Journal Article•
The Structure of Blackstone's Commentaries
TL;DR: Blackstone's work is the only systematic attempt that has been made to present a theory of the whole common law system as mentioned in this paper, except from Chancellor Kent's Commentaries on the Law of the United States, published between 1820 and 1825.
Abstract: J don't intend to provide any background information on Black? stone, except to say that he published his treatise in England be? tween 1765 and 1769, and that aside from Chancellor Kent's Commentaries on the Law of the United States, published between 1820 and 1825, Blackstone's work is the only systematic attempt that has been made to present a theory of the whole common law system. Duncan Kennedy.1
Citations
More filters
•
26 Sep 2002TL;DR: The authors argued that China is in transition from rule by law to a version of rule of law, though most likely not a liberal democratic version as found in economically advanced countries in the West, maintaining that law plays a key role in China's economic growth.
Abstract: China has enjoyed considerable economic growth in recent years in spite of an immature, albeit rapidly developing, legal system, a system whose nature, evolution and path of development have been poorly understood by scholars Drawing on his legal and business experience in China as well as his academic background in the field, Peerenboom provides a detailed analysis of China's legal reforms He argues that China is in transition from rule by law to a version of rule of law, though most likely not a liberal democratic version as found in economically advanced countries in the West Maintaining that law plays a key role in China's economic growth, Peerenboom assesses reform proposals and makes his own recommendations In addition to students and scholars of Chinese law, political science, sociology and economics, this will interest business professionals, policy advisors, and governmental and non-governmental agencies as well as comparative legal scholars and philosophers
338 citations
••
TL;DR: The new accounting history is located in relation to changes in the discipline of history itself, and is held to have implications for the current burgeoning of interest in field studies of accounting.
Abstract: Over the last decade accounting history has changed significantly. This change entails both a pluralization of the methodologies and a change in the position of history within the discipline of accounting. The extent of this change is held to entitle us to speak of the “new accounting history” as a loose assemblage of diverse research questions and issues. It involves attention to a variety of agents and agencies, the conditions of possibility of transformations in accounting knowledge and practice, the institutional forces that shape actions and outcomes and the rationales that set out the objects and objectives of accounting. The new accounting history is located in relation to changes in the discipline of history itself, and is held to have implications for the current burgeoning of interest in “field studies” of accounting.
317 citations
••
TL;DR: The early stages of a convergence between sociology of law and the sociology of organizations have been witnessed in recent years as discussed by the authors, where sociolegal scholars increasingly recognize that important aspects of legal life occur within bureaucratic settings, such as law firms, regulatory agencies and corporations.
Abstract: Recent years have witnessed the early stages of a convergence between the sociology of law and the sociology of organizations. Contemporary sociolegal scholarship increasingly recognizes that important aspects of legal life occur within bureaucratic settings, such as law firms, regulatory agencies and corporations.1 Simultaneously, contemporary organizations theory increasingly acknowledges that important aspects of organizational activity occur within legal environments, such as rights regimes, disputing cultures, and regulatory systems.2 Although few researchers have explicitly attempted
269 citations
••
TL;DR: A brief account of the impulses that have prompted the Critical scholars to their chosen ways of writing history (or rather histories, since the movement has actually spawned several different historiographical practices) is given in this article.
Abstract: Critical legal writers pay a lot of attention to history In fact, they have probably devoted more pages to historical descriptionparticularly the intellectual history of legal doctrine-than to anything else, even law and economics Such a preoccupation within a radical movement is at first glance surprising After all, lawyers have, by notorious custom, used history conservatively, appealing to continuity and tradition' And in the less common situations in which lawyers have used history to criticize the status quo, they have usually resorted to social and economic history, to show that the original social context of a legal rule reveals it was adopted for wicked or obsolete reasons, rather than to the history of legal doctrine2 What could conceivably be radical-or, as some unkindly ask, even interesting-about rewriting the history of doctrine? I will attempt, in this article, to give a brief account of the impulses that have prompted the Critical scholars to their chosen ways of writing history (or rather histories, since the movement has actually spawned several different historiographical practices) I'll start by trying to describe a vision of law-in-history that has tended, as I'll
240 citations