法律统一的悖论

B. Crettez, Olivier Musy
{"title":"法律统一的悖论","authors":"B. Crettez, Olivier Musy","doi":"10.1628/jite-2020-0047","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Countries often choose collective approaches resulting in the unification of the legal rules of individual countries. However, in simple standard games of legal harmonization, standard cooperative approaches of analysis are unable to reproduce any collective choice leading to legal unification. We call this dissonance the paradox of unification. We study if some modifications in assumptions about preferences or cooperative solution concepts can solve this paradox. While the introduction of social preferences or of a Kantian concept of equilibrium doesn’t resolve the paradox, legal unification can be a Berge equilibrium of this legal standardization game. JEL Classification: C71, K40, N40.","PeriodicalId":46932,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics-Zeitschrift Fur Die Gesamte Staatswissenschaft","volume":"1 1","pages":"1"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Paradox of Legal Unification\",\"authors\":\"B. Crettez, Olivier Musy\",\"doi\":\"10.1628/jite-2020-0047\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Countries often choose collective approaches resulting in the unification of the legal rules of individual countries. However, in simple standard games of legal harmonization, standard cooperative approaches of analysis are unable to reproduce any collective choice leading to legal unification. We call this dissonance the paradox of unification. We study if some modifications in assumptions about preferences or cooperative solution concepts can solve this paradox. While the introduction of social preferences or of a Kantian concept of equilibrium doesn’t resolve the paradox, legal unification can be a Berge equilibrium of this legal standardization game. JEL Classification: C71, K40, N40.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46932,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics-Zeitschrift Fur Die Gesamte Staatswissenschaft\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"1\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics-Zeitschrift Fur Die Gesamte Staatswissenschaft\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1628/jite-2020-0047\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics-Zeitschrift Fur Die Gesamte Staatswissenschaft","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1628/jite-2020-0047","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

各国往往选择集体的方式,导致各国法律规则的统一。然而,在简单的法律协调标准博弈中,标准的合作分析方法无法再现任何导致法律统一的集体选择。我们称这种不协调为统一悖论。我们研究了对偏好假设或合作解决概念的修改是否可以解决这一悖论。虽然引入社会偏好或康德的均衡概念并不能解决这一悖论,但法律统一可以成为这一法律标准化博弈的贝尔热均衡。JEL分类:C71, K40, N40。
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 Paradox of Legal Unification
Countries often choose collective approaches resulting in the unification of the legal rules of individual countries. However, in simple standard games of legal harmonization, standard cooperative approaches of analysis are unable to reproduce any collective choice leading to legal unification. We call this dissonance the paradox of unification. We study if some modifications in assumptions about preferences or cooperative solution concepts can solve this paradox. While the introduction of social preferences or of a Kantian concept of equilibrium doesn’t resolve the paradox, legal unification can be a Berge equilibrium of this legal standardization game. JEL Classification: C71, K40, N40.
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
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
期刊最新文献
Learning the Law Together: Judges, Litigants, and Case-by-Case Adjudication Learning the Law Together: Judges, Litigants, and Case-by-Case Adjudication Bias in Choice of Law: New Empirical and Experimental Evidence Plaintiff Favoritism in Judicial Cost-Shifting Decisions Is Choice of Law Biased? How Would we Know?
×
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