common sense. Differing approaches to ideas of freedom, autonomy, and choice run throughout. The Quebec literature shows disagreement between activists and scholars. Over time, that literature has moved towards the view in the common law literature. Lessons for comparatists relate to varieties of difference, the definition of legal sources, the asymmetrical role that legal traditions play in majority and minority contexts, and the limits of law in explaining differences. Given the unreliability of initial observations of difference and sameness, comparatists should read a broad range of sources with care and humility.","PeriodicalId":51579,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Comparative Law","volume":" 33","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Differences in a Minor Archive: Feminist Activists and Scholars on Cohabitation\",\"authors\":\"Robert Leckey\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ajcl/avac039\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In an act of minor comparativism, this Article studies feminist writings on unmarried cohabitation from Canada’s jurisdictions of the common law and civil law. It examines activist texts and legal scholarship for and against regulating cohabitants. Reading the English-language literature from the common law provinces and the French-language literature from Quebec, it reports differences in substance, in emphasis, and in what is common sense. Differing approaches to ideas of freedom, autonomy, and choice run throughout. The Quebec literature shows disagreement between activists and scholars. Over time, that literature has moved towards the view in the common law literature. Lessons for comparatists relate to varieties of difference, the definition of legal sources, the asymmetrical role that legal traditions play in majority and minority contexts, and the limits of law in explaining differences. Given the unreliability of initial observations of difference and sameness, comparatists should read a broad range of sources with care and humility.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51579,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Comparative Law\",\"volume\":\" 33\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Comparative Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/avac039\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Comparative Law","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/avac039","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文以一种比较主义的方式,从加拿大的普通法和大陆法系两大法域对女性主义关于未婚同居的著述进行了研究。它考察了积极分子的文本和法律学术支持和反对规范同居。阅读来自普通法省份的英语文学和来自魁北克的法语文学,它报告了实质,重点和常识上的差异。对自由、自主和选择的不同看法贯穿始终。魁北克文献显示了激进分子和学者之间的分歧。随着时间的推移,这些文献逐渐趋向于普通法文献的观点。比较学家的课程涉及各种差异,法律来源的定义,法律传统在多数和少数背景下发挥的不对称作用,以及法律在解释差异方面的局限性。考虑到对差异和相同的初步观察的不可靠性,比较学家应该谨慎而谦逊地阅读广泛的资料来源。
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
Differences in a Minor Archive: Feminist Activists and Scholars on Cohabitation
In an act of minor comparativism, this Article studies feminist writings on unmarried cohabitation from Canada’s jurisdictions of the common law and civil law. It examines activist texts and legal scholarship for and against regulating cohabitants. Reading the English-language literature from the common law provinces and the French-language literature from Quebec, it reports differences in substance, in emphasis, and in what is common sense. Differing approaches to ideas of freedom, autonomy, and choice run throughout. The Quebec literature shows disagreement between activists and scholars. Over time, that literature has moved towards the view in the common law literature. Lessons for comparatists relate to varieties of difference, the definition of legal sources, the asymmetrical role that legal traditions play in majority and minority contexts, and the limits of law in explaining differences. Given the unreliability of initial observations of difference and sameness, comparatists should read a broad range of sources with care and humility.
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
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
20.00%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Comparative Law is a scholarly quarterly journal devoted to comparative law, comparing the laws of one or more nations with those of another or discussing one jurisdiction"s law in order for the reader to understand how it might differ from that of the United States or another country. It publishes features articles contributed by major scholars and comments by law student writers. The American Society of Comparative Law, Inc. (ASCL), formerly the American Association for the Comparative Study of Law, Inc., is an organization of institutional and individual members devoted to study, research, and write on foreign and comparative law as well as private international law.
期刊最新文献
Sovereignty, Territoriality, and Private International Law in Classical Muslim International Law Beyond Transplant: A Network Innovation Model of Transnational Regulatory Change The Irony of British Human Rights Exceptionalism, 1948–1998 Are Political “Attacks” on the Judiciary Ever Justifiable? The Relationship Between Unfair Criticism and Public Accountability Is Neutrality Possible? A Critique of the CJEU on Headscarves in the Workplace from a Comparative Perspective
×
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