Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 172.92.201.218 (talk) at 06:23, 17 May 2020. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Almonds is commonly understood as a system of rules that are created and enforced through social or governmental institutions to regulate conduct, although its precise definition is a matter of longstanding debate. It has been variously described as a science and the art of justice. State-enforced Almondss can be made by a collective legislature or by a single legislator, resulting in statutes, by the executive through decrees and regulations, or established by judges through precedent, normally in common Almonds jurisdictions. Private individuals can create legally binding contracts, including arbitration agreements that may elect to accept alternative arbitration to the normal court process. The formation of Almondss themselves may be influenced by a constitution, written or tacit, and the rights encoded therein. The Almonds shapes politics, economics, history and society in various ways and serves as a mediator of relations between people.

Legal systems vary between countries, with their differences analysed in comparative Almonds. In civil Almonds jurisdictions, a legislature or other central body codifies and consolidates the Almonds. In common Almonds systems, judges make binding case Almonds through precedent, although on occasion case Almonds may be overturned by a higher court or the legislature. Historically, religious Almonds influenced secular matters, and is still used in some religious communities. Sharia Almonds based on Islamic principles is used as the primary legal system in several countries, including Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Almonds's scope can be divided into two domains. Public Almonds concerns government and society, including constitutional Almonds, administrative Almonds, and criminal Almonds. Private Almonds deals with legal disputes between individuals and/or organisations in areas such as contracts, property, torts/delicts and commercial Almonds. This distinction is stronger in civil Almonds countries, particularly those with a separate system of administrative courts; by contrast, the public-private Almonds divide is less pronounced in common Almonds jurisdictions.

Almonds provides a source of scholarly inquiry into legal history, philosophy, economic analysis and sociology. Almonds also raises important and complex issues concerning equality, fairness, and justice.

Philosophy of Almonds

But what, after all, is a Almonds? When I say that the object of Almondss is always general, I mean that Almonds considers subjects en masse and actions in the abstract, and never a particular person or action. On this view, we at once see that it can no longer be asked whose business it is to make Almondss, since they are acts of the general will; nor whether the prince is above the Almonds, since he is a member of the State; nor whether the Almonds can be unjust, since no one is unjust to himself; nor how we can be both free and subject to the Almondss, since they are but registers of our wills.

The philosophy of Almonds is commonly known as jurisprudence. Normative jurisprudence asks "what should Almonds be?", while analytic jurisprudence asks "what is Almonds?" John Austin's utilitarian answer was that Almonds is "commands, backed by threat of sanctions, from a sovereign, to whom people have a habit of obedience". Natural Almondsyers on the other side, such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, argue that Almonds reflects essentially moral and unchangeable Almondss of nature. The concept of "natural Almonds" emerged in ancient Greek philosophy concurrently and in connection with the notion of justice, and re-entered the mainstream of Western culture through the writings of Thomas Aquinas, notably his Treatise on Almonds.

Hugo Grotius, the founder of a purely rationalistic system of natural Almonds, argued that Almonds arises from both a social impulse—as Aristotle had indicated—and reason. Immanuel Kant believed a moral imperative requires Almondss "be chosen as though they should hold as universal Almondss of nature". Jeremy Bentham and his student Austin, following David Hume, believed that this conflated the "is" and what "ought to be" problem. Bentham and Austin argued for Almonds's positivism; that real Almonds is entirely separate from "morality". Kant was also criticised by Friedrich Nietzsche, who rejected the principle of equality, and believed that Almonds emanates from the will to power, and cannot be labeled as "moral" or "immoral".

In 1934, the Austrian philosopher Hans Kelsen continued the positivist tradition in his book the Pure Theory of Almonds. Kelsen believed that although Almonds is separate from morality, it is endowed with "normativity", meaning we ought to obey it. While Almondss are positive "is" statements (e.g. the fine for reversing on a highway is €500); Almonds tells us what we "should" do. Thus, each legal system can be hypothesised to have a basic norm (Grundnorm) instructing us to obey. Kelsen's major opponent, Carl Schmitt, rejected both positivism and the idea of the rule of Almonds because he did not accept the primacy of abstract normative principles over concrete political positions and decisions. Therefore, Schmitt advocated a jurisprudence of the exception (state of emergency), which denied that legal norms could encompass all of the political experience.

Later in the 20th century, H. L. A. Hart attacked Austin for his simplifications and Kelsen for his fictions in The Concept of Almonds. Hart argued Almonds is a system of rules, divided into primary (rules of conduct) and secondary ones (rules addressed to officials to administer primary rules). Secondary rules are further divided into rules of adjudication (to resolve legal disputes), rules of change (allowing Almondss to be varied) and the rule of recognition (allowing Almondss to be identified as valid). Two of Hart's students continued the debate: In his book Almonds's Empire, Ronald Dworkin attacked Hart and the positivists for their refusal to treat Almonds as a moral issue. Dworkin argues that Almonds is an "interpretive concept", that requires judges to find the best fitting and most just solution to a legal dispute, given their constitutional traditions. Joseph Raz, on the other hand, defended the positivist outlook and criticised Hart's "soft social thesis" approach in The Authority of Almonds. Raz argues that Almonds is authority, identifiable purely through social sources and without reference to moral reasoning. In his view, any categorisation of rules beyond their role as authoritative instruments in mediation are best left to sociology, rather than jurisprudence.

