Search

Copyright of Revista Digital de Derecho Administrativo is the property of Universidad Externado de Colombia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Simple Summary: Latent physical defects in animals sold are problematic for both parties to the contract. This situation implies a legal reaction and increases the seller's civil liability. One of the types of such liability is the Germanic model of warranty, which is, or was, in force throughout Europe. The characteristics of this model and the conditions which shaped the current statutory acts are demonstrated based on contemporary (Austria, Belgium, France, Luxembourg and Switzerland) and historical (Germany and Poland) examples. The analysis shows factors influencing these legal rules. Local habits of animal trade and law are shown to be decisive factors for the Germanic model. The subject of the analysis is the Germanic model of liability for the physical defects of animals examined through examples in Europe. Methods of legal analysis and interpretation are used. Contemporary (Austria, Belgium, France, Luxembourg and Switzerland) and historical examples (Germany and Poland) are examined and described. The characteristics of this model and the historical conditions which shaped the current legal state are demonstrated. It is shown where particular civil law systems in Europe have maintained the Germanic model of warranty to this day, where other systems have replaced it with another model and what factors have influenced this. The analysis is comparative in regard to legal systems and oriented toward veterinary science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Română de Drept al Afacerilor is the property of Wolters Kluwer Romania and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article explores the current state of U.S. patent law regarding genus claims and proposes alternative approaches to address the issue of overbroad claims. The authors argue that a genus claim should be valid if some species within it can work without undue effort, while a commenter suggests adopting a utility-based approach similar to Canadian and European law. The text discusses the concept of improper generalization in patent law and compares the approaches to claim scope in different jurisdictions. It also introduces the concept of plausibility doctrine and its application in European and Canadian patent law. The utility-based approach is seen as a potential solution to control claim scope and address overbreadth. [Extracted from the article]

The article is a review of the monograph "Regularizations of irregular migrants in the EU. A comparative legal analysis of Austria, Germany, and Spain" written by Kevin Fredy Hinterberger. The author highlights the importance of investigating the regularization processes of immigrants in the context of the European Union and analyzes the procedures established by these three countries in their domestic law. The article emphasizes the relevance and complexity of this work, as well as the need to adopt a humane view of migration and recognize the rights of migrants. The author raises three main questions: the regularization processes in Austria, Germany, and Spain, how regularization can be used as an effective regulatory tool, and whether harmonization of regularization mechanisms at the EU level would be advantageous. The author proposes a Regularization Directive that would require Member States to harmonize their domestic legislation on the matter. The study demonstrates that there is no single possible answer and that regularization is a more humane and effective solution. [Extracted from the article]

Copyright of Revista de Derecho Comunitario Europeo is the property of Centro de Estudios Politicos y Constitucionales and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Rechtswissenschaft (Baden-Baden) is the property of Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This contribution offers an insight into the legal practice of the Aranyosi test during the EAW proceedings in seven Member States, an outcome of the research conducted during the ImprovEAW Project. Only the executing judicial authorities of some Member States do trigger the test. Member States are roughly differentiated between those having facilities with usually bad or usually good detention conditions, promoting antagonistic relationships instead of equal partnership. The lack of streamlining of the communication when supplementary information is requested, the lack of common standards and approach towards guarantees lead to further misunderstandings and frustration. The findings of this research have revealed the importance of departing from a pure legal understanding of mutual trust and follow a more empirical, experiential or bottom-up concept. Mutual trust is not only a legal concept, but it underpins the legal culture of the cooperation and collegial attitudes of authorities towards one another. This expression of mutual trust remains quite undiscovered: how