• Login
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.
    Review of Leone Niglia, "The Struggle for European Private Law: A Critique of Codification" 
    •   QMRO Home
    • School of Law
    • Department of Law
    • Review of Leone Niglia, "The Struggle for European Private Law: A Critique of Codification"
    •   QMRO Home
    • School of Law
    • Department of Law
    • Review of Leone Niglia, "The Struggle for European Private Law: A Critique of Codification"
    ‌
    ‌

    Browse

    All of QMROCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects
    ‌
    ‌

    Administrators only

    Login
    ‌
    ‌

    Statistics

    Most Popular ItemsStatistics by CountryMost Popular Authors

    Review of Leone Niglia, "The Struggle for European Private Law: A Critique of Codification"

    View/Open
    Heinze Review of Leone Niglia, 'The Struggle for European Private Law: A Critique of Codification' 2015 Accepted.pdf (30.72Kb)
    Volume
    10
    Journal
    Journal of Comparative Law
    Issue
    `
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Abstract
    Controversies around the European Commission’s attempt to codify European Union private law now usher the codification saga into the twenty-first century. Much EU scholarship has focused on the adoption of the Draft Common Frame of Reference or its shortened version, the Optional Sales Law Code (CELS). In The Struggle for European Private Law, Leone Niglia launches a searching critique that revisits the very notion of codification’s distinctly legislative paradigm. That model is, on his view, fundamentally flawed. The true function of a code goes missing. In order to grasp the full effects of codification, and to comprehend the purpose and function of some final text, we must, Niglia argues, shift our attention away from that legislative paradigm, towards what he identifies as a jurisprudential model. Codification becomes comprehensible, he suggests, only through an analysis – neglected in the existing literature – of jurisprudential actors within the process, such as judges and scholars.
    Authors
    HEINZE, E; Marcou, A
    URI
    http://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/handle/123456789/11921
    Collections
    • Department of Law [647]
    Twitter iconFollow QMUL on Twitter
    Twitter iconFollow QM Research
    Online on twitter
    Facebook iconLike us on Facebook
    • Site Map
    • Privacy and cookies
    • Disclaimer
    • Accessibility
    • Contacts
    • Intranet
    • Current students

    Modern Slavery Statement

    Queen Mary University of London
    Mile End Road
    London E1 4NS
    Tel: +44 (0)20 7882 5555

    © Queen Mary University of London.