Literatura académica sobre el tema "Macro-remain Analysis"

White, Carolyn L., and Steven Steven. "Artist Spaces in Berlin: Defining and Redefining a City through Contemporary Archaeology." In Contemporary Archaeology and the City. Oxford University Press, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198803607.003.0009.

Katis, Panagiotis. "Doing Business in Greece Within the Wider Context of SMEs Internationalization." In Handbook of Research on Policies and Practices for Sustainable Economic Growth and Regional Development. IGI Global, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-2458-8.ch018.

"A statute is divided into: Vocabulary • sections; Repeal— abolition of all or part of a • sub-sections; previous statute. • paragraphs; Amend— changing part of a previous • sub-paragraphs; statute. • Parts; • Schedules (at the end). Parliament can enact laws about anything—but a law may prove impossible to enforce. Legend records that one particular King of England, Canute, was humbled when he attempted to demonstrate his sovereign power by seating his throne on the beach and ordering the tide not to come in! For come in it did, much to his embarrassment. When approaching a statute as a new law student the most difficult task is understanding, at a basic macro- (wide) level, what the statute as a whole is striving to do and at the micro- (narrow) level what each section is saying. As proficiency is gained in handling statutory rules it will be found that it is not usually necessary to deal with the entire statute. The overall statute can be briefly contextualised and only relevant sections need to be extracted for detailed consideration, analysis, or application. However, ‘sections’, those micro-elements of statutes, will be all the more confidently analysed because, at any given moment, it is known how to relate any aspect of the statute to its general layout. Often, initial understanding eludes the law student. Doubts concerning the meaning of parts of the statute do not occur at the level of sophisticated analysis. They occur at the basic level of combining English language skills and legal skills to obtain foundational understanding. If doubts remain at this level, there can be no possibility of attaining sophisticated analysis! 3.4.4 Case study: breaking into statutes 3.4.4.1 Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 To explore methods of breaking into statutes and understanding statutes at the macro- and micro-level the rest of this chapter will deal with a real statute, the Unfair Contract Terms Act (UCTA) 1977. Figure 3.10, below, builds on the abstract general layout of Figure 3.8, above, by customising it to fit UCTA 1977. This statute will continue to be used for demonstration purposes for the rest of the chapter. The full text of the statute can be found in Appendix 1. Study Figure 3.10, below, carefully. Note which parts are linked and which are not by following the lines and arrows. Reading the summarised headings constructs a basic overview of what the statute is about. Before considering how to break into statutory language in such a way as to be able to confidently précis whole sections for the purposes of such a layout, it is important to study the layout until it is familiar and comprehensible. There are no shortcuts; this takes time." In Legal Method and Reasoning. Routledge-Cavendish, 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781843145103-44.

"the landscape that decides it all: the officials; the institutions; politics; the judiciary; the police; policy. Why one interpretation and not another? The critical thinker has to remain engaged not only in micro questions within the text, both at the superficial and the deep readings, but also engage in macro questions at the level of law, politics and culture; at the level of text as social fact, as the product of a culture; continuing the search for underlying assumptions. Much law degree study will revolve around ‘fighting’ with the language of and arguments in cases, reconciling, distinguishing and/or following them and explaining differences of interpretation where some might say there are no differences. Students learn an increasingly larger body of rules and, more and more, the overarching context of institutions and culture shrinks into the background. They are interesting from an academic perspective, but cultural legal content has no place in the everyday life of the law and its mediation of competing interests. It is in the interest of these legal institutional values that the legal ‘story’ is the one that covers all. There is a danger that the daily process of doing the law blinds the ‘doers’ who are on the street (the practitioners) to the motivational influences of some institutional creators of law. When deciding what words mean in court, judges make far reaching decisions and maintain that they do not do so on grounds of morality, religion, justice or ethics, but purely as a true interpretation of the words. They support the view that one must believe in the ultimate good of the law and the ultimate ability of the law to determine what the law means. A problem can now be seen. As pointed out above, the law is not an autonomous neutral agent, it is used by people in a political and social role. Legal texts can be analysed as social texts created by social actors. Statutes are texts communicated via words created by politicians in compromise, interpreted by judges for a range of reasons, some explicit some not. The orthodox view is that law is a neutral instrument to achieve a moral society. Law is objective, rational and logical. Can discussions about law ever be justifiably separated from discussions about power, from discussions of law maintaining society and its political ideology. Access to law making power is only available to players in the higher levels of the political machinery or professionals in the higher judiciary. Law is not logical, nor does it have to be. There is social agreement that, for a range of reasons—political, social and moral—English law should be seen to be fair, and outrage when it is thought to be not fair. Statutory rules have attempted to engage in behaviour re-direction. But to apply a rule to a problem requires the clarification of the problem and proof that the facts of the problem as presented are the facts that occurred. Rules have developed which state what must be proved by testimonial or forensic evidence and when evidence itself must be backed up. Due to the developmental strategies of the common law, its orality of proceeding, the breaking away of the courts from the royal household, the ultimate ascendancy of statutory law and the complete reorganisation of the courts of England and Wales in 1875 and 1978, we now have a system of law which is based upon the reaction to arguments presented to those officials who decide which argument is legitimate, be they negotiators in offices, tribunals and juries, magistrates and appellate courts. This system is being challenged, stretched and changed by." In Legal Method and Reasoning. Routledge-Cavendish, 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781843145103-234.