Suchergebnisse

Administrative law permeates all areas of law, and this series focuses on its role both regionally and globally. This volume considers tort liabilities in European public authorities. It looks at several European countries, using case studies to compare administrative laws across the EU.

"Vicarious liability is controversial: a principle of strict liability in an area dominated by fault-based liability. By making an innocent party pay compensation for the torts of another, it can also appear unjust. Yet it is a principle found in all Western legal systems, be they civil law or common law. Despite uncertainty as to its justifications, it is accepted as necessary. In our modern global economy, we are unlikely to understand its meaning and rationale through study of one legal system alone. Using her considerable experience as a comparative tort lawyer, Paula Giliker examines the principle of vicarious liability (or, to a civil lawyer, liability for the acts of others) in England and Wales, Australia, Canada, France and Germany, and with reference to legal systems in countries such as the United States, New Zealand and Spain"--Provided by publisher

Introduction -- Chapter 2: Three Illustrative Cases – Facts and Questions -- Chapter 3: Overview of the Key Moments in the Development of nato -- Chapter 4: Current Institutional Framework of nato and nato's Decision Making Process -- Chapter 5: The International Legal Personality of nato -- Chapter 8: Binding International Obligations Relevant to nato's Operations -- Chapter 7: Attribution of Wrongful Acts to nato -- Chapter 8: Conclusions and Recommendations.

The legislative and judicial dismantling of sovereign immunity is among the more significant and celebrated reforms of recent American administrative law. In many instances, this development has given those seeking damages for wrongful governmental action their first and only defendant. Even in situations in which litigants already had a cause of action against individual public officials, making the government amenable to suit has enhanced the chances of actual recovery, since officials often lack the means to satisfy judgments rendered against them. The immunity from liability enjoyed by public officials also has undergone a complex series of changes. Though still in flux, this controversial area of the law today finds officials exposed to a considerable risk of personal liability for the wrongs they commit in connection with their performance of duty. Although these developments might have gone even further in lowering the shield of immunity from the government and its officers, they represent a blessing for the victims of official wrongdoing. However, the emerging coexistence of governmental and officer liability has created a new problem of coordination. Without attempting to define the proper scope of liability for harm arising out of governmental activity, this Article explores various aspects of the coordination problem. After briefly sketching recent developments in governmental and officer immunity, and discussing the need for a coherent system of governmental tort law, I shall examine various ways of integrating governmental and officer tort liability so as to accommodate the purposes that the law of governmental torts may appropriately be asked to serve. A brief look will be taken in this connection at the approaches to the problem that have been adopted in French and German law.

Of no small proportions was the task faced by the judges of this state when the legislature saw fit to superunpose upon our background of common law a system of community property, a development of the civil law And nowhere are the difficulties of reconciling these two conflicting systems felt more acutely than in the field of tort liability. In addition to inherent difficulties there is the urge which constantly influences judges to circumvent existing law when it requires turning away a just claimant empty-handed (or, what amounts to the same thing, turning hun away with a judgment winch cannot be satisfied). This urge is, often buttressed by a strong public policy in favor of protectmg the class of claimants to which the plaintiff belongs. Little wonder then that the decisions in this field do not always preserve inviolate the "symmetry" of the "edifice of justice."

This book examines the relationship between governments and international organizations under international law. After surveying the policing powers of international organizations under international law, it illustrates some normative aspects of law that distinguish regulation from enforcement via study of recent legal cases before international judicial bodies. According to Dimitris Liakopoulos's expert analysis, if the two provisions codify the same general rule, the peculiarities of the relationship between an international organization and individual governments mean that sanctions decline when measured against the hypothesis that the latter facilitate an organization's violation of its obligations to all. The book concludes with peculiarities in the enforcement of international law by international organizations.--Amazon.com

The United States Government owns and operates by far the largest fleet in the Americas. It is a fleet which includes not only the high profile carriers, cruisers and destroyers but a miscellany of tugs, barges, tankers, frigates, car floats and lighters. It includes cargo vessels as well as warships. Thus, the potential for the commission of maritime torts is manifest simply from the number and variety of government vessels at sea. Add the myriad responsibilities exercised by Government agencies such as the United States Coast Guard, and the potential for tortious involvement is enormous.