一种趋势,法律的拼凑。西方国家同居法差异之原因探析

IF 0.9 4区 社会学 Q3 FAMILY STUDIES International Journal of Law Policy and the Family Pub Date : 2021-03-18 DOI:10.1093/lawfam/ebaa017
E. Goossens
{"title":"一种趋势,法律的拼凑。西方国家同居法差异之原因探析","authors":"E. Goossens","doi":"10.1093/lawfam/ebaa017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Western jurisdictions have adopted remarkably diverging legal approaches to address unmarried cohabitation, ranging between contractual approaches, registered partnerships, and default regimes. This article explores to what extent the large diversity in cohabitation law is prompted by socio-demographic factors, legal tradition and family ideology. The experiences from Belgium, Sweden, England and Wales, New Zealand, and the United States suggest that cohabitation law is mostly ideologically motivated, with socio-demographic factors only having a minor impact. Diverging views on the preservation of the traditional family and the autonomy versus protection of the vulnerable partner-spectrum, in particular, seem to form the backbone of a jurisdiction’s preference for a contractual approach, a registered partnership, or a default regime. Path dependency brings an important nuance to this model. Because existing rights and benefits often prove difficult to turn back, a shift in policy generally fails to eliminate all traces of the former legal framework.","PeriodicalId":51869,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"One Trend, a Patchwork of Laws. An Exploration of Why Cohabitation Law is so Different throughout the Western World\",\"authors\":\"E. Goossens\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/lawfam/ebaa017\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Western jurisdictions have adopted remarkably diverging legal approaches to address unmarried cohabitation, ranging between contractual approaches, registered partnerships, and default regimes. This article explores to what extent the large diversity in cohabitation law is prompted by socio-demographic factors, legal tradition and family ideology. The experiences from Belgium, Sweden, England and Wales, New Zealand, and the United States suggest that cohabitation law is mostly ideologically motivated, with socio-demographic factors only having a minor impact. Diverging views on the preservation of the traditional family and the autonomy versus protection of the vulnerable partner-spectrum, in particular, seem to form the backbone of a jurisdiction’s preference for a contractual approach, a registered partnership, or a default regime. Path dependency brings an important nuance to this model. Because existing rights and benefits often prove difficult to turn back, a shift in policy generally fails to eliminate all traces of the former legal framework.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51869,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-03-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebaa017\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"FAMILY STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebaa017","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"FAMILY STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

西方司法管辖区在处理未婚同居问题上采取了截然不同的法律途径,包括契约方式、注册伴侣关系和默认制度。本文探讨了同居法律的巨大差异在多大程度上受到社会人口因素、法律传统和家庭意识形态的影响。比利时、瑞典、英格兰和威尔士、新西兰和美国的经验表明,同居法主要是由意识形态驱动的,社会人口因素只有很小的影响。关于保留传统家庭和自治与保护脆弱的伙伴关系谱系的不同观点,特别是,似乎形成了一个司法管辖区对契约方法、注册伙伴关系或默认制度的偏好的支柱。路径依赖给这个模型带来了一个重要的细微差别。由于现有的权利和利益往往难以回头,政策的转变通常无法消除以前法律框架的所有痕迹。
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
One Trend, a Patchwork of Laws. An Exploration of Why Cohabitation Law is so Different throughout the Western World
Western jurisdictions have adopted remarkably diverging legal approaches to address unmarried cohabitation, ranging between contractual approaches, registered partnerships, and default regimes. This article explores to what extent the large diversity in cohabitation law is prompted by socio-demographic factors, legal tradition and family ideology. The experiences from Belgium, Sweden, England and Wales, New Zealand, and the United States suggest that cohabitation law is mostly ideologically motivated, with socio-demographic factors only having a minor impact. Diverging views on the preservation of the traditional family and the autonomy versus protection of the vulnerable partner-spectrum, in particular, seem to form the backbone of a jurisdiction’s preference for a contractual approach, a registered partnership, or a default regime. Path dependency brings an important nuance to this model. Because existing rights and benefits often prove difficult to turn back, a shift in policy generally fails to eliminate all traces of the former legal framework.
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
25.00%
发文量
19
期刊介绍: The subject matter of the International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family comprises the following: - Analyses of the law relating to the family which carry an interest beyond the jurisdiction dealt with, or which are of a comparative nature - Theoretical analyses of family law - Sociological literature concerning the family which is of special interest to law and legal policy - Social policy literature of special interest to law and the family - Literature in related disciplines (such as medicine, psychology, demography) which is of special relevance to law and the family - Research findings in the above areas, reviews of books and relevant reports The journal has a flexible policy as to length of contributions, so that substantial research reports can be included.
期刊最新文献
Surrogates’, intended parents’, and professionals’ perspectives on ways to improve access to surrogacy in Australia Introducing a randomized controlled trial into Family Proceedings: Describing the ‘how?’ and defending the ‘why?’ The expert witness—psychologists and judicial gatekeepers in the family court Individual realities and legal responsibilities: a study of non-resident parents who dispute child maintenance obligations in Swedish administrative courts, 2014–2019 Healthcare Decision Making for Children in Singapore: The Missing Chapter in Comparison with English Law
×
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