scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Topic

Doctrine

About: Doctrine is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 21901 publications have been published within this topic receiving 204282 citations.


Papers
More filters
Book
01 Jan 1980
TL;DR: The nature of the judicial role in law-making as mentioned in this paper has been studied extensively in the legal literature, including the notion of binding precedent and the doctrine of stare decisis.
Abstract: 1. Legislation - the Whitehall stage 2. Legislation - the Westminster stage 3. Statutory interpretation 4. Binding precedent - the doctrine of stare decisis 5. Law reporting 6. How precedent works 7. The nature of the judicial role in law-making 8. Other sources of law 9. The process of law reform.

38 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the influence of organizational culture, or identity, on innovation in the Marine Corps has been examined by analyzing the organizational culture in shaping what was deemed an appropriate response to the challenges it confronted in the 1970s.
Abstract: The purpose of this article is twofold. First, this article contributes to the understanding of the origins of maneuver warfare as the capstone doctrine of the Marine Corps. It does so by identifying a second source that fostered change in the Marine Corps – one in addition to disquiet about the conduct of the war in Vietnam – which stemmed from the challenges posed by the United States' post-Vietnam strategic and military reorientation. And second, this article examines the influence of organizational culture, or identity, on innovation in the Marine Corps. A critical strand in the growing literature on military innovation focuses on organizational culture and how it influences the behavior and responses of particular military organizations. This article contributes to this literature by analyzing the influence of the organizational culture of the Marine Corps in shaping what was deemed an appropriate response to the challenges it confronted in the 1970s.

38 citations

Journal Article
TL;DR: The substantive standing rule as discussed by the authors states that an individual has no right of action unless she can show "a wrong' to herself; i.e., a violation of her own right.
Abstract: I. INTRODUCTION Cardozo's opinion in Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.1 hinges on a stark assertion about rights and wrongs: A plaintiff has no right of action unless she can show "'a wrong' to herself; i.e., a violation of her own right."2 Cardozo himself made this principle the core of his analysis, yet scholars typically regard it as impenetrable, circular, vacuous, or, as Posner put it, "eloquent bluff."3 Small wonder, then, that readers typically turn to "reasonable foreseeability" as the essence of the case. Leading scholars treat Palsgraf as a proximate cause case,4 despite Cardozo's pronouncement that "[t]he law of causation, remote or proximate, is thus foreign to the case before us."5 Though Palsgraf is widely regarded as the most famous case in American tort law, Cardozo's own reasoning in Palsgraf is typically ignored or derided, but not explained. The facts of Palsgraf may be peculiar, but its core principle is pervasive: For all torts, courts reject a plaintiffs claim when the defendant's conduct, even if a wrong to a third party, was not a wrong to the plaintiff herself. For example, an injured plaintiff can win in fraud only if she was defrauded, in defamation only if she was defamed, in trespass only if her land rights were violated, and so on. Courts reach these results even where the defendant acted tortiously, the plaintiff suffered a real injury, and the plaintiffs injury was reasonably foreseeable. The legal rule upon which these cases rely is that which our scholarly tradition treats so ambivalently in Palsgraf: A plaintiff cannot win unless the defendant's conduct was a wrong relative to her, i.e., unless her right was violated. I shall call this principle the "substantive standing" rule and shall show that it is a fundamental feature of tort law. Proponents of the most prominent theoretical approaches to tort law, law and economics6 and corrective justice theory,7 have generally neglected the substantive standing rule, and there are strong reasons to believe these approaches are unable to explain this area of tort doctrine. The larger problem is that the substantive standing rule provides evidence that tort law is built around certain conceptions of "wrongs," "rights," and "rights of action," and yet, I shall argue, seminal versions of law and economics and corrective justice theory do not appear to have adequate resources to accommodate these conceptions. With this in mind, I shall sketch a third way of understanding tort law.8 While this third view differs markedly from its competitors, it is far from eccentric. Indeed, I think it is the view that has always been embedded in tort law itself.9 Tort law is not just a system for the selective imposition of liability in ways that will maximize wealth or other social welfare goals, as some law and economics scholars contend. Nor is it simply a system for rectifying losses or apportioning moral responsibility, as some corrective justice theorists maintain. Like a great deal of statutory law, tort law articulates rules telling citizens how they may and may not treat one another and how they may expect to be treated by others. In deciding and announcing these rules, appellate courts are imposing duties on individuals not to treat others in certain ways and creating rights in individuals not to be treated in certain ways. The tort law's web of rights and duties embodies a plurality of values as broad as those found in our statutory law. Rights of action should be understood against the backdrop of these rights, wrongs, and duties. Our system normally prohibits individuals and the state from acting against another individual. However, when the state recognizes a private right of action, it empowers and privileges an individual to act against another through the coercive machinery of the state-to take his property or to force him to behave a certain way. The substantive standing rule states the conditions under which an individual is so empowered to act against a defendant: only when she has been legally wronged by the defendant, only when her own legal right has been violated by the defendant. …

38 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This article found that women from two distinctly different groups of women, 20 former members of the 1970s Shiloh Youth Revival Centers and 20 former residents of the 1980s communal city of Rajneeshpuram, changed the courses of their lives because they conserved the gender doctrine articulated within their movements, for more than a decade after their departures.
Abstract: Enduring membership in communal new religions may have lasting effects when long-term members exit because of partial or complete movement disintegration. Data from two distinctly different groups of women, 20 former members of the 1970s Shiloh Youth Revival Centers and 20 former residents of the 1980s communal city of Rajneeshpuram, suggest that extended membership fundamentally redirects women's priorities. The women from each group changed the courses of their lives because they conserved the gender doctrine articulated within their movements, for more than a decade after their departures. Gender doctrine involves patterned definitions of femininity and masculinity embedded in every religion's overall doctrine. It delimits gender differences, the nature of deity(ies), the division of labor, interpersonal bonds, sexuality, and procreation.

38 citations


Network Information
Related Topics (5)
Politics
263.7K papers, 5.3M citations
84% related
Argument
41K papers, 755.9K citations
83% related
Democracy
108.6K papers, 2.3M citations
82% related
Human rights
98.9K papers, 1.1M citations
80% related
Ideology
54.2K papers, 1.1M citations
78% related
Performance
Metrics
No. of papers in the topic in previous years
YearPapers
20231,274
20222,944
2021388
2020578
2019615
2018677