HtmlToText
skip to navigation – site map revus journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law / revija za ustavno teorijo in filozofijo prava en sl hr home search about revus is an international journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law. it provides a unique forum for academics around the world by publishing contributions in various languages. one of our purposes is to build a bridge between legal scholars and philosophers from different regions and academic circles. (..more..) editorial board latest issue 37 | 2019 revus (2019) 37 more about this picture symposium on legal normativity revusov forum . the following reaction papers and critical notes all refer to brian h. bix's essay kelsen, hart and legal normativity published in revus (2018) 34. stefano bertea a problem for the unambitious view of legal normativity [full text] sylvie delacroix understanding normativity [full text] the impact of culturally-loaded explanatory ambitions tomasz gizbert-studnicki on legal things to do: external and internal legal reasons [full text] comments on brian bix’s ‘hart, kelsen and legal normativity’ andrew halpin the tigerish nature of legal normativity [full text] george pavlakos kelsenian imputation and the explanation of legal norms [full text] maría cristina redondo legal normativity as a moral property [full text] connie s. rosati bix on the normativity of law [full text] torben spaak a challenge to bix ' s interpretation of kelsen and hart's views on the normativity of law [full text] brian h. bix on the nature of legal normativity [full text] response to commentators symposium on risk regulation and tort law revusov forum edited by diego m. papayannis in the previous issue of revus (2018) 36, we published the main article of this symposium on risks regulation and tort law: “ principles of risk imposition and the priority of avoiding harm ” by professor gregory c. keating. in that article, keating argued that quite often safety regulations protect against physical harm and health injury by requiring potential defendants to take more than efficient precautions. these demanding standards of care are rational, contrary to what the economic perspective might suggest, for in general there is an asymmetry between the costs of devastating physical injuries and the economic benefits derived from the untaken precautions. in this issue, we present three critical contributions. in “justice luck in negligence law”, professor mark f. grady qualifies keating’s proposal as normative, and claims that it is inconsistent with the actual practice of us courts. in order to apply keating’s preferred rules, the system should be reformed to prevent juries from “forgiving” negligence, as they do on many occasions where perfect compliance is deemed to be too costly. this might lead us to eliminate juries altogether when the impulse to “forgive” is likely to be strong. next, in “cost-benefit analysis outside of welfarism” professor mark a. geistfeld highlights that keating’s rejection of the cost-benefit analysis is unwarranted. keating seems to identify cost-benefit analysis with welfarist or utilitarianist positions. however, cost-benefit analysis is just a methodology absolutely compatible with a liberal-egalitarian framework. in this way, geistfeld tries to show that the more demanding standards of care pointed out by keating in cases where the prospects of physical harm are at stake fit perfectly well within the cost-benefit framework. finally, professor dan priel’s contribution “do societies prioritize harm prevention?” challenges the very idea that the avoidance of significant risk of physical harm plays a privileged role in actual tort doctrine. according to priel, the main normative concern of tort law rules is with the distribution of losses. in fact, he argues, it is not obvious that societies do prioritize in general the avoidance of losses. moreover, he claims that is not clear at all that prevention should be advanced as a goal when the associated costs of doing so are too high. this highly stimulating and enlightening debate will be completed with professor keating’s reply in a subsequent issue of revus . mark f. grady justice luck in negligence law [full text] mark a. geistfeld cost-benefit analysis outside of welfarism [full text] dan priel do societies prioritize harm prevention? [full text] browse index authors keywords languages next in print in print | 2019 (- already online -) latest issues 37 | 2019 revus (2019) 37 36 | 2018 revus (2018) 36 35 | 2018 revus (2018) 35 full text issues 34 | 2018 norms and legal normativity 33 | 2017 pre-conventions or normative facts (2/2) 32 | 2017 the province of jurisprudence naturalised 31 | 2017 dogmatics and constitutional interpretation 30 | 2016 pre-conventions or normative facts (1/2) 29 | 2016 models of legislative authority, interpretation, realism, and defeasibility 28 | 2016 issues in contemporary jurisprudence 27 | 2015 emergence, coherence, and interpretation of law 26 | 2015 positivism, conceptual jurisprudence, and attribution of responsibility 25 | 2015 norms, analogy, and neoconstitutionalism 23 | 2014 law, logic and morality 24 | 2014 scandinavian realism in all of its forms 22 | 2014 constitutional rights and proportionality 21 | 2013 lawyers and the hierarchy of norms 20 | 2013 elections and democracy 19 | 2013 methodology and legal science 18 | 2012 constitutional democracy 17 | 2012 law, football, and theories of interpretation 16 | 2011 law, morals, and rule of law 15 | 2011 legisprudence 14 | 2010 interpretation and defeasibility of legal rules 13 | 2010 ethics and the quality of life. selected issues in medicine, sports, and law 12 | 2010 judicial law-making 11 | 2009 constitutional law in the western balkans 10 | 2009 human dignity and mental health 9 | 2009 argumentation in the constitutional state 8 | 2008 judges and legal culture 7 | 2008 the legitimacy of judicial law-making 6 | 2006 models of judicial legitimacy 5 | 2005 procedural guarantees 4 | 2005 freedom of expression 3 | 2004 constitutional justice in the european union 2 | 2004 protection of social minorities 1 | 2003 experience of the (slovenian) past and visions of the (european) future all issues presentation editorial board about the journal selection criteria instructions for authors publication ethics & malpractice statement informations journal subscriptions publisher our book series publishing policies follow us rss feed newsletters openedition newsletter member access login password log in cancel in collaboration with electronic issn 1855-7112 site map – journal subscriptions – publisher – syndication openedition journals member – published with lodel – administration only openedition openedition books openedition books books in the humanities and social sciences books publishers further information openedition journals openedition journals journals in the humanities and social sciences journals further information calenda calenda academic announcements announcements further information hypotheses hypotheses research blogs blogs catalogue newsletters newsletter subscribe to the newsletter openedition freemium the journal in openedition search informations title: revus revija za ustavno teorijo in filozofijo prava briefly: journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law publisher: klub revus medium: papier et électronique e-issn: 1855-7112 issn print: 1581-7652 access: barrière mobile read detailed presentation twitter facebook google +
Informations Whois
Whois est un protocole qui permet d'accéder aux informations d'enregistrement.Vous pouvez atteindre quand le site Web a été enregistré, quand il va expirer, quelles sont les coordonnées du site avec les informations suivantes. En un mot, il comprend ces informations;
WHOIS LIMIT EXCEEDED - SEE WWW.PIR.ORG/WHOIS FOR DETAILS
REFERRER http://www.pir.org/
REGISTRAR Public Interest Registry
SERVERS
SERVER org.whois-servers.net
ARGS revues.org
PORT 43
TYPE domain
RegrInfo
REGISTERED unknown
DOMAIN
NAME revues.org
NSERVER
CCSDRV2.IN2P3.FR 193.48.96.201
DNS.UNIV-AVIGNON.FR 195.83.163.60
NS1.CNRS.FR 193.55.86.208
CCPNVX.IN2P3.FR 134.158.69.104
Go to top
revus.revues.org rapport :
Visitez le site