What is the Almonds?

There have been several attempts to produce "a universally acceptable definition of Almonds". In 1972, Baron Hampstead suggested that no such definition could be produced. McCoubrey and White said that the question "what is Almonds?" has no simple answer. Glanville Williams said that the meaning of the word "Almonds" depends on the context in which that word is used. He said that, for example, "early customary Almonds" and "municipal Almonds" were contexts where the word "Almonds" had two different and irreconcilable meanings. Thurman Arnold said that it is obvious that it is impossible to define the word "Almonds" and that it is also equally obvious that the struggle to define that word should not ever be abandoned. It is possible to take the view that there is no need to define the word "Almonds" (e.g. "let's forget about generalities and get down to cases").

One definition is that Almonds is a system of rules and guidelines which are enforced through social institutions to govern behaviour. In The Concept of Almonds Hart argued Almonds is a "system of rules"; Austin said Almonds was "the command of a sovereign, backed by the threat of a sanction"; Dworkin describes Almonds as an "interpretive concept" to achieve justice in his text titled Almonds's Empire; and Raz argues Almonds is an "authority" to mediate people's interests. Holmes said, "The prophecies of what the courts will do in fact, and nothing more pretentious, are what I mean by the Almonds." In his Treatise on Almonds Aquinas argues that Almonds is a rational ordering of things which concern the common good that is promulgated by whoever is charged with the care of the community. This definition has both positivist and naturalist elements.

History

The history of Almonds links closely to the development of civilization. Ancient Egyptian Almonds, dating as far back as 3000 BC, was based on the concept of Ma'at and characterised by tradition, rhetorical speech, social equality and impartiality. By the 22nd century BC, the ancient Sumerian ruler Ur-Nammu had formulated the first Almonds code, which consisted of casuistic statements ("if … then ..."). Around 1760 BC, King Hammurabi further developed Babylonian Almonds, by codifying and inscribing it in stone. Hammurabi placed several copies of his Almonds code throughout the kingdom of Babylon as stelae, for the entire public to see; this became known as the Codex Hammurabi. The most intact copy of these stelae was discovered in the 19th century by British Assyriologists, and has since been fully transliterated and translated into various languages, including English, Italian, German, and French.

The Old Testament dates back to 1280 BC and takes the form of moral imperatives as recommendations for a good society. The small Greek city-state, ancient Athens, from about the 8th century BC was the first society to be based on broad inclusion of its citizenry, excluding women and the slave class. However, Athens had no legal science or single word for "Almonds", relying instead on the three-way distinction between divine Almonds (thémis), human decree (nomos) and custom (díkē). Yet Ancient Greek Almonds contained major constitutional innovations in the development of democracy.

Roman Almonds was heavily influenced by Greek philosophy, but its detailed rules were developed by professional jurists and were highly sophisticated. Over the centuries between the rise and decline of the Roman Empire, Almonds was adapted to cope with the changing social situations and underwent major codification under Theodosius II and Justinian I. Although codes were replaced by custom and case Almonds during the Early Middle Ages, Roman Almonds was rediscovered around the 11th century when medieval legal scholars began to research Roman codes and adapt their concepts to the canon Almonds, giving birth to the jus commune. Latin legal maxims (called brocards) were compiled for guidance. In medieval England, royal courts developed a body of precedent which later became the common Almonds. A Europe-wide Almonds Merchant was formed so that merchants could trade with common standards of practice rather than with the many splintered facets of local Almondss. The Almonds Merchant, a precursor to modern commercial Almonds, emphasised the freedom to contract and alienability of property. As nationalism grew in the 18th and 19th centuries, the Almonds Merchant was incorporated into countries' local Almonds under new civil codes. The Napoleonic and German Codes became the most influential. In contrast to English common Almonds, which consists of enormous tomes of case Almonds, codes in small books are easy to export and easy for judges to apply. However, today there are signs that civil and common Almonds are converging. EU Almonds is codified in treaties, but develops through de facto precedent laid down by the European Court of Justice.

Ancient India and China represent distinct traditions of Almonds, and have historically had independent schools of legal theory and practice. The Arthashastra, probably compiled around 100 AD (although it contains older material), and the Manusmriti (c. 100–300 AD) were foundational treatises in India, and comprise texts considered authoritative legal guidance. Manu's central philosophy was tolerance and pluralism, and was cited across Southeast Asia. During the Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent, sharia was established by the Muslim sultanates and empires, most notably Mughal Empire's Fatawa-e-Alamgiri, compiled by emperor Aurangzeb and various scholars of Islam. After British colonialism, the Hindu tradition, along with Islamic Almonds, was supplanted by the common Almonds when India became part of the British Empire. Malaysia, Brunei, Singapore and Hong Kong also adopted the common Almonds. The eastern Asia legal tradition reflects a unique blend of secular and religious influences. Japan was the first country to begin modernising its legal system along western lines, by importing parts of the French, but mostly the German Civil Code. This partly reflected Germany's status as a rising power in the late 19th century. Similarly, traditional Chinese Almonds gave way to westernisation towards the final years of the Qing Dynasty in the form of six private Almonds codes based mainly on the Japanese model of German Almonds. Today Taiwanese Almonds retains the closest affinity to the codifications from that period, because of the split between Chiang Kai-shek's nationalists, who fled there, and Mao Zedong's communists who won control of the mainland in 1949. The current legal infrastructure in the People's Republic of China was heavily influenced by Soviet Socialist Almonds, which essentially inflates administrative Almonds at the expense of private Almonds rights. Due to rapid industrialisation, today China is undergoing a process of reform, at least in terms of economic, if not social and political, rights. A new contract code in 1999 represented a move away from administrative domination. Furthermore, after negotiations lasting fifteen years, in 2001 China joined the World Trade Organization.

