Notice bibliographique
Résumé
An action in tort which is brought in one state ("forum"), but is based on events which occurred in another state ("locus state"), can be styled a "multistate tort". States have developed "choice of law" rules to deal with such disputes. These rules select a law or body of law from either the forum's own legal system, or the legal system of another state, which is used to adjudicate the dispute. A range of choice of law rules have been developed at various times by the courts in the United States, England, Canada and Australia in order to select the "dispositive" law in multistate tort disputes. Although there are profound differences in the content and operation of these rules, they universally make reference to either or both of two specific concepts. The first of these is the concept of "people", that is, the parties' membership of particular political communities constituted by states. The second is the concept of "place", that is, the location of the parties' acts within particular states. The paper examines the function played by the concepts of people and place in shaping the significant common law developments in multistate tort choice of law which have taken place in England, Canada and Australia. In order to provide a theoretical context for this, the paper analyses the various choice of law methodologies which have been employed in the United States: multilateralism; unilateralism and the substantive law method. In order to "unpack" the significance of the concepts of people and place in these methodologies, the methodologies are subjected to classification in terms of various dichotomies; jurisdiction-selection/rule-selection; spatially-informed/substantively-informed function; and externally-generated/internally-generated norms. From this analysis it is concluded that the function performed by the concepts of people and place in the methodologies is either the role of effecting the interests of the states connected to multistate disputes, or ensuring the fair treatment of the parties to those disputes. The paper then goes on to map the common law developments in the English, Canadian and Australian courts in respect of multistate tort choice of law from a common doctrinal starting point, dominated by the application of forum law, to disparate choice rules. It is noted that in the first period of reform, the concepts of people and place were each used in order to diminish the importance of the law of the forum qua forum. However, the most recent developments in Canada and Australia show a domination of the concept of place over that of people, evidenced by the inflexible application of the law of the locus state. This has been justified on the basis of giving effect to state interests. It is concluded that the triumph of place over people cannot be persuasively explained in terms of state interests. If effecting state interests is the desired end of the choice of law process, then the concept of people must also be taken into account. It is argued that the inflexible application of locus law can more successfully be justified in terms of the fair treatment of the parties. However, in this respect too, the concept of people, as well as that of the "person" (an individual who deserves to be treated with substantive fairness), should not be forgotten.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,016 | 0,019 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,007 | 0,102 |
| Communication savante | 0,014 | 0,013 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,013 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».