is miscommunication affecting mutual trust? Do judicial authorities of legal systems express collegiality to one another? How do cultural aspects and preconceived ideas regarding the quality of other legal systems influence mutual trust? Accordingly, some suggestions have been made to improve the cooperation and the establishment of rapport when supplementary information is requested. Finally, I advocate for a more neutral view towards the Aranyosi test. As opposed to considering it as a supervisory mechanism, I have explored the idea of approaching it as a risk management tool: it tackles risks created by mutual trust. Such approach helps both sides to take responsibility to avert ad hoc risks, instead of experiencing Aranyosi as a testing moment. Such approach centres the real problem, i.e. the risks created by mutual trust for individuals and it can stimulate more proactive policy-making in this regard. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Effective implementation of mutual recognition in the Area of Freedom, Security, and Justice requires mutual trust between the Member States. Mutual trust has been eroded in some Member States due to the rule of law crisis. However, it is not only the rule of law crisis, but also the abandonment of the shared values of respect for fundamental rights as well as the differences in the prosecutorial systems of respective Member States, which have caused changes in the perception of the principle of mutual recognition. This paper will examine the evolving approach to the principle of mutual recognition based on the recent Court of Justice of the European Union rulings on the European arrest warrant. The analysis concludes that the CJEU attaches more importance to the protection of the principle of mutual recognition, the prosecution of perpetrators of crime, and the unwavering presumption of respect for fundamental rights by the Member States than to the effective protection of fundamental rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pursuant to art VI.-3:205 DCFR, liability for damage sustained in a traffic accident resulting from the use of a motor vehicle is strict and burdens the vehicle keeper. If any particular motor vehicle-specific provision were to find its way into the PETL, it could perhaps be such a rule. Basic Texts (2nd edn 2018) 161; Austria: § 11 sec 1 sent 2 of the Railway and Motor Vehicle Liability Act; Germany: § 17 sec 2 of the Road Traffic Act; translation by I F Wagner-von Papp i / I J Fedtke i in: E Karner/K Oliphant/BC Steininger, European Tort Law. The starting point for the Principles of European Tort Law (PETL) as a harmonisation project were, quite naturally, legal solutions adopted in the national legal systems, predominantly European, although the European Group on Tort Law (EGTL) also sought inspiration outside of Europe, reaching to the United States, Israel and South Africa. [Extracted from the article]

Copyright of Revista Română de Drept European is the property of Wolters Kluwer Romania and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Themis: Revista de Derecho is the property of Themis Asociacion and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

To show the impact of interviews for European legal studies, this article summarizes the earlier findings of two books, the first by Arold on the legal culture of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), and the second by Arold Lorenz, Groussot and Petursson on the legal culture of the European Court of Justice (CJEU) and European human rights culture. In doing so, this article draws a portrait of the legal cultures of the two European courts and explains how (and to what extent) differences between European legal cultures brought to the benches of the two courts by their judges (plus for the CJEU: advocates general) impact cases concerning human rights. This article highlights parts of the methodology employed, i. e. a combination of interviews and case law analysis. The results show that there is no clash of a multitude of individual (legal) cultures at the courts; instead, both have established their own legal cultures that unite their members. Importantly, the legal cultures of the ECtHR and CJEU show some distinctive differences, which are relevant when assessing European human rights culture. Studying European human rights culture, in turn, is key for an assessment of the recent attempt to merge the two systems through the accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The article discusses whether the ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) countries should attempt to emulate European competition policy, notably those that are in force in the E.U. (European Union) and the U.S. Topics include the high-level differences between the American and European approaches to competition policy; how the U.S. and Europe also differ substantially in terms of the conduct that may constitute an infringement of competition law; and the problem of digital platforms.