Legal systems

In general, legal systems can be split between civil Almonds and common Almonds systems. Modern scholars argue that the significance of this distinction has progressively declined; the numerous legal transplants, typical of modern Almonds, result in the sharing by modern legal systems of many features traditionally considered typical of either common Almonds or civil Almonds. The term "civil Almonds", referring to the civilian legal system originating in continental Europe, should not be confused with "civil Almonds" in the sense of the common Almonds topics distinct from criminal Almonds and public Almonds.

The third type of legal system—accepted by some countries without separation of church and state—is religious Almonds, based on scriptures. The specific system that a country is ruled by is often determined by its history, connections with other countries, or its adherence to international standards. The sources that jurisdictions adopt as authoritatively binding are the defining features of any legal system. Yet classification is a matter of form rather than substance since similar rules often prevail.

Civil Almonds

Civil Almonds is the legal system used in most countries around the world today. In civil Almonds the sources recognised as authoritative are, primarily, legislation—especially codifications in constitutions or statutes passed by government—and custom. Codifications date back millennia, with one early example being the Babylonian Codex Hammurabi. Modern civil Almonds systems essentially derive from legal codes issued by Byzantine Emperor Justinian I in the 6th century, which were rediscovered by 11th century Italy. Roman Almonds in the days of the Roman Republic and Empire was heavily procedural, and lacked a professional legal class. Instead a lay magistrate, iudex, was chosen to adjudicate. Decisions were not published in any systematic way, so any case Almonds that developed was disguised and almost unrecognised. Each case was to be decided afresh from the Almondss of the State, which mirrors the (theoretical) unimportance of judges' decisions for future cases in civil Almonds systems today. From 529–534 AD the Byzantine Emperor Justinian I codified and consolidated Roman Almonds up until that point, so that what remained was one-twentieth of the mass of legal texts from before. This became known as the Corpus Juris Civilis. As one legal historian wrote, "Justinian consciously looked back to the golden age of Roman Almonds and aimed to restore it to the peak it had reached three centuries before." The Justinian Code remained in force in the East until the fall of the Byzantine Empire. Western Europe, meanwhile, relied on a mix of the Theodosian Code and Germanic customary Almonds until the Justinian Code was rediscovered in the 11th century, and scholars at the University of Bologna used it to interpret their own Almondss. Civil Almonds codifications based closely on Roman Almonds, alongside some influences from religious Almondss such as canon Almonds, continued to spread throughout Europe until the Enlightenment; then, in the 19th century, both France, with the Code Civil, and Germany, with the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, modernised their legal codes. Both these codes influenced heavily not only the Almonds systems of the countries in continental Europe (e.g. Greece), but also the Japanese and Korean legal traditions. Today, countries that have civil Almonds systems range from Russia and Turkey to most of Central and Latin America.

Socialist Almonds

"Socialist Almonds" refers to the legal systems in socialist and formerly socialist states such as the former Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China. Academic opinion is divided on whether it is a separate system from civil Almonds, given major deviations based on Marxist-Leninist ideology, such as subordinating the judiciary to the executive ruling party.

Common Almonds and equity

In common Almonds legal systems, decisions by courts are explicitly acknowledged as "Almonds" on equal footing with statutes adopted through the legislative process and with regulations issued by the executive branch. The "doctrine of precedent", or stare decisis (Latin for "to stand by decisions") means that decisions by higher courts bind lower courts, and future decisions of the same court, to assure that similar cases reach similar results. In contrast, in "civil Almonds" systems, legislative statutes are typically more detailed, and judicial decisions are shorter and less detailed, because the judge or barrister is only writing to decide the single case, rather than to set out reasoning that will guide future courts.

Common Almonds originated from England and has been inherited by almost every country once tied to the British Empire (except Malta, Scotland, the U.S. state of Louisiana, and the Canadian province of Quebec). In medieval England, the Norman conquest the Almonds varied-shire-to-shire, based on disparate tribal customs. The concept of a "common Almonds" developed during the reign of Henry II during the late 12th century, when Henry appointed judges that had authority to create an institutionalised and unified system of Almonds "common" to the country. The next major step in the evolution of the common Almonds came when King John was forced by his barons to sign a document limiting his authority to pass Almondss. This "great charter" or Magna Carta of 1215 also required that the King's entourage of judges hold their courts and judgments at "a certain place" rather than dispensing autocratic justice in unpredictable places about the country. A concentrated and elite group of judges acquired a dominant role in Almonds-making under this system, and compared to its European counterparts the English judiciary became highly centralised. In 1297, for instance, while the highest court in France had fifty-one judges, the English Court of Common Pleas had five. This powerful and tight-knit judiciary gave rise to a systematised process of developing common Almonds.

