雇佣法中的普通法和成文法

IF 1.4 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Current Legal Problems Pub Date : 2016-12-01 DOI:10.1093/CLP/CUW007
Alan L. Bogg
{"title":"雇佣法中的普通法和成文法","authors":"Alan L. Bogg","doi":"10.1093/CLP/CUW007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Remarkably, the interaction between common law and statute has not attracted the scholarly attention it deserves, given that it is such a basic component of legal reasoning in common law systems. This is especially true in the law of employment, where the interaction between common law and statute is a pervasive feature of modern employment law. In recent years, scholars have started to rise to the challenge of developing principles to regulate this interaction, and this article provides a contribution to those debates. It builds upon Lord Hoffmann’s controversial judgment in Johnson v Unisys to identify three modes of interaction: statute as pre-emptive of common law development; statute as an analogical stimulus of common law development; and common law fundamental rights. By connecting this analysis to background principles of legislative supremacy and fundamental rights, it argues that Johnson v Unisys provides an attractive constitutional vision of the relationship between Parliament and the courts.","PeriodicalId":45282,"journal":{"name":"Current Legal Problems","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2016-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/CLP/CUW007","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Common Law and Statute in the Law of Employment\",\"authors\":\"Alan L. Bogg\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/CLP/CUW007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Remarkably, the interaction between common law and statute has not attracted the scholarly attention it deserves, given that it is such a basic component of legal reasoning in common law systems. This is especially true in the law of employment, where the interaction between common law and statute is a pervasive feature of modern employment law. In recent years, scholars have started to rise to the challenge of developing principles to regulate this interaction, and this article provides a contribution to those debates. It builds upon Lord Hoffmann’s controversial judgment in Johnson v Unisys to identify three modes of interaction: statute as pre-emptive of common law development; statute as an analogical stimulus of common law development; and common law fundamental rights. By connecting this analysis to background principles of legislative supremacy and fundamental rights, it argues that Johnson v Unisys provides an attractive constitutional vision of the relationship between Parliament and the courts.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45282,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current Legal Problems\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/CLP/CUW007\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current Legal Problems\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/CLP/CUW007\",\"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":"Current Legal Problems","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/CLP/CUW007","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: 3

摘要

值得注意的是,普通法和成文法之间的相互作用并没有引起应有的学术关注,因为它是普通法体系中法律推理的一个基本组成部分。在雇佣法中尤其如此,普通法和成文法之间的相互作用是现代雇佣法的一个普遍特征。近年来,学者们开始挑战发展原则来规范这种相互作用,本文为这些辩论提供了一些贡献。它以Hoffmann勋爵在Johnson v Unisys案中有争议的判决为基础,确定了三种互动模式:成文法作为普通法发展的先发制人;成文法作为普通法发展的类比刺激以及普通法的基本权利。通过将这一分析与立法至上和基本权利的背景原则联系起来,它认为Johnson v Unisys为议会和法院之间的关系提供了一个有吸引力的宪法愿景。
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
Common Law and Statute in the Law of Employment
Remarkably, the interaction between common law and statute has not attracted the scholarly attention it deserves, given that it is such a basic component of legal reasoning in common law systems. This is especially true in the law of employment, where the interaction between common law and statute is a pervasive feature of modern employment law. In recent years, scholars have started to rise to the challenge of developing principles to regulate this interaction, and this article provides a contribution to those debates. It builds upon Lord Hoffmann’s controversial judgment in Johnson v Unisys to identify three modes of interaction: statute as pre-emptive of common law development; statute as an analogical stimulus of common law development; and common law fundamental rights. By connecting this analysis to background principles of legislative supremacy and fundamental rights, it argues that Johnson v Unisys provides an attractive constitutional vision of the relationship between Parliament and the courts.
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
0.00%
发文量
7
期刊介绍: The lectures are public, delivered on a weekly basis and chaired by members of the judiciary. CLP features scholarly articles that offer a critical analysis of important current legal issues. It covers all areas of legal scholarship and features a wide range of methodological approaches to law.
期刊最新文献
Interpreting the Paris Agreement in its Normative Environment Religious Expression and Exemptions in the Private Sector Workplace: Spotting Bias Contracting in the Public Interest? Re-examining the Role of Planning Obligations in Contemporary Town Planning Processes Atrocity’s Glass Booth The Challenges of Designing Sexual Assault 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