The present study aims to offer an integrated vision on the origin, legal nature and the effects which occur in the field of specific relations of civil law, from the perspective of comparative law by valorizing the specific research methods which define the institution of the right of first offer. Theoretical approaches with practical implications of continental law and Anglo-Saxon law were considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the reasons for different constitutional approaches to platform governance across the Atlantic. By adopting a comparative perspective under the lens of digital constitutionalism, it analyses the move from converging to diverging strategies of the United States and the European Union to address platform governance. From a liberal approach inspired by the US framework at the end of the last century, the European Union has moved towards a constitutional democratic strategy as demonstrated, for instance, by the launch of the Digital Services Act. On the other side of the Atlantic, the United States has reacted to the consolidation of platform governance by maintaining a liberal approach based on a vertical paradigm driven by the First Amendment. Given these democratic and liberal approaches, this article explains how the different constitutional premises of the United States and the European Union have produced diverging responses to the power of online platforms, thus underlining different expressions of digital constitutionalism across the Atlantic. The first section of the article introduces the rise of digital constitutionalism as the primary research angle to study the trans-Atlantic approaches to platform governance. The second section compares the European and US responses to the rise of platform powers. The third section focuses on the implications of these different constitutional strategies on a global scale. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the context of the requirement to guarantee a higher level of protection of the health and safety of workers, imposed in the field even at European level1, the offences against labour protection are one of the ways that give expression internally to the highest legal protection in the field, satisfying both the special prevention in the field by preventing the occurrence of such events, sometimes having the most serious consequences and the need to punish more severely such deeds, when special social danger thereof requires so. The complexity of offences against labour protection lies in the often omissive and culpable conduct of the perpetrator, sometimes related to a particular specificity of the causality link between this and the state of concrete danger thus created, with special implications on the imputability of the deed, in the context of the difficult interpretation of the vast special legislation, which must, therefore, be known and correctly applied. The relevant doctrine was initiated, starting precisely with the comment on the first incrimination of this sort in the Criminal Code of Carol II of 1936, and relevant case law was found, including from the constitutional contentious court, with regard to the compliance with the principle of legality of the incrimination in terms of predictability of the rule of incrimination, short references being formulated to the European law in the matter of safety and health at work and of comparative law. Our analysis will cover the entire content of the specific offences, with reference to both the objective and the subjective typicalness of the offences against labour protection, including their pre-existing conditions, with the declared aim of supporting the practitioners in the field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Collected Papers of Zagreb Law Faculty / Zbornik Pravnog Fakulteta u Zagrebu is the property of Sveuciliste u Zagrebu, Pravni Fakultet and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Anuario Colombiano de Derecho Internacional is the property of Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Senora del Rosario and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Adopting a comparative perspective, this article examines legal means and practices of challenging homophobic speech in European and U.S. law. This exercise revolves around the study of major cases concerning homophobic speech from the law of the European Court of Human Rights and broader legal framework within the Council of Europe (the CoE), the Court of Justice of the European Union (EU) as well as the United States Supreme Court (along with a broader scrutiny of U.S. law in comparative perspective with European (CoE and EU law) in recent years. The article concludes that the concepts of (1) hate speech (in constitutional, administrative and criminal settings) (2) direct discrimination and (3) harassment (in labour and anti-discrimination law) will be central in the strategic litigation of LGBT organizations seeking to redress the climate of homophobia via various legal avenues in both Europe and the U.S. While in the settings of European law, all three concepts – depending on the context – can benefit victims of homophobia in their judicial redress, U.S. law offers coherent protection in its employment law framework, even though this remains in need of further strengthening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The making of a last will and testament by a testator is an act in law. The testator is entitled to make specific dispositions to execute their last will, such as identifying an heir, making ordinary or vindication legacies, or appointing an executor of the will. At the same time, the number of potential aims intended to be achieved by the testator corresponds to the number of possible life situations that cannot be resolved through the testator's dispositions regarding their estate. It is therefore