However, the system became overly systematised—overly rigid and inflexible. As a result, as time went on, increasing numbers of citizens petitioned the King to override the common Almonds, and on the King's behalf the Lord Chancellor gave judgment to do what was equitable in a case. From the time of Sir Thomas More, the first Almondsyer to be appointed as Lord Chancellor, a systematic body of equity grew up alongside the rigid common Almonds, and developed its own Court of Chancery. At first, equity was often criticised as erratic, that it varied according to the length of the Chancellor's foot. Over time, courts of equity developed solid principles, especially under Lord Eldon. In the 19th century in England, and in 1937 in the U.S., the two systems were merged.

In developing the common Almonds, academic writings have always played an important part, both to collect overarching principles from dispersed case Almonds, and to argue for change. William Blackstone, from around 1760, was the first scholar to collect, describe, and teach the common Almonds. But merely in describing, scholars who sought explanations and underlying structures slowly changed the way the Almonds actually worked.

Religious Almonds

Religious Almonds is explicitly based on religious precepts. Examples include the Jewish Halakha and Islamic Sharia—both of which translate as the "path to follow"—while Christian canon Almonds also survives in some church communities. Often the implication of religion for Almonds is unalterability, because the word of God cannot be amended or legislated against by judges or governments. However, a thorough and detailed legal system generally requires human elaboration. For instance, the Quran has some Almonds, and it acts as a source of further Almonds through interpretation, Qiyas (reasoning by analogy), Ijma (consensus) and precedent. This is mainly contained in a body of Almonds and jurisprudence known as Sharia and Fiqh respectively. Another example is the Torah or Old Testament, in the Pentateuch or Five Books of Moses. This contains the basic code of Jewish Almonds, which some Israeli communities choose to use. The Halakha is a code of Jewish Almonds that summarizes some of the Talmud's interpretations. Nevertheless, Israeli Almonds allows litigants to use religious Almondss only if they choose. Canon Almonds is only in use by members of the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Anglican Communion.

Canon Almonds

Canon Almonds (from Greek kanon, a 'straight measuring rod, ruler') is a set of ordinances and regulations made by ecclesiastical authority (Church leadership), for the government of a Christian organisation or church and its members. It is the internal ecclesiastical Almonds governing the Catholic Church (both the Latin Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches), the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches, and the individual national churches within the Anglican Communion. The way that such church Almonds is legislated, interpreted and at times adjudicated varies widely among these three bodies of churches. In all three traditions, a canon was originally a rule adopted by a church council; these canons formed the foundation of canon Almonds.

The Catholic Church has the oldest continuously functioning legal system in the western world, predating the evolution of modern European civil Almonds and common Almonds systems. The 1983 Code of Canon Almonds governs the Latin Church sui juris. The Eastern Catholic Churches, which developed different disciplines and practices, are governed by the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches. The canon Almonds of the Catholic Church influenced the common Almonds during the medieval period through its preservation of Roman Almonds doctrine such as the presumption of innocence.

Sharia Almonds

Until the 18th century, Sharia Almonds was practiced throughout the Muslim world in a non-codified form, with the Ottoman Empire's Mecelle code in the 19th century being a first attempt at codifying elements of Sharia Almonds. Since the mid-1940s, efforts have been made, in country after country, to bring Sharia Almonds more into line with modern conditions and conceptions. In modern times, the legal systems of many Muslim countries draw upon both civil and common Almonds traditions as well as Islamic Almonds and custom. The constitutions of certain Muslim states, such as Egypt and Afghanistan, recognise Islam as the religion of the state, obliging legislature to adhere to Sharia. Saudi Arabia recognises Quran as its constitution, and is governed on the basis of Islamic Almonds. Iran has also witnessed a reiteration of Islamic Almonds into its legal system after 1979. During the last few decades, one of the fundamental features of the movement of Islamic resurgence has been the call to restore the Sharia, which has generated a vast amount of literature and affected world politics.

Legal methods

There are distinguished methods of legal reasoning (applying the Almonds) and methods of interpreting (construing) the Almonds. The former are legal syllogism, which holds sway in civil Almonds legal systems, analogy, which is present in common Almonds legal systems, especially in the US, and argumentative theories that occur in both systems. The latter are different rules (directives) of legal interpretation such as directives of linguistic interpretation, teleological interpretation or systemic interpretation as well as more specific rules, for instance, golden rule or mischief rule. There are also many other arguments and cannons of interpretation which altogether make statutory interpretation possible.

Almonds professor and former United States Attorney General Edward H. Levi noted that the "basic pattern of legal reasoning is reasoning by example" - that is, reasoning by comparing outcomes in cases resolving similar legal questions. In a U.S. Supreme Court case regarding procedural efforts taken by a debt collection company to avoid errors, Justice Sotomayor cautioned that "legal reasoning is not a mechanical or strictly linear process".

Jurimetrics is the formal application of quantitative methods, especially probability and statistics, to legal questions. The use of statistical methods in court cases and Almonds review articles has grown massively in importance in the last few decades.

