1-9 of 9 Results

  • Keyword: Republic x
Clear all

Chapter

1. Introduction:  

Rome—a historical sketch

Course-focused and comprehensive, the Textbook on series provide an accessible overview of the key areas on the law curriculum. This chapter provides a historical sketch of Rome. The history of Rome is traditionally divided into three main periods based on the dominant constitutional structure in Roman society during these three periods. These are the Monarchy (eighth century bc–510 bc), Republic (509–27 bc), and Empire (27 bc–ad 565).

Chapter

This chapter provides a historical sketch of Rome. It has been written to provide a contextual basis for the study of Roman private law. The history of Rome is traditionally divided into three main periods based on the dominant constitutional structure in Roman society during these three periods. These are the Monarchy (eighth century bc–510 bc), Republic (509–27 bc), and Empire (27 bc–ad 565). Scholars of Roman law tend to refine this division even further. Thus, to the scholar of Roman law, the period from the founding of Rome in the eighth century bc–c. 250 bc is regarded as the ‘archaic’ period of Roman law. The period thereafter, from c. 250 bc–27 bc, is generally described as the ‘pre-classical period’ of Roman law.For scholars of Roman law, the ‘classical’ period, c. first three centuries AD, and the Justinianic period, c. sixth century AD, are the most important, owing to the compilation of ‘classical’ Roman law by order the Byzantine Emperor, Justinian, in the sixth century.

Chapter

Course-focused and comprehensive, the Textbook on series provide an accessible overview of the key areas on the law curriculum. This chapter discusses the sources of Roman law. It covers sources of law in the archaic period; sources of law in the Republic; sources of law in the Empire; the post-classical era; and Justinian's codification of Roman law.

Chapter

This chapter focuses on the supremacy of European Union (EU) law over the law of the member states and the relationship with international law. It suggests that the reasons and logic for the supremacy of the EU law have been developed through the decisions and interpretation of the European Court of Justice (CJEU) and provides relevant cases to illustrate the views of the CJEU on the superiority of EU law. It also considers the transfer and division of competences. This chapter also describes the reception and implementation of EU law in several member states, including Germany, Italy, France, the Czech Republic, Denmark, and Spain.

Chapter

This chapter considers the concept of revocation. Revocation is literally the action of ‘calling back’, in the sense of rescinding or annulling. It is a fundamental characteristic of wills that they are revocable wholly or partially at any time before a testator’s death. The chapter also considers topics related to revocation: alterations, revival, and republication. A will may be revoked by four different methods: by marriage or civil partnership; by another will or codicil; by a duly executed writing; and by destruction. Revocation by marriage is governed by s. 18 of the Wills Act 1837. A testamentary gift to a spouse will fail if the marriage/civil partnership subsequently ends in divorce/dissolution or nullity, but strictly this is not a method of revocation.

Chapter

This chapter considers the concept of revocation. Revocation is literally the action of ‘calling back’, in the sense of rescinding or annulling. It is a fundamental characteristic of wills that they are revocable wholly or partially at any time before a testator's death. The chapter also considers topics related to revocation: alterations, revival, and republication. A will may be revoked by four different methods: by marriage or civil partnership; by another will or codicil; by a duly executed writing; and by destruction. Revocation by marriage is governed by s. 18 of the Wills Act 1837. A testamentary gift to a spouse will fail if the marriage/civil partnership subsequently ends in divorce/dissolution or nullity, but strictly this is not a method of revocation.

Chapter

This chapter focuses on the supremacy of European Union (EU) law over the law of the member states and the relationship with international law. It suggests that the reasons and logic for the supremacy of the EU law have been developed through the decisions and interpretation of the European Court of Justice (CoJ) and provides relevant cases to illustrate the views of the CoJ on the superiority of EU law. This chapter also describes the reception and implementation of EU law in several member states, including the UK, but now in the light of Brexit, Germany, Italy, France, the Czech Republic, Denmark, and Spain.

Chapter

This chapter discusses the sources of Roman law. It covers sources of law in the archaic period; sources of law in the Republic; sources of law in the Empire; the post-classical era; and Justinian’s codification of Roman law. It is difficult to provide a comprehensive and finite list of the sources of Roman law, since the Roman jurists never defined the term ‘source of law’ and different sources were emphasized at certain periods in the history of the Roman legal system to reflect their prominence as instruments of legal reform. There are three statements in which the sources of Roman law are listed, seemingly without any specific order. The earliest is by Cicero in the first century BC. The second is a comment by the second-century jurist Gaius in his Institutes. The latter was adopted and amended in Justinian’s Institutes of the sixth century AD.

Chapter

Titles in the Casebook on series provide readers with a comprehensive selection of case law extracts for their studies. Extracts have been chosen from a wide range of historical and contemporary cases to illustrate the reasoning processes of the courts and to show how legal principles are developed. This chapter discusses Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The interpretation of Article 14 by the European Court of Human Rights in the ‘Belgian Linguistic’ case (No 2) A.6 (1968) clarifies that there can be a breach of the prohibition on discrimination in circumstances where there is no violation of the related substantive Convention right. In Inze v Austria A.126 (1987), the Court was very suspicious of any differential application of Convention rights based upon illegitimacy. A unanimous Grand Chamber observed unlawful religious discrimination to have occurred in Thlimmenos v Greece, a judgment of 6 April 2000. The judgment in DH and others v The Czech Republic, a judgment of 13 November 2007, imparted the Court’s approach to examining indirect discrimination into conformity with other European institutions.