necessary to equip the testator with such legal means that will allow them to achieve both material and non-material objectives. This is the role of the institution of testamentary burden. It has been regulated in the Polish legal system only superficially; therefore, the author refers to the legacy of German legislation to offer a better understanding of the solution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this article is to present possible solutions to the problem of access to digital contents left by a deceased user of Internet services under different European legal systems. Discussion of this issue from a comparative perspective will allow the drawing of general conclusions about the direction de lege lata in which European legislation is heading. In my opinion there should be dedicated legal provisons introduced into the polish civil code which would pertain to digital goods. This would also facilitate the harmonization of inheritance matters in a European perspective. Technological development requires amending the civil code to fit changing reality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The subject of the article is a comparative analysis of the solvency test - a legal instrument that conditions causa societatis payments for limited liability companies upon ascertaining their impact on its future liquidity (ability to pay debts as they come due), which has recently been incorporated into the Polish legal system with reference to a simple joint-stock company (pol. Prosta Spółka Akcyjna) (Article 30015 § 5 of Polish Commercial Companies Code). Considering that the solvency test originated in common law, the comparative analysis of the instrument in question was set against the background of selected foreign legal systems, i.e., the law of New Zealand, United States and the United Kingdom, where the solvency test is shaped much differently than the polish one. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The subject of this article is the institution of the constitutional complaint, which is analysed in connection with European integration. It should be noted that Poland's membership of the European Union has had a great influence, not only on the system of national law, but also on the jurisprudence of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal; therefore considerations are carried out here mainly in relation to the Constitutional Tribunal. In examining the issue of the constitutional complaint, the following assumptions may be stated. First, the constitutional-complaint procedure, is in fact, the examination of the compliance of legal norms with the Constitution, any deviation being related to the entities initiating proceedings before the Constitutional Tribunal, Article 191(1)(6), of the Constitution1, and to the material scope of the complaint, as determined in Article 79 of the Constitution. Second, there is no doubt that the constitutional complaint can become an important legal instrument shaping the jurisprudence of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal, which has to face constitutional issues related to European integration2. Following the example of the practice of other Member States, e.g. Germany, the Tribunal may use the institution of the constitutional complaint as a means of controlling the compliance of the secondary law of the European Union with the Constitution of the Republic of Poland. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The legal situation of minor testator's parents in intestate succession poses a significant legal and social problem. In Polish law, parents who have been deprived of parental authority continue to enjoy their civil-law status; in other words, they maintain the right to inherit from their child under statute. Meanwhile, the reasons for which the court applied the strictest possible "sanction" in the form of deprivation of authority of parents who, in exercising their rights under parental authority, seriously violated the child's interest or grossly neglected parental obligations, which is noticeable even to an ordinary bystander, seem to be sufficient "proof" that family ties, which are decisive for the statutory title to inherit, do not exist. If these ties are severed or seriously disrupted, the consequences should be seen in all areas of life. Simply put, persons who deliberately break apart the family should not enjoy the advantages that the law provides for testator's closest relatives. In such a case, to consider the effect of deprivation of parental authority by "releasing" its holders from any obligation towards the child may not be considered a sufficient civil sanction, especially given that in the vast majority of cases, the reason for such deprivation is gross neglect of parental duties by one or both parents. The consequences of this type of negligence should also, if not primarily, consist in the deprivation of pecuniary benefits that the parents of a minor could enjoy after his or her death. The current legal solutions governing this area undoubtedly need to be revised. Such imperfect normative solutions adopted in Polish law prove the need to propose de lege ferenda recommendations. In this context, it is worthwhile to have a look at the normative solutions adopted in foreign legal systems and whether they can be grafted on Polish law. The reference to the Russian and Italian legal systems seems particularly recommendable due to the fact that their normative solutions directly allude to the institution of deprivation of parental authority in the context of admissibility of the title to inherit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the period between the deceased person's death and division of assets in the deceased person's estate among the heirs, an essential matter is administration of the estate. Persons exercising such administration should