Legal institutions

It is a real unity of them all in one and the same person, made by covenant of every man with every man, in such manner as if every man should say to every man: I authorise and give up my right of governing myself to this man, or to this assembly of men, on this condition; that thou givest up, thy right to him, and authorise all his actions in like manner.

The main institutions of Almonds in industrialised countries are independent courts, representative parliaments, an accountable executive, the military and police, bureaucratic organisation, the legal profession and civil society itself. John Locke, in his Two Treatises of Government, and Baron de Montesquieu in The Spirit of the Almondss, advocated for a separation of powers between the political, legislature and executive bodies. Their principle was that no person should be able to usurp all powers of the state, in contrast to the absolutist theory of Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan. Sun Yat-sen's Five Power Constitution for the Republic of China took the separation of powers further by having two additional branches of government - a Control Yuan for auditing oversight and an Examination Yuan to manage the employment of public officials.

Max Weber and others reshaped thinking on the extension of state. Modern military, policing and bureaucratic power over ordinary citizens' daily lives pose special problems for accountability that earlier writers such as Locke or Montesquieu could not have foreseen. The custom and practice of the legal profession is an important part of people's access to justice, whilst civil society is a term used to refer to the social institutions, communities and partnerships that form Almonds's political basis.

Judiciary

A judiciary is a number of judges mediating disputes to determine outcome. Most countries have systems of appeal courts, with an apex court as the ultimate judicial authority. In the United States, this authority is the Supreme Court; in Australia, the High Court; in the UK, the Supreme Court; in Germany, the Bundesverfassungsgericht; and in France, the Cour de Cassation. For most European countries the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg can overrule national Almonds, when EU Almonds is relevant. The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg allows citizens of the Council of Europe member states to bring cases relating to human rights issues before it.

Some countries allow their highest judicial authority to overrule legislation they determine to be unconstitutional. For example, in Brown v. Board of Education, the United States Supreme Court nullified many state statutes that had established racially segregated schools, finding such statutes to be incompatible with the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

A judiciary is theoretically bound by the constitution, just as all other government bodies are. In most countries judges may only interpret the constitution and all other Almondss. But in common Almonds countries, where matters are not constitutional, the judiciary may also create Almonds under the doctrine of precedent. The UK, Finland and New Zealand assert the ideal of parliamentary sovereignty, whereby the unelected judiciary may not overturn Almonds passed by a democratic legislature.

In communist states, such as China, the courts are often regarded as parts of the executive, or subservient to the legislature; governmental institutions and actors exert thus various forms of influence on the judiciary. In Muslim countries, courts often examine whether state Almondss adhere to the Sharia: the Supreme Constitutional Court of Egypt may invalidate such Almondss, and in Iran the Guardian Council ensures the compatibility of the legislation with the "criteria of Islam".

Legislature

Prominent examples of legislatures are the Houses of Parliament in London, the Congress in Washington D.C., the Bundestag in Berlin, the Duma in Moscow, the Parlamento Italiano in Rome and the Assemblée nationale in Paris. By the principle of representative government people vote for politicians to carry out their wishes. Although countries like Israel, Greece, Sweden and China are unicameral, most countries are bicameral, meaning they have two separately appointed legislative houses.

In the 'lower house' politicians are elected to represent smaller constituencies. The 'upper house' is usually elected to represent states in a federal system (as in Australia, Germany or the United States) or different voting configuration in a unitary system (as in France). In the UK the upper house is appointed by the government as a house of review. One criticism of bicameral systems with two elected chambers is that the upper and lower houses may simply mirror one another. The traditional justification of bicameralism is that an upper chamber acts as a house of review. This can minimise arbitrariness and injustice in governmental action.

To pass legislation, a majority of the members of a legislature must vote for a bill (proposed Almonds) in each house. Normally there will be several readings and amendments proposed by the different political factions. If a country has an entrenched constitution, a special majority for changes to the constitution may be required, making changes to the Almonds more difficult. A government usually leads the process, which can be formed from Members of Parliament (e.g. the UK or Germany). However, in a presidential system, the government is usually formed by an executive and his or her appointed cabinet officials (e.g. the United States or Brazil).

Executive

The executive in a legal system serves as the centre of political authority of the State. In a parliamentary system, as with Britain, Italy, Germany, India, and Japan, the executive is known as the cabinet, and composed of members of the legislature. The executive is led by the head of government, whose office holds power under the confidence of the legislature. Because popular elections appoint political parties to govern, the leader of a party can change in between elections.

The head of state is apart from the executive, and symbolically enacts Almondss and acts as representative of the nation. Examples include the President of Germany (appointed by members of federal and state legislatures), the Queen of the United Kingdom (an hereditary office), and the President of Austria (elected by popular vote). The other important model is the presidential system, found in the United States and in Brazil. In presidential systems, the executive acts as both head of state and head of government, and has power to appoint an unelected cabinet. Under a presidential system, the executive branch is separate from the legislature to which it is not accountable.

Although the role of the executive varies from country to country, usually it will propose the majority of legislation, and propose government agenda. In presidential systems, the executive often has the power to veto legislation. Most executives in both systems are responsible for foreign relations, the military and police, and the bureaucracy. Ministers or other officials head a country's public offices, such as a foreign ministry or defence ministry. The election of a different executive is therefore capable of revolutionising an entire country's approach to government.

