|
StevenRaphanFirstEssay 6 - 18 Apr 2024 - Main.StevenRaphan
|
|
<
< | Revision 5 is unreadable | >
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted.
The complex path to becoming a lawyer with a dual legal culture.
-- By StevenRaphan - 23 Feb 2024
When you contemplate what type of lawyer you want to be and part of the answer is to become one with a dual legal culture, it comes with many implications and challenges.
In the journey to become a lawyer with a dual culture, one of the steps involves encountering a renewal in the way of learning law that must be quickly integrated. I was immediately struck by the unique nature of teaching in the United States. It involves a thorough examination of various cases, analyzing their contents in detail. First, the cases are analyzed, and then a certain logic is drawn from them. After several cases are individually addressed, an overall logic can be derived. In contrast, French legal education in lecture halls does not typically aim to delve into case details. Instead, certain principles are instilled in us, and the case law from which these principles are drawn will be enunciated subsequently. Ultimately, it appeared to me that this teaching method is entirely in harmony with the concept of common law which finds its basis in the particular to afterward establishing general principles.
Additionally, there's a distinctive level of interactivity in lectures that differs from the approach in French law schools, which one must adapt to. Through this, I discovered how a law course can be constituted as much by the participation of the students as by the professor. Comparatively, French teaching methods offer fewer opportunities for discussing course material and our understanding of it with the professor.
One of the difficulties in learning law in different countries and legal contexts is also that law is accompanied by deep codification and strict methods. While in my experience I have observed that on this point the law of two different legal systems converge, it remains that the content of this method and codification differs drastically. At this point lies a particular difficulty because there is no possibility of mixing or benefiting from each legal system as each of them claims to dictate a way of expressing legal language exclusive of any other. In the United States, CREAC is used, and bluebooking is essential and required for a brief or a memo, while in France it is necessary to use a two-part and two-sub-part plan and to structure each argument into 3 paragraphs in briefs. This is particularly difficult to accommodate because these are the basics of learning law in a law school and we are mechanically trained to use such a methodological plan without ever being able to break away from it. Suddenly having to think differently and apply writing standards that go against what has been the basis of your legal education is particularly challenging.
However, the law contains some particularly universal elements. This allows to bridge the gap more easily because many points are quite similar in the way they are approached. In terms of learning and law school, subjects like torts or contracts will have a very similar foundation, which will help compensate for certain difficulties by already having a certain understanding of the concepts. As for the practice of law, it is interesting to note, for example, that in many aspects the practice of an M&A lawyer in France and in the United States will converge in many points. The structure of a deal and the various steps related to due diligence, the data room, and the implementation of conditions precedent will be quite similar. Most of the clauses that will be negotiated and analyzed in the articles of association of a company are also found in both systems, even though differences in regulations may change their application and implementation. Some may also be simply prohibited in one and not in the other.
What is interesting to note in this context is that there is also facilitation in integrating certain concepts, which helps to alleviate the difficulties that the less universal aspect of law and its application may pose. However, this can also be a double-edged sword, as when you carry out a legal task related to the law of a country, it is necessary to fully embrace what the law of this country is made of. The risk is to mix knowledge and no longer fit within the framework of the legal system concerned.
The dual legal culture, if well developed, nevertheless has the advantage of fostering open-mindedness and the development of intricate and innovative juridical thought patterns. Having been exposed to different ways of doing, whether in substantive law or methodology, can enable you to think differently and arrive at solutions that others may not necessarily perceive. In this sense, diversity is a strength that enriches your legal acumen by bringing forth a multitude of perspectives, approaches, and solutions to legal issues. However, the challenging tension between being slightly innovative and straying from the framework of law and legal thinking inherent in the country where law is practiced persists, making the use of plural knowledge a difficult exercise.
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:
Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list. |
|
|
StevenRaphanFirstEssay 4 - 02 Apr 2024 - Main.StevenRaphan
|
|
>
> | Revision 4 is unreadable | |
<
< |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted.
The renewal of political ideas in the 16th century.
-- By StevenRaphan - 23 Feb 2024
Introduction
The 16th century was a period where political literature flourished, and authors emancipated themselves from conceptions developed in preceding centuries, embodying a renewal of political ideas in several respects. Among the notable characteristics of 16th-century authors is their heightened emphasis on the monarch's authority. The pontifical power appears less present in their writings, with the figure of the monarch commanding their utmost attention. It is in this context that the notion of sovereignty ascends to the forefront of 16th-century debate on political ideas.
Niccolo Machiavelli
To broach the renewal of political ideas in the 16th century, it is imperative to first consider Machiavelli. Indeed, Machiavelli marked the era with a realism seldom seen before, notably articulated in The Prince. In the history of political ideas, his intervention emerges as original and divergent from the perspectives of ancient authors. It is no longer about describing society as it should be, but as it is, because he believes that philosophy is vain, positing that society never conforms to its ideal state. For him who dreams of a unified Italy, only a king unhesitant to employ violence to establish his authority appears providential. He no longer believes in these idealistic conceptions, in the pursuit of the common good that could stem from authors like Thomas Aquinas or Plato in ancient Roman times. He exhibits a certain cynicism that sets him apart from other authors before him, except for the second generation of sophists epitomized by Callicles or Thrasymachus who at their time, expressed the idea that power is merely a matter of force. He considers that the monarch wields absolute power and denies the divine origin of power that had been held as certain throughout the Middle Ages.