have adequate competences allowing them to perform factual and legal acts in relation to assets in the succession estate. The range of such persons and the scope of their competences differ in specific Member States of the EU. The law applicable to the administration of the estate, as well as other matters relating to succession, is currently designated by the Regulation (EU) No. 650/2012. This article is devoted to an analysis of the provisions of that Regulation on the administration of the estate. In addition, the article discusses the issue of qualifying the institution of succession administration as applicable in Poland with regard to an enterprise belonging to the succession estate. As a result of the investigations made, it can be concluded that administration of the estate is governed by the law applicable to the entirety of succession matters (lex successionis). This is the case also in respect of the succession administration recently introduced in Poland. Grounds for a different treatment of the succession administration cannot be found in Art. 30 of Regulation (EU) No. 650/2012. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although testamentary freedom is an important principle in succession law, legislators and judges across the world have recognized the importance of certain family members by granting them mandatory claims in the inheritance of their deceased relative (in spite of wishes of the deceased). This article focuses on these rights. The goal is to introduce the Dutch framework of imperative succession law and to demonstrate the possibilities of combining the legal and economic discipline to deepen knowledge on these provisions. Whilst examples will focus upon succession law, the concepts will be described in a general manner. This might inspire researchers to apply a similar interdisciplinary approach in other fields of law. The imperative provisions that currently exist for family members in the Netherlands can be divided into two types of claims. The first is the legitime, a fixed claim for children of the deceased. The second type are the other statutory entitlements that cover a specified range of situations in which judges have freedom in deciding upon the requests of family members. However, this discretion raises many questions on the way judges should handle such claims. A combination of law and economics can aid in describing and interpreting the law, for example by defining the need for support that is often required for a successful claim. By relying on economic data and theory, judges can come to a more consistent and substantiated way of establishing the need for support. The interdisciplinary methodology can also improve comparative legal research. The functional approach that is common in comparative legal research, assumes that law fulfills certain functions. Economic figures provide an objective basis that demonstrates what functions a law fulfills and to what extent this is done efficiently. This information can be used to compare the functioning of laws in different countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista de Derecho Politico is the property of Editorial UNED and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The Unfair Contract Terms Directive (UCTD) is a foundational piece of legislation in European Contract Law that has been in effect for over 30 years. Despite its importance, the UCTD has never been reformed to address the challenges of digitalization, sustainability, and global issues. The directive has contributed to the integration of fundamental rights into European Contract Law and has been a source of uncertainty due to its two-level system. Two key issues related to the UCTD are the information model and legal consequences, particularly regarding nullity and restitution. This collection of articles explores these issues and provides insights from comparative law and recent case law. [Extracted from the article]

Although in our daily activity we work mainly in the Romanian law (or, at most, the European law), we are firm supporters of the need to broaden our horizons and to understand the foreign legal systems in order to enrich our knowledge, but also to grow as professionals of law; in particular, when we refer to countries such as the United States, an important economic power, with a solid system of law, from which we can draw the inspiration ourselves. This type of „legal inspiration” helps us a lot to understand other systems of law and to collaborate in cases such as the enforcement of foreign legal decisions, the application of foreign law in local files, helping companies to develop their businesses also in other parts than the country of origin - including Romania. In addition, the Romanian law has been substantially improved over time, having as source of inspiration the legal provisions from other countries. The trademark law - the need to explore and compare the systems of Romanian and American law - resulted, first of all, from the practical need, but also from the desire for knowledge. Although at first glance it looks very different, the U.S. trademark system is very similar to the Romanian one. There are the aspects that could be improved if we found a way to include them in our own legal system. There are some similarities, but also differences, between the regulation of trademarks in the Romanian and American legal systems, and we have tried to highlight some of them. Primo Angeli, an expert in brands, mentioned: „A great trademark is appropriate, dynamic, distinctive, memorable and unique.” Thus, whether we call it brand or trademark, we are not as different as we might think. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores the civilian tradition of the European law of delict. Part 1 tells the story of the birth of modern civil law of delict in the 19th century codifications in continental Europe, rooted in Roman law and Enlightenment Natural Law. Examples are the French and German codes, and the Japanese as a legal transplant. Fault, unlawfulness (Rechtswidrigkeit), damage, and causation are the central categories. Part 2 focuses on the challenges of industrialisation: enterprises as new actors, industrial accidents, technical risks, insurance. This part discusses the changes the civil law of delict and the common law of torts underwent to cope with these challenges. Part 3 draws some consequences from these developments. It outlines the basic structures of a postmodern civil law of delict, explicitly differentiating it from the law of torts, and as a basis for further developments in 21st century. This structure has three main features: liability for personal fault, liability for defective business activities, and Gefährdungshaftung. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One of the most controversial institutions of Romanian criminal procedural law is the institution of exclusion of evidence. We considered it necessary to carry out this comparative law study so that law practitioners as well as any interested person could observe how this institution appeared and how it is applied in other countries and in the case law of the European Cour t of Human Rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The disclosure regime introduced by the EU Damages Directive is largely unprecedented in many EU Member States. Its implementation raises a number of thorny questions for both legal scholarship and practice. This contribution proposes a comparative analysis of Germany's implementation through the lens of US discovery as a means of exposing issues, testing weaknesses, and exploring potential solutions. While the US certainly does not get everything right, it has grappled with questions of disclosure for decades. This wealth of experience and case law provides a rich vein for European (civil law) legislators and practitioners alike to mine. To this end, we analyse the key uncertainties that persist in Germany's implementation: from the conditions and costs of disclosure, to the protections against disclosure, and the consequences of a breach. Each step of the way the US model serves as a preface to the German approach, providing context for a critical comparative analysis. We conclude with practical recommendations for the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of A&C - Administrative & Constitutional Law Review - Revista de Direito Administrativo e Constitucional is the property of A&C - Revista de Direito Administrativo & Constitucional (Instituto Bacellar) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

When it comes to environmental damage, a basic tenet is that the polluter should pay. Nonetheless, public authorities regularly incur clean-up costs. Environmental damage often transcends the individual polluter, affecting a plurality of personal and/or public goods. Its diffuse extent and complex nature make environmental protection a collective interest. Thus, it comes as no surprise that public authorities can be legally obliged to take preventive and remedial measures against environmental damage. However, when public authorities act on such a legal obligation, the question arises: whose burden are the costs of the measures taken? The emergence of the polluter pays principle indicates a preference to allocate the costs to those who elicit the legal obligation. What role has tort law to play in this regard? Even though it is certain that public authorities are not exempt from tortious liability themselves, doubts exist whether they can claim in tort as wronged parties. Public authorities represent society and embody the public interest. Tort law, however, seems to mainly focus on private interests. Nevertheless, the Belgian transposition of the European Environmental Liability Directive, which obliges the polluter to pay for the prevention and remedial measures, allows for a claim in tort. This contribution inquires whether such a claim allows for the recovery of all costs mentioned in the directive, even general expenses. From a comparative law perspective it examines how the polluter pays principle, advocated for on the international legal scene, is to be imbedded in national tort law. In particular, it examines whether national tort law acts as a straitjacket for the principle, or whether the principle might, conversely, serve as a crowbar to break open this field of law to allow compensation for harms that traditionally would not be eligible for damages. It finds the principle has a harmonising influence but is not absolute. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Do comparatists based in "radically different" legal systems experience "radical difference" and its side effects--self-doubt, suspicion of cultural bias, and feelings of inadequacy--when they research American and European law? Focusing on Chinese comparative law, this Article argues that Chinese legal scholars' attitudes to difference (and similarity) are best explained as reflections of these scholars' ideological projects. Describing American and European legal systems in terms of similarity rather than difference supports Chinese law reformers' efforts to advance and defend Western-style legal institutions in China. Conversely, conservative socialist and neoconservative Chinese scholars who resist Western-style legal and political reforms seek to emphasize cultural, social, and political differences between China and the West. Comparative law therefore allows legal scholars to relate to foreign law in various, ideologically meaningful ways. Statements about difference and similarity--and attitudes towards understanding, in general-- should be understood in the light of such ideological projects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]