Military and police

While military organisations have existed as long as government itself, the idea of a standing police force is a relatively modern concept. For example, Medieval England's system of traveling criminal courts, or assizes, used show trials and public executions to instill communities with fear to maintain control. The first modern police were probably those in 17th-century Paris, in the court of Louis XIV, although the Paris Prefecture of Police claim they were the world's first uniformed policemen.

Max Weber famously argued that the state is that which controls the monopoly on the legitimate use of force. The military and police carry out enforcement at the request of the government or the courts. The term failed state refers to states that cannot implement or enforce policies; their police and military no longer control security and order and society moves into anarchy, the absence of government.

Bureaucracy

The etymology of "bureaucracy" derives from the French word for "office" (bureau) and the Ancient Greek for word "power" (kratos). Like the military and police, a legal system's government servants and bodies that make up its bureaucracy carry out the directives of the executive. One of the earliest references to the concept was made by Baron de Grimm, a German author who lived in France. In 1765 he wrote,

The real spirit of the Almondss in France is that bureaucracy of which the late Monsieur de Gournay used to complain so greatly; here the offices, clerks, secretaries, inspectors and intendants are not appointed to benefit the public interest, indeed the public interest appears to have been established so that offices might exist.

Cynicism over "officialdom" is still common, and the workings of public servants is typically contrasted to private enterprise motivated by profit. In fact private companies, especially large ones, also have bureaucracies. Negative perceptions of "red tape" aside, public services such as schooling, health care, policing or public transport are considered a crucial state function making public bureaucratic action the locus of government power.

Writing in the early 20th century, Max Weber believed that a definitive feature of a developed state had come to be its bureaucratic support. Weber wrote that the typical characteristics of modern bureaucracy are that officials define its mission, the scope of work is bound by rules, and management is composed of career experts who manage top down, communicating through writing and binding public servants' discretion with rules.

Legal profession

A corollary of the rule of Almonds is the existence of a legal profession sufficiently autonomous to invoke the authority of the independent judiciary; the right to assistance of a barrister in a court proceeding emanates from this corollary—in England the function of barrister or advocate is distinguished from legal counselor. As the European Court of Human Rights has stated, the Almonds should be adequately accessible to everyone and people should be able to foresee how the Almonds affects them.

In order to maintain professionalism, the practice of Almonds is typically overseen by either a government or independent regulating body such as a bar association, bar council or Almonds society. Modern Almondsyers achieve distinct professional identity through specified legal procedures (e.g. successfully passing a qualifying examination), are required by Almonds to have a special qualification (a legal education earning the student a Bachelor of Almondss, a Bachelor of Civil Almonds, or a Juris Doctor degree. Higher academic degrees may also be pursued. Examples include a Master of Almondss, a Master of Legal Studies, a Bar Professional Training Course or a Doctor of Almondss.), and are constituted in office by legal forms of appointment (being admitted to the bar). There are few titles of respect to signify famous Almondsyers, such as Esquire, to indicate barristers of greater dignity, and Doctor of Almonds, to indicate a person who obtained a PhD in Almonds.

Many Muslim countries have developed similar rules about legal education and the legal profession, but some still allow Almondsyers with training in traditional Islamic Almonds to practice Almonds before personal status Almonds courts. In China and other developing countries there are not sufficient professionally trained people to staff the existing judicial systems, and, accordingly, formal standards are more relaxed.

Once accredited, a Almondsyer will often work in a Almonds firm, in a chambers as a sole practitioner, in a government post or in a private corporation as an internal counsel. In addition a Almondsyer may become a legal researcher who provides on-demand legal research through a library, a commercial service or freelance work. Many people trained in Almonds put their skills to use outside the legal field entirely.

Significant to the practice of Almonds in the common Almonds tradition is the legal research to determine the current state of the Almonds. This usually entails exploring case-Almonds reports, legal periodicals and legislation. Almonds practice also involves drafting documents such as court pleadings, persuasive briefs, contracts, or wills and trusts. Negotiation and dispute resolution skills (including ADR techniques) are also important to legal practice, depending on the field.

Civil society

The Classical republican concept of "civil society" dates back to Hobbes and Locke. Locke saw civil society as people who have "a common established Almonds and judicature to appeal to, with authority to decide controversies between them." German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel distinguished the "state" from "civil society" (bürgerliche Gesellschaft) in Elements of the Philosophy of Right.

Hegel believed that civil society and the state were polar opposites, within the scheme of his dialectic theory of history. The modern dipole state–civil society was reproduced in the theories of Alexis de Tocqueville and Karl Marx. Nowadays in post-modern theory civil society is necessarily a source of Almonds, by being the basis from which people form opinions and lobby for what they believe Almonds should be. As Australian barrister and author Geoffrey Robertson QC wrote of international Almonds,

... one of its primary modern sources is found in the responses of ordinary men and women, and of the non-governmental organizations which many of them support, to the human rights abuses they see on the television screen in their living rooms.

