Egyéves az új Polgári Perrendtartás - Lehetőségeket vagy akadályokat teremt az új törvény? - Szakértők válaszolnak | Budapest, 2019. március 20. szerda | Regisztráljon most!

Folyóiratok » Acta Juridica Hungarica

Acta Juridica Hungarica

Akadémiai Kiadó 48. évf. 2. sz. - 2007. évi 2. szám

A folyóirat a magyarországi jogtudomány eredményeinek közlésével, továbbá a magyar törvényhozás és jogi irodalom bemutatásával foglalkozik. A szerkesztőség, az egész közép- és kelet-európai jogtudomány áttekintése céljából, az utóbbi időben külföldi szerzők munkáit is publikálja.

ISSN: 1216-2574 (Print) 1588-2616 (on-line)
Megjelenés: évi 4 füzetben
Nyelve: angol
Főszerkesztő: Lamm, Vanda
Szerkesztők: Hans-Jörg Albrecht, András Bragyova, Manfred Burgstaller, Jacek Czaputowicz, Gábor Hamza, Tibor Király, Benoit Mercuzot, András Sajó, Tamás Sárközy, Jan M. Smits, Sienho Yee

Szerkesztőség címe: Acta Juridica Hungarica, 1250 Budapest Pf. 25
Tel.: (06 1) 355 7384
Fax. (06 1) 375 7858

Varga Csaba: Comparative legal cultures?…p7w8q5652x3/?…


‘Comparative law’ was born to challenge national self-centredness at the turn of the 19th to 20th centuries, without transcending—notwithstanding its admission of social and cultural-historical approaches in the study of law—the perspectives of rule-positivism. ‘Comparative legal cultures’ attempts at explaining the prevailing cultural and traditional diversity that has generated, among others, western law with its modern formalism and the alternative ways of reaching social order in other cultures. By its focus upon the underlying culture and, thereby, also upon the hermeneutic understanding of legal phenomena, the latter is expected to offer growingly adequate responses to timely questions such as the universalisability of law and human rights, the convergence of the continental Civil Law and the British Common Law, or the development and future of the legal set-up in the Central and Eastern European region.The interest of the comparative study of legal cultures is thus one in the history of ideas, dedicated to human problem-solving as the cultural response of people to external challenges. For the description of living complexes in terms of mere rules can result at most in ‘thin description’ with the exclusion of ‘thick description’, the more so as rules (just as concepts) are only the consequences of a kind of possible representation, therefore, relying exclusively upon them may contribute to dissolving even prevailing interrelations, atomising organic components as fragmented into detached elements. Or, institutional thinking not-withstanding, not even the subject’s formalism can serve as a ground for restricting human completeness and integrity, cultural diversity, as well as responsibility to be taken for these.

Mackenzie, Clayton G.: Hong Kong’s copyright laws: Recent developments and dilemmas…3kw070k2q4m/?…


In January 2005 a Hong Kong resident was arrested and charged with distributing three Hollywood movies over the internet using BitTorrent software. At his trial, the prosecution argued that the defendant’s actions amounted to the criminal offence of “distribution” under section 118 (1)(f) of the Copyright Ordinance. The defence countered that defendant’s actions in uploading the files to his computer did not constitute distribution and amounted to no more than “making available” copyright materials—which was covered under civil provisions in section 26 of the same Ordinance. The defendant was found guilty and became the world’s first BitTorrent user to be criminally convicted of piracy. The case has opened up strong debate in Hong Kong, with moves afoot to introduce a new raft of copyright legislation.

Ódig Mátyás: Legal interpretation, intentionalism, and the authority of law…4404n0p1107/?…


The essay reflects upon the debate over intentionalism about statutory interpretation, and argues for a moderate version of intentionalism. It argues that the debate over intentionalism cannot be sorted out without establishing a viable conception of legislative authority. The outlines of such a conception are put forward by throwing some light on the concept of “representational authority”. The essay also argues that the problem of legal interpretation touches upon issues of sovereignty. It implies that some important issues of the normative theory of legal interpretation are linked to substantive political philosophical problems.

Sulyok Gábor: Thoughts on the necessity of security council reform…25724561147/?…


The declared objective of recent efforts to reform the Security Council is to increase effectiveness. A careful investigation applying certain theses of organization theory, however, reveals that neither the prevailing structure nor the working methods of the Council unavoidably hamper the achievement of organizational goals; therefore, arguments pertaining to the issue of effectiveness do not necessarily justify reform proposals. A similar conclusion can be reached by examining other possible causes of reform, namely the fundamental change of organizational environment, power struggles between various principal organs of the United Nations, and some harshly criticized features of the Council itself. It seems that the necessity of reform is rooted in various individual and highly subjective interests of member states rather than objective circumstances, and the organization has no other option, but to fulfill their demands in order to secure its own survival.

Kuti Csongor: Post-communist property reparations: Fulfilling the promises of the rule of law?…0174143n08q/?…


Property reparation programs undertaken in Central and Eastern Europe after the fall of the communist regimes fail to fulfill ‘the promises of the rule of law’. Reparation schemes do not have an exclusively reparative nature, moreover, reparation was deliberately linked with structural reform, and due to this duality, the scheme features a mixed distributive-reparative character. This resulted in two troublesome aspects: on one hand, there is no evidence of a compelling argument, which justifies the mitigation of past property deprivations at large. On the other hand, it can not be satisfactorily demonstrated why property-related injustices enjoy a privileged status when it comes to reparations, in comparison to other types of losses. Further, bearing in mind the Hayekian objection towards distributive justice, even those who had been placed in an equal situation—i.e. all suffered past property injustices—are not offered an objectively equal opportunity to claim redress. Due to the fact that the schemes addressed reparations—at least in part—from a distributive perspective (which resulted in an attempt to create a substantive equality between victims), the result that they achieved was objective inequality, as everyone was entitled to reparation between the same limitations, while everyone suffered losses of different extent. These differences in treatment between various former owners are mostly arbitrary, and in certain cases deliberately introduced so as to produce inequalities, and thereby meet the Hayekian concerns as far as they produce results that conflict with the idea of the rule of law. The analyzed provisions of the reparation schemes lead in practice to the creation of winners and losers of reparations, to a breach of the idea of formal equality before the law. In the conditions in which reparation schemes fall short from a thick conception of the rule of law (justice, rights or objective equality) it worth investigating, whether requirements of a thin reading-focusing on foreseability, clarity and consistency—are still met by post-communist property redistribution. Unfortunately at least under three aspects—valuation, time limits and probation—the reparation schemes’ provisions are not beyond criticism. The complexity of tasks that transition societies had to face is obvious and uncontested. Transitional law, according to Teitel, is a sui generis paradigm, a vehicle of social, political and ideological transformation. The amendments to the rule of law ideal, justifiable in the context of transition can go as far as—for example—to allow governments to decide upon the concrete form of the reparation, the type of wrongs it want to address, the period in time intended to be covered. But they may not create winners and losers; they may not distinguish between those placed in the same situation.

Pap L. András - Török Gábor: Book reviews…155216541g3/?…


Kivonat nélkül

Összes lapszám