Search results

EC law has expanded so much in recent decades that it is possible to develop overarching principles for contract law and other areas of law from the provisions for individual subjects and sectors. Unlike thirty years ago, when the ?Lando-Commission? began its work, today the existing Community law itself can form the primary source of academic works for the further development of European private law. On this basis the ?acquis research? contributes to remove substantive and terminological inconsistencies in the acquis communautaire, as well as creating a frame of reference for the development of European contract law through legislative measures. The ?acquis-approach? and comparative studies however have to supplement each other. Although the principles of the existing European Community law cover more objects of contract law than commonly supposed, they by no means cover all areas.

With the inevitability of further expansion, improvement and systematization of the mechanism of legal regulation of relations developing in the digital environment, the accuracy of legal and doctrinal terminology, its compliance with the already established system of conceptual and categorical apparatus, subject area and trends of legal regulation remains a significant task. The conflict of doctrinal approaches in the issue of terminological designation of such a phenomenon as the intensifying regulation of digital phenomena is incompatible with the dogmatism of law, requires more certainty, but for this it is necessary to resolve, according to the authors of the article, the main question: which of the terms most accurately corresponds to the nature of the emerging system of norms – "digital law" or "digitalization of law"?

What does today's Administrative Law course give your students that you might not be aware of and might be helped by knowing? That, as I understand it, is the question I am to answer. But we may also want to think about the overall shape of the curriculum: it may be useful to ask about fundamental issues our students may not be aware of, that may not be dealt with elsewhere in the law school curriculum. I'll spend most of my time on the question I've been asked to address, but I hope you will accept a few sentences on this second question. For administrative lawyers, that probable gap remains the one Harold Lasswell and Myres MacDougal suggested long ago, that contemporary law studies should include explicit instruction in the skills of public policy analysis – in particular, how to evaluate the need for and probable effectiveness of regulation. Administrative Law is the hidden comparative law course of the public law and adjectival law curriculum. In my judgment, that is its main contribution to your students' appreciation for your own subjects. Its students come to grips again and again with problems whose contrasts with those of the standard court-centered curriculum can illuminate their other courses. The common thread here is in the rather pragmatic adjustments legislatures and courts have made to the exigencies of the administrative state, in the face of legal theories developed in the simpler theoretical world of one-function institutions and individual rights. Ideology and theory have rarely prevailed in competition with function and necessity. Although the situation may be changing, as we shall have to discuss, Administrative Law repeatedly confronts its students with doctrinal differences driven by "the necessity of the case," which can illuminate standard courses as well as our own. I'm going to give a few examples, proceeding in alphabetical order through the curriculum and stressing those developments that are more recent in origin.