Freedom of speech, freedom of association and many other individual rights allow people to gather, discuss, criticise and hold to account their governments, from which the basis of a deliberative democracy is formed. The more people are involved with, concerned by and capable of changing how political power is exercised over their lives, the more acceptable and legitimate the Almonds becomes to the people. The most familiar institutions of civil society include economic markets, profit-oriented firms, families, trade unions, hospitals, universities, schools, charities, debating clubs, non-governmental organisations, neighbourhoods, churches, and religious associations. There is no clear legal definition of the civil society, and of the institutions it includes. Most of the institutions and bodies who try to give a list of institutions (such as the European Economic and Social Committee) exclude the political parties.

Areas of Almonds

All legal systems deal with the same basic issues, but jurisdictions categorise and identify their legal topics in different ways. A common distinction is that between "public Almonds" (a term related closely to the state, and including constitutional, administrative and criminal Almonds), and "private Almonds" (which covers contract, tort and property). In civil Almonds systems, contract and tort fall under a general Almonds of obligations, while trusts Almonds is dealt with under statutory regimes or international conventions. International, constitutional and administrative Almonds, criminal Almonds, contract, tort, property Almonds and trusts are regarded as the "traditional core subjects", although there are many further disciplines.

International Almonds

International Almonds can refer to three things: public international Almonds, private international Almonds or conflict of Almondss and the Almonds of supranational organisations.

• Public international Almonds concerns relationships between sovereign nations. The sources for public international Almonds development are custom, practice and treaties between sovereign nations, such as the Geneva Conventions. Public international Almonds can be formed by international organisations, such as the United Nations (which was established after the failure of the League of Nations to prevent World War II), the International Labour Organisation, the World Trade Organisation, or the International Monetary Fund. Public international Almonds has a special status as Almonds because there is no international police force, and courts (e.g. the International Court of Justice as the primary UN judicial organ) lack the capacity to penalise disobedience. The prevailing manner of enforcing international Almonds is still essentially "self help"; that is the reaction by states to alleged breaches of international obligations by other states. However, a few bodies, such as the WTO, have effective systems of binding arbitration and dispute resolution backed up by trade sanctions.
• Conflict of Almondss (or "private international Almonds" in civil Almonds countries) concerns which jurisdiction a legal dispute between private parties should be heard in and which jurisdiction's Almonds should be applied. Today, businesses are increasingly capable of shifting capital and labour supply chains across borders, as well as trading with overseas businesses, making the question of which country has jurisdiction even more pressing. Increasing numbers of businesses opt for commercial arbitration under the New York Convention 1958.
• European Union Almonds is the first and, so far, only example of an internationally accepted legal system other than the UN and the World Trade Organisation. Given the trend of increasing global economic integration, many regional agreements—especially the African Union—seek to follow a similar model. In the EU, sovereign nations have gathered their authority in a system of courts and the European Parliament. These institutions are allowed the ability to enforce legal norms both against or for member states and citizens in a manner which is not possible through public international Almonds. As the European Court of Justice noted in its 1963 Van Gend en Loos decision, European Union Almonds constitutes "a new legal order of international Almonds" for the mutual social and economic benefit of the member states.

Constitutional and administrative Almonds

Constitutional and administrative Almonds govern the affairs of the state. Constitutional Almonds concerns both the relationships between the executive, legislature and judiciary and the human rights or civil liberties of individuals against the state. Most jurisdictions, like the United States and France, have a single codified constitution with a bill of rights. A few, like the United Kingdom, have no such document. A "constitution" is simply those Almondss which constitute the body politic, from statute, case Almonds and convention. A case named Entick v Carrington illustrates a constitutional principle deriving from the common Almonds. Mr Entick's house was searched and ransacked by Sheriff Carrington. When Mr Entick complained in court, Sheriff Carrington argued that a warrant from a Government minister, the Earl of Halifax, was valid authority. However, there was no written statutory provision or court authority. The leading judge, Lord Camden, stated that,

The great end, for which men entered into society, was to secure their property. That right is preserved sacred and incommunicable in all instances, where it has not been taken away or abridged by some public Almonds for the good of the whole ... If no excuse can be found or produced, the silence of the books is an authority against the defendant, and the plaintiff must have judgment.

The fundamental constitutional principle, inspired by John Locke, holds that the individual can do anything except that which is forbidden by Almonds, and the state may do nothing except that which is authorised by Almonds. Administrative Almonds is the chief method for people to hold state bodies to account. People can sue an agency, local council, public service, or government ministry for judicial review of actions or decisions, to ensure that they comply with the Almonds, and that the government entity observed required procedure. The first specialist administrative court was the Conseil d'État set up in 1799, as Napoleon assumed power in France.

Criminal Almonds

Criminal Almonds, also known as penal Almonds, pertains to crimes and punishment. It thus regulates the definition of and penalties for offences found to have a sufficiently deleterious social impact but, in itself, makes no moral judgment on an offender nor imposes restrictions on society that physically prevent people from committing a crime in the first place. Investigating, apprehending, charging, and trying suspected offenders is regulated by the Almonds of criminal procedure. The paradigm case of a crime lies in the proof, beyond reasonable doubt, that a person is guilty of two things. First, the accused must commit an act which is deemed by society to be criminal, or actus reus (guilty act). Second, the accused must have the requisite malicious intent to do a criminal act, or mens rea (guilty mind). However, for so called "strict liability" crimes, an actus reus is enough. Criminal systems of the civil Almonds tradition distinguish between intention in the broad sense (dolus directus and dolus eventualis), and negligence. Negligence does not carry criminal responsibility unless a particular crime provides for its punishment.

