"The author intends to present legal socialization - the concept of the sociology of law - which describes attitudes to norms, law and law enforcement institutions. For law to be effective, any individual in a given community needs to internalize a number of values and attitudes. The attitude to law will influence its application; its effectiveness will depend on the perspective adopted by the legal norm addressees who could either accept binding regulations or ignore them. An adequate legal policy helps construe legal norms in a manner to prevent costs of interventions which need to be taken when law is not convergent with social expectations." (author's abstract)
Rozdział prezentuje teoretyczna analizę relacji zachodzącej między prawem a kontrolą społeczną przedstawiając w jaki sposób prawo jako narzędzie kontroli społecznej określa nastawienia wobec prawa.
The prestige of law is one of the most crucial issues addressed in the sociology of law. The awareness of the degree of acceptance of the law by its addressees is a fundamental factor in the introduction of possible changes in the legal system.The notion of "prestige of law" was introduced to empirical sociology by Adam Podgórecki in the research he conducted in Poland in 1964.A new perspective in the study was to go beyond classical socio-demographic variables and put an emphasis on personality variables. It was also one of the first such studies internationally. In the fifty years that have passed since A. Podgórecki's research, similar studies, even using exactly the same questions, have been repeated many times in both nation-wide and local studies. It should be assumed that the changes taking place in Poland and in the consciousness of its citizens during that time, such as the change of the system, increasing civil rights and freedoms, Poland's accession to international organizations, etc., might be reflected in the increasing level of the prestige of law. But did it happen? Unfortunately not. The analysis of empirical research devoted to the prestige of law in the following article, especially after the political transformation that took place in 1989, but also nowadays, is an attempt to explain the reasons for its persistently low level. ; Prestiż prawa to jedno z najważniejszych zagadnień podejmowanych w socjologii prawa. Wiedza na temat stopnia akceptacji prawa przez jego adresatów jest czynnikiem podstawowym dla wprowadzenia ewentualnych zmian w porządku prawnym. Pojęcie prestiżu prawa zostało wprowadzone do socjologii empirycznej przez Adama Podgóreckiego w badaniach pod tym tytułem, które przeprowadził w Polsce w 1964 r. Nowym ujęciem w przeprowadzonych badaniach było wyjście poza klasyczne zmienne socjodemograficzne i położenie nacisku na zmienne osobowościowe. Było to też jedno z pierwszych takich badań w skali międzynarodowej. W ciągu pięćdziesięciu lat, które minęły od badań A. Podgóreckiego, podobne badania, nawet przy użyciu dokładnie tak samo sformułowanych pytań, powtarzane były wiele razy, zarówno w badaniach ogólnokrajowych, jak i lokalnych. Należy założyć, że zmiany zachodzące w Polsce i w świadomości jej obywateli przez ten czas, takie jak zmiana ustroju, zwiększenie praw i swobód obywatelskich, wstąpienie Polski do organizacji międzynarodowych itp., mogą mieć odzwierciedlenie w zwiększającym się poziomie prestiżu prawa. Czy jednak tak się stało? Niestety nie. Przeprowadzona w niniejszym artykule analiza badań empirycznych poświęconych prestiżowi prawa, zwłaszcza po transformacji ustrojowej, jaka miała miejsce w 1989 r., ale również w czasach obecnych, stanowi próbę wyjaśnienia przyczyn stale utrzymującego się jego niskiego poziomu.
