Commentary compared arrest is an exercise very similar to the classical case comment. The method of case comment must therefore be strictly followed.
The exercise has the effect of a comparative study of two (sometimes many) decisions for their comment.
This type of exercise brings together the decisions that relate to each other: they operate, in principle, about the same issue droit.Généralement, three scenarios are possible:
1st case figure : Both decisions provide a similar answer to the question of law raised before PWAs must comment, explaining the meaning of decisions, check the size and scope of the solution posed. Is it a well-established case law? Is this the rallying of a court or training from one jurisdiction to another case? (Judges from the bottom and the Court of Cassation, two divisions of the Court of Cassation ?...)
second scenario: Both oppose decisions about a common question of law . The comment must trace the reasons for such opposition and scope of each solution in the field. Is it repeated opposition, a new opposition? Are there other decisions confirming any solutions? One of the decisions she is a jurisprudence isolated? The decisions they spend does opposing doctrinal views?
third scenario: The two decisions build on the same issue droit.Le comment must verify the contribution of each decision on the rule of law applied and explain the meaning and the scope of this rule under both décisions.Dans all scenarios, this exercise assumes that the aspect of comparative commentary is present throughout the developments and that, upon introduction. It is, in no event to dedicate a separate part in the study of each decision but to take all the common issues on which the two decisions are confirmed, oppose or complètent.Ainsi introductory sentence should indicate the common area which involves both decisions
The exercise has the effect of a comparative study of two (sometimes many) decisions for their comment.
This type of exercise brings together the decisions that relate to each other: they operate, in principle, about the same issue droit.Généralement, three scenarios are possible:
1st case figure : Both decisions provide a similar answer to the question of law raised before PWAs must comment, explaining the meaning of decisions, check the size and scope of the solution posed. Is it a well-established case law? Is this the rallying of a court or training from one jurisdiction to another case? (Judges from the bottom and the Court of Cassation, two divisions of the Court of Cassation ?...)
second scenario: Both oppose decisions about a common question of law . The comment must trace the reasons for such opposition and scope of each solution in the field. Is it repeated opposition, a new opposition? Are there other decisions confirming any solutions? One of the decisions she is a jurisprudence isolated? The decisions they spend does opposing doctrinal views?
third scenario: The two decisions build on the same issue droit.Le comment must verify the contribution of each decision on the rule of law applied and explain the meaning and the scope of this rule under both décisions.Dans all scenarios, this exercise assumes that the aspect of comparative commentary is present throughout the developments and that, upon introduction. It is, in no event to dedicate a separate part in the study of each decision but to take all the common issues on which the two decisions are confirmed, oppose or complètent.Ainsi introductory sentence should indicate the common area which involves both decisions
0 comments:
Post a Comment