Religion, for Machiavelli, cannot dominate the state but must be subservient to it. The monarch is not bound by religion. The Church, in this regard, is merely a tool for the monarch to establish his dominance, just like cunning or calculation. The calculating and selfish prince depicted by Machiavelli aims above all at success. All that should matter to the prince is his objective, which is to retain power in the long term. It is through subtlety, cunning, and deception that the prince rallies the people to his cause and achieves his goals. The central notion guiding the monarch is the reason of state. Machiavelli no longer seeks the moralization of the monarch and his actions, as all means appear suitable to achieve his ends. Political success is gauged solely by the monarch's aptitude to retain power.
This single author already heralds a renewal in the conceptualization of politics. The pragmatism of the moment that he demonstrates in The Prince signifies a novel perspective on politics, depicted as an autonomous and desacralized art.
Jean Bodin
Furthermore, the absolutist shift in France will be a marker of this new way of focusing the debate on the power of the monarch and notably on the notion of sovereignty. In this regard, an author like Jean Bodin illustrates this in Six Books of the Commonwealth.
In this work, he endeavors to depict the characteristics of sovereignty. It is perpetual in that it does not perish with the royal figure, absolute in that the sovereign has no superior, and finally autonomous, inalienable, and indivisible. Beyond the theorization of the notion of sovereignty, Bodin appears innovative in that he rejects any conception of a mixed system that would mix elements of monarchy, democracy, and oligarchy but rather aims for a strict classification of regimes, each characterized by the organ that holds sovereignty. This represents a distinctive feature of the 16th century, as the notion of a mixed Constitution was frequently discussed in Roman thought, as expounded by Polybius or Cicero.
Monarchomachs
Finally, the doctrine of the Monarchomachs brings something innovative regarding the royal figure. They conceive the monarch as limited in his powers. This may appear trivial since already during the Middle Ages there could have been considered a limitation of royal power through the figure of the Pope and the Church in general. However, the renewal lies, in this case, in the source of the limitation of royal power. Thus, it is the people who constitute the focal point of this constraint on power in their writings, wherein the rudiments of the social contract emerge, subsequently developed by authors like Locke or Rousseau.
François Hotman, in Franco-Gallia, thus develops the idea that it is the people who delegate their power to the king and never relinquish sovereignty, thereby rendering the king's authority contingent. Furthermore, his power is temporary in that the people can withdraw it. Theodore Beza in Right of Magistrates asserts that the origin of power derives from a contract between the people and the king predicated on reason, equity, and good faith. Consequently, should the monarch govern counter to these principles, the people possess a natural right to revolt against what has become a tyrant. In this sense, Jean Boucher, in The Just Deposition of Henri III, admits tyrannicide in case of transgression of the established contract.
This newfound approach to political ideas, characterized by pragmatism and a focus on sovereignty and monarchial power, delineates the pivotal juncture of this century in political thought.
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:
Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list. |
|
|
StevenRaphanFirstEssay 3 - 25 Mar 2024 - Main.StevenRaphan
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | | | Furthermore, the absolutist shift in France will be a marker of this new way of focusing the debate on the power of the monarch and notably on the notion of sovereignty. In this regard, an author like Jean Bodin illustrates this in Six Books of the Commonwealth. | |
<
< | In this work, he endeavors to depict the characteristics of sovereignty. It is perpetual in that it does not perish with the royal figure, absolute in that the sovereign has no superior, and finally autonomous, inalienable, and indivisible. Beyond the theoretical framework of sovereignty, Bodin's innovation lies in his rejection of any notion of a mixed system blending monarchy, democracy, and oligarchy, instead advocating for a strict classification of regimes characterized by the entity holding sovereignty.
Beyond the theorization of the notion of sovereignty, Bodin appears innovative in that he rejects any conception of a mixed system that would mix elements of monarchy, democracy, and oligarchy but rather aims for a strict classification of regimes, each characterized by the organ that holds sovereignty. This marks an originality of the 16th century insofar as this idea of a mixed Constitution was often at the center of Roman thought, as expounded by Polybius or Cicero. | >
> | In this work, he endeavors to depict the characteristics of sovereignty. It is perpetual in that it does not perish with the royal figure, absolute in that the sovereign has no superior, and finally autonomous, inalienable, and indivisible. Beyond the theorization of the notion of sovereignty, Bodin appears innovative in that he rejects any conception of a mixed system that would mix elements of monarchy, democracy, and oligarchy but rather aims for a strict classification of regimes, each characterized by the organ that holds sovereignty. This represents a distinctive feature of the 16th century, as the notion of a mixed Constitution was frequently discussed in Roman thought, as expounded by Polybius or Cicero. | | |
Monarchomachs |
|
|
StevenRaphanFirstEssay 2 - 27 Feb 2024 - Main.StevenRaphan
|
|
<
< | Revision 1 is unreadable | >
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted.