Includes bibliographical references (p. [291]-309) and index ; China's legal system is characterized by the gap between law and reality. Focusing on regulatory law, and with reference to the foreign investment area, this book identifies the functional and structural problems within China's administrative legal system that perpetuate this gap. Topics examined in depth include China's unusual hierarchy of legislation, the lack of clear delineation between legal and policy norms, the great scope of discretion accorded to bodies charged with legal interpretation and implementation, the limited scope of judicial review, and the resulting problems of legislative inconsistency and haphazard legal enforcement. The book contends that China's legal system is being built on a faulty and incomplete basis, and that if these problems remain unaddressed, China's legal future is at risk ; published_or_final_version ; List of Diagrams ; Foreword ; Acknowledgments ; List of Abbreviations ; Bibliography p291 ; List of Statutes p311 ; Glossary of Chinese Words p321 ; Index p327 ; Ch. 1.Law and Reality ; Ch. 2.China's Administrative Legal Structure ; Ch. 3.Legal Flexibility ; Ch. 4.Legal Consistency ; Ch. 5.Implementation of Law ; Ch. 6.Legal Supervision ; Ch. 7.Conclusion ; The Role of Law and Its Contribution to Social Cohesion p4 ; The Basic Consensus Underpinning Social Order in Imperial China p17 ; Legal Reform 1904-1949: The Beginning of Normative Dislocation p20 ; The Manufacture and Breakdown of Consensus Underpinning China's Social, Political and Legal Order - 1949-78 p21 ; The Era of Reform (1978-Present) - The Attempt to Reconstruct Consensus Through Law p33 ; Law and Policy as Agents of Social Change p42 ; Renewal of Legitimacy Through Law p46 ; Lawmaking and Discretion p54 ; Hierarchy of Legislative Authority p55 ; Inherent and Conferred Power of State Power Organs and Administrative Bodies to Make Law p56 ; Lawmaking at the National Level p59 ; Lawmaking at the Local Level p83 ; Characteristics of Legal Drafting p95 ; Bringing Law Down to Reality - Specification and Administrative Interpretation p104 ; Normative Documents p105 ; Specification by State Council Departments p110 ; Specification by Local Government and Local Functional Departments p124 ; Legal Interpretation p135 ; Constitutional Supervision p148 ; Legislative Supervision p153 ; The Legal Status of Administrative Rules, Administrative Interpretations and Normative Documents p159 ; The Non-Application of Conflicting Rules and Normative Documents by Judicial and Quasi-Judicial Bodies p172 ; Tools of Legal Enforcement: Types of Specific Administrative Acts p190 ; Normative References Underlying the Policies of Legal Implementation Adopted by Administrative Bodies p222 ; Judicial Review and China's Lack of an Independent Legal Tradition p244 ; Administrative Review Organs and Their Ability (or Inability) to Perform Impartial Reviews of Administrative Action p260 ; Supervision by the Supreme People's Procuratorate p261 ; Supervision of Legal Implementation by Legislative, Administrative and Party Organs p263 ; The Implications of Continued Legal Dislocation p284 ; Preconditions for Further Development and Reform p285
The issue analysed by the author is that of the institution of Presidential immunity pertaining to the President of the Republic of Poland, and operating in such a way that a sitting President cannot be held criminally liable before a common court for acts tantamount to offences. Inclining towards the essence of this solution and its consequences when it comes to respect for constitutional principles of legalism and equality before the law, the author at the same time seeks to assess the completeness of the provisions in effect in Poland, in so doing identifying a lack of clear directives as to how a former President (i.e. one who has left office) is to be held criminally liable. The conclusion reached by the author can be said to boil down to a recognition that the liability of a former President before Poland's Tribunal of State for offences or crimes committed is of an accessory nature where common courts are concerned, with the condition underpinning recognition of the Tribunal's primacy in matters of jurisdiction being the National Assembly's adoption of a Resolution holding a former President liable constitutionally, and potentially at the same time initiating action in respect of given offences. Any lack of such a National Assembly Resolution must give rise to a particular kind of reactivation – in respect of the former President – of jurisdiction in the dispensing of justice by common courts, given the fact that one of the negative procedural premises has ceased to be non-applicable. Thus, unlike in the case of a President still holding office, the cognition of the Tribunal of State in relation to a former President is neither exclusive nor automatic. Such observations have also stimulated work by the author to develop de lege ferenda postulates regarding the subject matter, as set against the wider background of Poland's political and constitutional system.
The purpose of the article is to present the legal situation of a slave under Roman criminal law. The analysis conducted proves that the approach towards slaves changed along with the transformation of the government system of ancient Rome. In the Period of the Republic, criminal liability of slaves evolved in two directions. The dominica potestas was exercised by owners, as well as the collegial body – tresviri capitales. From the Principate period, Roman jurists were convinced that the legal status of a slave and a free person was identical under criminal law. The difference between these offenders was non-exercise of leges criminales with a penalty that would be inadequate for their legal status, or ruling and exercising of more severe penalties against slaves. ; Artykuł ma na celu przedstawienie sytuacji prawnej niewolnika na gruncie rzymskiego prawa karnego. Przeprowadzone rozważania dowodzą, że podejście do niewolników ulegało zmianie wraz z ewolucją systemu władzy w starożytnym Rzymie. W okresie republiki odpowiedzialność karna niewolników kształtowała się dwutorowo. Jurysdykcję w ramach dominica potestas wykonywali ich właściciele, a także kolegialny urząd – treviri capitales. Juryści rzymscy, począwszy od epoki pryncypatu, nie mieli żadnych wątpliwości, że status prawny niewolnika i osoby wolnej był na gruncie prawa karnego tożsamy. Różnica dotyczyła niestosowania wobec nich leges criminales z sankcją karną nieadekwatną do ich statusu prawnego czy też orzekania i wykonywania surowszej kary wobec niewolnika.
