How do legal systems actually operate outside of Western European or North American liberal democracies? To understand law and legal institutions globally, we must go beyond asking if countries comply with idealized, yet under-theorized, rule of law principles to determine how they work in practice. Examining legal regimes across different areas of criminal and civil law in both urban and rural China and Indonesia during distinct periods from 1949 to the present, William Hurst offers a new way of understanding how cases are adjudicated (and with what implications) across authoritarian, developing, post-colonial, and newly democratizing settings. This is the first systematic comparative study of the world's largest Communist and majority-Muslim nations, and the most comprehensive scholarly work in many years on the micro-level workings of either the Chinese or Indonesian legal system at the grassroots, based on a decade of research and extensive fieldwork in multiple Indonesian and Chinese provinces.
具體描述
讀後感
用戶評價
legal regime這個概念，根據政治contestation和nonlegal actor的乾涉程度分瞭四種，動員型（強/強）rule by law（弱/弱）新傳統型（弱/強）和理性多元（強/弱）。然後比較中國印尼各自四個曆史時期內的城鄉/民商-刑事審判算哪個legal regime，再跨國比較，現階段印尼民商案件和中國刑事案件屬於新傳統，印尼刑事和中國民商屬於rule by law是曆史發展的結果。理論不難，用瞭蠻紮實的大量案例填這麼多個cells。
评分legal regime這個概念，根據政治contestation和nonlegal actor的乾涉程度分瞭四種，動員型（強/強）rule by law（弱/弱）新傳統型（弱/強）和理性多元（強/弱）。然後比較中國印尼各自四個曆史時期內的城鄉/民商-刑事審判算哪個legal regime，再跨國比較，現階段印尼民商案件和中國刑事案件屬於新傳統，印尼刑事和中國民商屬於rule by law是曆史發展的結果。理論不難，用瞭蠻紮實的大量案例填這麼多個cells。
评分legal regime這個概念，根據政治contestation和nonlegal actor的乾涉程度分瞭四種，動員型（強/強）rule by law（弱/弱）新傳統型（弱/強）和理性多元（強/弱）。然後比較中國印尼各自四個曆史時期內的城鄉/民商-刑事審判算哪個legal regime，再跨國比較，現階段印尼民商案件和中國刑事案件屬於新傳統，印尼刑事和中國民商屬於rule by law是曆史發展的結果。理論不難，用瞭蠻紮實的大量案例填這麼多個cells。
评分研究方法的確非常值得藉鑒
评分研究方法的確非常值得藉鑒
相關圖書
本站所有內容均為互聯網搜索引擎提供的公開搜索信息，本站不存儲任何數據與內容，任何內容與數據均與本站無關，如有需要請聯繫相關搜索引擎包括但不限於百度，google,bing,sogou 等
© 2025 onlinetoolsland.com All Rights Reserved. 本本书屋 版权所有