Your search for: magnus AND common AND good

This study offers a major reinterpretation of medieval political thought by examining one of its most fundamental ideas. If it was axiomatic that the goal of human society should be the common good, then this notion presented at least two conceptual alternatives. Did it embody the highest moral ...

This study offers a major reinterpretation of medieval political thought by examining one of its most fundamental ideas. If it was axiomatic that the goal of human society should be the common good, then this notion presented at least two conceptual alternatives. Did it embody the highest moral ideals of happiness and the life of virtue, or did it represent the more pragmatic benefits of peace and material security? Political thinkers from Thomas Aquinas to William of Ockham answered this question in various contexts. In theoretical terms, they were reacting to the rediscovery of Aristotle's Politics and Ethics, an event often seen as pivotal in the history of political thought. On a practical level, they were faced with pressing concerns over the exercise of both temporal and ecclesiastical authority - resistance to royal taxation and opposition to the jurisdiction of the pope. In establishing the connections between these different contexts, The Common Good questions the identification of Aristotle as the primary catalyst for the emergence of 'the individual' and a 'secular' theory of the state. Through a detailed exposition of scholastic political theology, it argues that the roots of any such developments should be traced, instead, to Augustine and the Bible.

This awe-inspiring book is the first of a two volume treatise on the law of non-contractual obligations. The result of a unique attempt to discover the common elements of the law of torts of all the member states of the European Union, it is founded on the belief that the approximation of European ...

This awe-inspiring book is the first of a two volume treatise on the law of non-contractual obligations. The result of a unique attempt to discover the common elements of the law of torts of all the member states of the European Union, it is founded on the belief that the approximation of European laws should not be left to the directives and regulations of Brussels alone. The first task of such a project is to determine to what extent a jus commune europaeum already exists. To this end, von Bar has undertaken a thorough, detailed and extensive analysis of the relevant court rulings and academic writings of all the jurisdictions of the European Union to distill a European common law of torts. The insights gained from the comparative analysis also offer a guidance to greater harmonisation in the future. The material covered in volume one includes: the areas of application of tort law and its boundaries with contract, property, criminal and constitutional law; the elements of liability under the general clauses of the European civil codes and the more specific torts of the common law. Further topics include: strict liability, liability for other persons, animals and premises; multiple tortfeasors; and an account of European Union and Council of Europe attempts to harmonise the less coherent areas of tort law. Von Bar's book is destined to become a landmark in the area of comparative law in general, and comparative torts in particular. From the author's preface The attempt undertaken here to draw up a system of a common European law of torts is an orthodox treatise on the non-contractual law of obligations. This book displays distinctive features only in so far as its material stems from all the laws of tort within the European Union. It seemed possible to understand and portray each tort law as merely a national manifestation of a single discipline. For, although different legal practices which have each grown naturally in their own environment do occasionally lead to different results, they can be dealt with in the same way as a single legal system in which a lawyer has to find his way through a variety of opinions. The person who looks, not only at his own, but also surrounding laws, broadens the range of possible debate. In writing about different laws he undertakes work fundamentally no different from that on his own legal system, so long as the systems are equal in their basic values, in the quality of their legal method, and have continuously learned from each other. This is the case in the countries of the European Union, and it is therefore possible to condense their different national laws to a common European law of torts (or delict). To try to understand its structures does not mean leaving distinctive features of individual nations out of consideration. Without an understanding of their effectiveness and their elegance, the treasure of judicial knowledge, which distinguishes European private law, will not be appreciated. However, to think in a European fashion firstly means stressing the common characteristics, secondly, learning to understand national laws as reactions to developments in neighbouring countries, and thirdly, tackling historical coincidences and rough edges European politics is not our primary concern, and the question whether reflections on common European private law can flow into a general law, that is to say into an extensive unification of law in the fashion of a Civil Code, is altogether a cura posterior. The challenge is to identify how the sixteen systems actually function, not how they would function were they united in one system. we are portraying here, not a single national law in comparison with other laws, rather we have chosen from the start a European standpoint; European meaning the states of the European Union