英语论文网

留学生硕士论文 英国论文 日语论文 澳洲论文 Turnitin剽窃检测 英语论文发表 留学中国 欧美文学特区 论文寄售中心 论文翻译中心 我要定制

Bussiness ManagementMBAstrategyHuman ResourceMarketingHospitalityE-commerceInternational Tradingproject managementmedia managementLogisticsFinanceAccountingadvertisingLawBusiness LawEducationEconomicsBusiness Reportbusiness planresearch proposal

英语论文题目英语教学英语论文商务英语英语论文格式商务英语翻译广告英语商务英语商务英语教学英语翻译论文英美文学英语语言学文化交流中西方文化差异英语论文范文英语论文开题报告初中英语教学英语论文文献综述英语论文参考文献

ResumeRecommendation LetterMotivation LetterPSapplication letterMBA essayBusiness Letteradmission letter Offer letter

澳大利亚论文英国论文加拿大论文芬兰论文瑞典论文澳洲论文新西兰论文法国论文香港论文挪威论文美国论文泰国论文马来西亚论文台湾论文新加坡论文荷兰论文南非论文西班牙论文爱尔兰论文

小学英语教学初中英语教学英语语法高中英语教学大学英语教学听力口语英语阅读英语词汇学英语素质教育英语教育毕业英语教学法

英语论文开题报告英语毕业论文写作指导英语论文写作笔记handbook英语论文提纲英语论文参考文献英语论文文献综述Research Proposal代写留学论文代写留学作业代写Essay论文英语摘要英语论文任务书英语论文格式专业名词turnitin抄袭检查

temcet听力雅思考试托福考试GMATGRE职称英语理工卫生职称英语综合职称英语职称英语

经贸英语论文题目旅游英语论文题目大学英语论文题目中学英语论文题目小学英语论文题目英语文学论文题目英语教学论文题目英语语言学论文题目委婉语论文题目商务英语论文题目最新英语论文题目英语翻译论文题目英语跨文化论文题目

日本文学日本语言学商务日语日本历史日本经济怎样写日语论文日语论文写作格式日语教学日本社会文化日语开题报告日语论文选题

职称英语理工完形填空历年试题模拟试题补全短文概括大意词汇指导阅读理解例题习题卫生职称英语词汇指导完形填空概括大意历年试题阅读理解补全短文模拟试题例题习题综合职称英语完形填空历年试题模拟试题例题习题词汇指导阅读理解补全短文概括大意

商务英语翻译论文广告英语商务英语商务英语教学

无忧论文网

联系方式

英国留学生法学essay写作范文

论文作者:www.51lunwen.org论文属性:短文 essay登出时间:2015-11-27编辑:jiaqiqin点击率:6159

论文字数:1865论文编号:org201511251638133151语种:英语 English地区:英国价格:免费论文

关键词:stare decisis上议院法律权力

摘要:英国主要是议会有法律的权力,高等法院的判决对下级法院有约束力,院必然会跟进先前的裁决,特别是由高等法院给出的决定。 这就是著名的“遵循先例”原理。

英国留学生法学essay写作范文

在英国,法律的权力属于议会。 然而,法官也能使法律的司法宣判。在英国法律制度下,高等法院的判决对下级法院有约束力。这个原理就是著名的“遵循先例”,意思是立于先前决定的案件。 这一原则的重要性在于,法院必然会跟进先前的裁决,特别是由高等法院给出的决定。 例如,上诉法院必然会遵循英国最高法院(上议院)所作出的决定。

也可以表示,现在的司法先例已经被以这样一种方式裁决了,它将更便于法官解释法律并且停留在先前的案例是,而现在我们能够根据时间的需求给法官公平公正的判断的空间。

至少所有的决定能够创造一个有说服力的先例,说服力的程度取决于法院的在法律层次结构的地位。例如,来自枢密院司法委员会却不结合委员会的前例不是英国法院的正常层次的一部分(因为该委员会是由9个最高级法官,常任上诉法官(或上议院))。其他的有说服力的先例来源包括外国国家法院的决定。

In English law the law making power lies with the parliament. However judges also make law by way of judicial pronouncement. Under the English legal system it is deemed that the decisions given by higher courts are binding on the lower courts. This principle is famously known as 'stare decisis' which means to stand by previously decided cases. The importance of this principle is that courts are bound to follow previously decided cases specially if the decision is given by a higher court. For e.g. the Court of Appeal is bound to follow the decision given by the UK Supreme Court (previously House of Lords).

It can also be said that nowadays judicial precedent has been laid down in such a manner that it will be more easier for judges to interpret the law and also to stay on the path of precedent which is now flexible enough to give judges the room to give fair and just judgment according to the demand of time.

All decisions at least create a persuasive precedent, the degree of persuasiveness depends on the position of the court in the legal hierarchy. For e.g. precedents from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is not binding since the Committee is not part of the normal hierarchy of courts in UK (because the Committee is comprised of up to 9 of the most senior judges, Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (or Law Lords)) .Other sources of persuasive precedents include courts in foreign countries, for example, the decision in (Eliason v. Henshaw).

Obiter dicta have formed law in many cases for example, in (Central London Property Trust Ltd. v. High Trees House Ltd) and Pinnel's Case.

There are three main reasons why persuasive precedents are not binding:
The first is that the doctrine of precedent in similar cases should be treated in the same way. This restriction does not apply with persuasive precedents.

The second is that there are a huge bulk of persuasive precedents, and it would be impracticable to follow them.

The third is that persuasive precedents are frequently not considered per curiam as ratio decidendi and even when they are, they are not usually considered. Therefore there is a greater risk that they will be considered ill and thus may be bad law.

Only points of law are binding. For example, in (Qualcast v. Haynes), it was decided that the 'precedent' that employers who failed to give instructions on the use of protective clothing were de facto negligent, was a question of fact and therefore not binding.

There are two main theories of precedent. The first of these is the declaratory theory, which states that the common law does not change - in each case the law is merely re-stated but not added to - the judges are declaring the law on the basis of past decisions.

The realistic theory is that they do - all principles must originally come from somewhere, and the abstraction of old principles is the creation of ne论文英语论文网提供整理,提供论文代写英语论文代写代写论文代写英语论文代写留学生论文代写英文论文留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。

共 1/4 页首页上一页1234下一页尾页

相关文章

    英国英国 澳大利亚澳大利亚 美国美国 加拿大加拿大 新西兰新西兰 新加坡新加坡 香港香港 日本日本 韩国韩国 法国法国 德国德国 爱尔兰爱尔兰 瑞士瑞士 荷兰荷兰 俄罗斯俄罗斯 西班牙西班牙 马来西亚马来西亚 南非南非