Since the late 1940s, economic considerations relating to the globalisation of world markets have led an ever larger group of Western European countries to unite in the quest for a supra-national legal order which, in time, generated the European Community. Most of these countries' legal orders claim allegiance to what anglophones are fond of labelling the “civli law” tradition,1 although two common law jurisdictions joined the Community in the early 1970s. The European Community's early decision to promote economic integration (and, later, other types of integration) through harmonisation or unification has involved, at both Community and national levels (for the implementation of Community rules in the member States carries the adoption of national rules in all member States), a process of relentless “juridification”; law, in the guise of legislatively or judicially enacted rules, has assumed the role of a “steering medium”.2 This development was foreseeable: once the interaction among European legal systems had acted as a catalyst for the creation of a supra-system,3 the need to achieve reciprocal compatibility between the infra-systems and the supra-system naturally fostered the development of an extended network of interconnections (such as regulations and directives) which eventually raised the question of further legal integration in the form of a common law of Europe.4

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S0020589300058656

European Legal Systems are not Converging

Participation and societal values: the challenge for lawmakers and policy practitioners

Access to civil justice is a perspective on the experiences that people have with civil justice events, organizations, or institutions. It focuses on who is able or willing to use civil law and law-like processes and institutions (who has access) and with what results (who receives what kinds of justice). This article reviews what we know about access to civil justice and race, social class, and gender inequality. Three classes of mechanisms through which inequality may be reproduced or exacerbated emerge: the unequal distribution of resources and costs, groups' distinct subjective orientations to law or to their experiences, and differential institutionalization of group or individual interests. Evidence reveals that civil justice experiences can be an important engine in reproducing inequalities and deserve greater attention from inequality scholars. However, the inequality-conserving picture in part reflects scholars' past choices about what to study: Much research has focused narrowly on the use of formal legal means to solve problems or advance interests, or it has considered the experience only of relatively resource-poor, lower status, or otherwise less privileged groups. Thus, we often lack the information necessary to compare systematically groups' experiences to each other or the impact of law to that of other means of managing conflicts or repairing harm.

Access to Civil Justice and Race, Class, and Gender Inequality

Access to civil justice is a perspective on the experiences that people have with civil justice events, organizations, or institutions. It focuses on who is able or willing to use civil law and law-like processes and institutions (who has access) and with what results (who receives what kinds of justice). This article reviews what we know about access to civil justice and race, social class, and gender inequality. Three classes of mechanisms through which inequality may be reproduced or exacerbated emerge: the unequal distribution of resources and costs, groups’ distinct subjective orientations to law or to their experiences, and differential institutionalization of group or individual interests. Evidence reveals that civil justice experiences can be an important engine in reproducing inequalities and deserve greater attention from inequality scholars. However, the inequality-conserving picture in part reflects scholars’ past choices about what to study: Much research has focused narrowly on the use of fo...

This wide-ranging study considers the primary forms of decision-making - negotiation, mediation, and umpiring - in the context of rapidly changing discourses and practices of civil justice across many jurisdictions. Much contemporary discussion in this field, and associated projects of institutional design, are taking place under the wide ranging but imprecise label of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). If a common linking theme is sought, the authors argue that this must lie in a general shift of priorities as between judgement and settlement in ideological terms. This new edition brings together and analyses a wide range of materials dealing with dispute processes and the current debates on civil justice. With the help of a selection of texts beyond those ordinarily found in the emerging alternative dispute resolution literature it provides a broad, comparative perspective on modes of handling civil disputes, with the principal focus on the central processes of negotiation and mediation.

Dispute Processes: ADR and the Primary Forms of Decision Making

/pdf/access-to-justice-newest-wave-in-worldwide-movement-to-make-23evf4vx6e.pdf

Access to Justice - Newest Wave in Worldwide Movement to Make Rights Effective

New Perspectives for a Common Law of Europe

/pdf/vindicating-the-public-interest-through-the-courts-a-4jbr6cjzj8.pdf

Mauro Cappelletti

Papers

Access to Justice - Newest Wave in Worldwide Movement to Make Rights Effective

New Perspectives for a Common Law of Europe

Vindicating the Public Interest through the Courts: A Comparativist's Contribution

Access to Justice Vol. I: A world survey (Book I & II)

Access to Justice Vol. III: Emerging issues