We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Bertil Cottier’s chapter explores the doctrine of ordre public, which allows judges to block the ‘import’ of unacceptable foreign customs and traditions and which has received significant attention in the context of enhanced international relations at the personal and social level, including interethnic marriages and mass immigration. The ordre public doctrine is examined in respect of issues pertaining to family law and succession law, two domains where its impact is most significant since marriage, divorce, filiation and inheritance are deeply rooted in social and religious values. Special attention is paid to the clash, generated by increasing immigration from Muslim countries, between Islamic legal institutions such as polygamy and repudiation and Western principles of equality and non-discrimination.
This chapter is an investigation of the quid juris metaphor that introduces the transcendental deduction. It focuses on the parallel with legal deductions and the importance of this parallel for the transcendental deduction as a philosophical argument. This importance is explored through an analysis of the analogy between concepts and property, the quid juris metaphor and the historical background of deduction writings in Prussia. This analysis leads Møller to reject Henrich’s understanding of the transcendental deduction as a loosely structured proof of an origin.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.