The renewal of political ideas in the 16th century.
-- By StevenRaphan - 23 Feb 2024
Introduction
The 16th century was a period where political literature flourished, and authors emancipated themselves from conceptions developed in preceding centuries, embodying a renewal of political ideas in several respects. Among the notable characteristics of 16th-century authors is their heightened emphasis on the monarch's authority. The pontifical power appears less present in their writings, with the figure of the monarch commanding their utmost attention. It is in this context that the notion of sovereignty ascends to the forefront of 16th-century debate on political ideas.
Niccolo Machiavelli
To broach the renewal of political ideas in the 16th century, it is imperative to first consider Machiavelli. Indeed, Machiavelli marked the era with a realism seldom seen before, notably articulated in The Prince. In the history of political ideas, his intervention emerges as original and divergent from the perspectives of ancient authors. It is no longer about describing society as it should be, but as it is, because he believes that philosophy is vain, positing that society never conforms to its ideal state. For him who dreams of a unified Italy, only a king unhesitant to employ violence to establish his authority appears providential. He no longer believes in these idealistic conceptions, in the pursuit of the common good that could stem from authors like Thomas Aquinas or Plato in ancient Roman times. He exhibits a certain cynicism that sets him apart from other authors before him, except for the second generation of sophists epitomized by Callicles or Thrasymachus who at their time, expressed the idea that power is merely a matter of force. He considers that the monarch wields absolute power and denies the divine origin of power that had been held as certain throughout the Middle Ages.
Religion, for Machiavelli, cannot dominate the state but must be subservient to it. The monarch is not bound by religion. The Church, in this regard, is merely a tool for the monarch to establish his dominance, just like cunning or calculation. The calculating and selfish prince depicted by Machiavelli aims above all at success. All that should matter to the prince is his objective, which is to retain power in the long term. It is through subtlety, cunning, and deception that the prince rallies the people to his cause and achieves his goals. The central notion guiding the monarch is the reason of state. Machiavelli no longer seeks the moralization of the monarch and his actions, as all means appear suitable to achieve his ends. Political success is gauged solely by the monarch's aptitude to retain power.
This single author already heralds a renewal in the conceptualization of politics. The pragmatism of the moment that he demonstrates in The Prince signifies a novel perspective on politics, depicted as an autonomous and desacralized art.
Jean Bodin
Furthermore, the absolutist shift in France will be a marker of this new way of focusing the debate on the power of the monarch and notably on the notion of sovereignty. In this regard, an author like Jean Bodin illustrates this in Six Books of the Commonwealth.
In this work, he endeavors to depict the characteristics of sovereignty. It is perpetual in that it does not perish with the royal figure, absolute in that the sovereign has no superior, and finally autonomous, inalienable, and indivisible. Beyond the theoretical framework of sovereignty, Bodin's innovation lies in his rejection of any notion of a mixed system blending monarchy, democracy, and oligarchy, instead advocating for a strict classification of regimes characterized by the entity holding sovereignty.
Beyond the theorization of the notion of sovereignty, Bodin appears innovative in that he rejects any conception of a mixed system that would mix elements of monarchy, democracy, and oligarchy but rather aims for a strict classification of regimes, each characterized by the organ that holds sovereignty. This marks an originality of the 16th century insofar as this idea of a mixed Constitution was often at the center of Roman thought, as expounded by Polybius or Cicero.
Monarchomachs
Finally, the doctrine of the Monarchomachs brings something innovative regarding the royal figure. They conceive the monarch as limited in his powers. This may appear trivial since already during the Middle Ages there could have been considered a limitation of royal power through the figure of the Pope and the Church in general. However, the renewal lies, in this case, in the source of the limitation of royal power. Thus, it is the people who constitute the focal point of this constraint on power in their writings, wherein the rudiments of the social contract emerge, subsequently developed by authors like Locke or Rousseau.
François Hotman, in Franco-Gallia, thus develops the idea that it is the people who delegate their power to the king and never relinquish sovereignty, thereby rendering the king's authority contingent. Furthermore, his power is temporary in that the people can withdraw it. Theodore Beza in_ Right of Magistrates_ asserts that the origin of power derives from a contract between the people and the king predicated on reason, equity, and good faith. Consequently, should the monarch govern counter to these principles, the people possess a natural right to revolt against what has become a tyrant. In this sense, Jean Boucher, in The Just Deposition of Henri III, admits tyrannicide in case of transgression of the established contract.
This newfound approach to political ideas, characterized by pragmatism and a focus on sovereignty and monarchial power, delineates the pivotal juncture of this century in political thought.
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:
Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list. |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|