欧盟私法的不公正

M. Hesselink
{"title":"欧盟私法的不公正","authors":"M. Hesselink","doi":"10.1093/yel/yeac005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This article offers a critique of injustices in European private law. It explains why the EU should be held morally responsible for the injustices created or supported by its private law. In particular, it demonstrates for several core elements of EU private law that they are unjust, because they cannot be justified with non-rejectable reasons, and insofar lead to domination by EU private law. This is the case, especially, for EU private law’s consumerism, its Eurocentrism, its constitutionalized market-functionalism, its doctrinal and judicial expert government, and its blindness towards intersectional domination. The article also critically discusses, and rejects, various theories offering blueprints for an ideal European private law system. Instead, it argues for the priority of democratic justice and for an urgent focus on salient injustices in EU private law’s theory and practice.","PeriodicalId":41752,"journal":{"name":"Croatian Yearbook of European Law & Policy","volume":"81 4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"EU Private Law Injustices\",\"authors\":\"M. Hesselink\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/yel/yeac005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n This article offers a critique of injustices in European private law. It explains why the EU should be held morally responsible for the injustices created or supported by its private law. In particular, it demonstrates for several core elements of EU private law that they are unjust, because they cannot be justified with non-rejectable reasons, and insofar lead to domination by EU private law. This is the case, especially, for EU private law’s consumerism, its Eurocentrism, its constitutionalized market-functionalism, its doctrinal and judicial expert government, and its blindness towards intersectional domination. The article also critically discusses, and rejects, various theories offering blueprints for an ideal European private law system. Instead, it argues for the priority of democratic justice and for an urgent focus on salient injustices in EU private law’s theory and practice.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41752,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Croatian Yearbook of European Law & Policy\",\"volume\":\"81 4 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Croatian Yearbook of European Law & Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/yel/yeac005\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Croatian Yearbook of European Law & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/yel/yeac005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文对欧洲私法中的不公正现象进行了批判。它解释了为什么欧盟应该对其私法造成或支持的不公正承担道德责任。特别是,它论证了欧盟私法的几个核心要素是不公正的,因为它们不能以不可拒绝的理由证明其正当性,从而导致欧盟私法的支配。尤其是欧盟私法的消费主义、欧洲中心主义、宪政化的市场功能主义、教条主义和司法专家政府,以及对交叉支配的盲目。本文还批判性地讨论和驳斥了为理想的欧洲私法制度提供蓝图的各种理论。相反,它主张优先考虑民主正义,并迫切关注欧盟私法理论和实践中突出的不公正现象。
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
EU Private Law Injustices
This article offers a critique of injustices in European private law. It explains why the EU should be held morally responsible for the injustices created or supported by its private law. In particular, it demonstrates for several core elements of EU private law that they are unjust, because they cannot be justified with non-rejectable reasons, and insofar lead to domination by EU private law. This is the case, especially, for EU private law’s consumerism, its Eurocentrism, its constitutionalized market-functionalism, its doctrinal and judicial expert government, and its blindness towards intersectional domination. The article also critically discusses, and rejects, various theories offering blueprints for an ideal European private law system. Instead, it argues for the priority of democratic justice and for an urgent focus on salient injustices in EU private law’s theory and practice.
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
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
25 weeks
期刊最新文献
The unified patent court Corporate tax reform in the European Union: are the stars finally aligned? Rescuing transparency in the digital economy: in search of a common notion in EU consumer and data protection law The impact of the Digital Content Directive on online platforms’ Terms of Service The European Union’s Preferential Trade Agreements: between convergence and differentiation
×
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