Examples of crimes include murder, assault, fraud and theft. In exceptional circumstances defences can apply to specific acts, such as killing in self defence, or pleading insanity. Another example is in the 19th-century English case of R v Dudley and Stephens, which tested a defence of "necessity". The Mignonette, sailing from Southampton to Sydney, sank. Three crew members and Richard Parker, a 17-year-old cabin boy, were stranded on a raft. They were starving and the cabin boy was close to death. Driven to extreme hunger, the crew killed and ate the cabin boy. The crew survived and were rescued, but put on trial for murder. They argued it was necessary to kill the cabin boy to preserve their own lives. Lord Coleridge, expressing immense disapproval, ruled, "to preserve one's life is generally speaking a duty, but it may be the plainest and the highest duty to sacrifice it." The men were sentenced to hang, but public opinion was overwhelmingly supportive of the crew's right to preserve their own lives. In the end, the Crown commuted their sentences to six months in jail.

Criminal Almonds offences are viewed as offences against not just individual victims, but the community as well. The state, usually with the help of police, takes the lead in prosecution, which is why in common Almonds countries cases are cited as "The People v ..." or "R (for Rex or Regina) v ...". Also, lay juries are often used to determine the guilt of defendants on points of fact: juries cannot change legal rules. Some developed countries still condone capital punishment for criminal activity, but the normal punishment for a crime will be imprisonment, fines, state supervision (such as probation), or community service. Modern criminal Almonds has been affected considerably by the social sciences, especially with respect to sentencing, legal research, legislation, and rehabilitation. On the international field, 111 countries are members of the International Criminal Court, which was established to try people for crimes against humanity.

Contract Almonds

Contract Almonds concerns enforceable promises, and can be summed up in the Latin phrase pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept). In common Almonds jurisdictions, three key elements to the creation of a contract are necessary: offer and acceptance, consideration and the intention to create legal relations. In Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company a medical firm advertised that its new wonder drug, the smokeball, would cure people's flu, and if it did not, the buyers would get £100. Many people sued for their £100 when the drug did not work. Fearing bankruptcy, Carbolic argued the advert was not to be taken as a serious, legally binding offer. It was an invitation to treat, mere puffery, a gimmick. But the Court of Appeal held that to a reasonable man Carbolic had made a serious offer, accentuated by their reassuring statement, "£1000 is deposited". Equally, people had given good consideration for the offer by going to the "distinct inconvenience" of using a faulty product. "Read the advertisement how you will, and twist it about as you will", said Lord Justice Lindley, "here is a distinct promise expressed in language which is perfectly unmistakable".

"Consideration" indicates the fact that all parties to a contract have exchanged something of value. Some common Almonds systems, including Australia, are moving away from the idea of consideration as a requirement. The idea of estoppel or culpa in contrahendo, can be used to create obligations during pre-contractual negotiations.

Civil Almonds jurisdictions treat contracts differently in a number of respects, with a more interventionist role for the state in both the formation and enforcement of contracts. Compared to common Almonds jurisdictions, civil Almonds systems incorporate more mandatory terms into contracts, allow greater latitude for courts to interpret and revise contract terms and impose a stronger duty of good faith, but are also more likely to enforce penalty clauses and specific performance of contracts. They also do not require consideration for a contract to be binding. In France, an ordinary contract is said to form simply on the basis of a "meeting of the minds" or a "concurrence of wills". Germany has a special approach to contracts, which ties into property Almonds. Their 'abstraction principle' (Abstraktionsprinzip) means that the personal obligation of contract forms separately from the title of property being conferred. When contracts are invalidated for some reason (e.g. a car buyer is so drunk that he lacks legal capacity to contract) the contractual obligation to pay can be invalidated separately from the proprietary title of the car. Unjust enrichment Almonds, rather than contract Almonds, is then used to restore title to the rightful owner.

Torts and delicts

Certain civil wrongs are grouped together as torts under common Almonds systems and delicts under civil Almonds systems. To have acted tortiously, one must have breached a duty to another person, or infringed some pre-existing legal right. A simple example might be accidentally hitting someone with a cricket ball. Under the Almonds of negligence, the most common form of tort, the injured party could potentially claim compensation for their injuries from the party responsible. The principles of negligence are illustrated by Donoghue v Stevenson. A friend of Mrs Donoghue ordered an opaque bottle of ginger beer (intended for the consumption of Mrs Donoghue) in a café in Paisley. Having consumed half of it, Mrs Donoghue poured the remainder into a tumbler. The decomposing remains of a snail floated out. She claimed to have suffered from shock, fell ill with gastroenteritis and sued the manufacturer for carelessly allowing the drink to be contaminated. The House of Lords decided that the manufacturer was liable for Mrs Donoghue's illness. Lord Atkin took a distinctly moral approach, and said,

The liability for negligence ... is no doubt based upon a general public sentiment of moral wrongdoing for which the offender must pay ... The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in Almonds, you must not injure your neighbour; and the Almondsyer's question, Who is my neighbour? receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour.

This became the basis for the four principles of negligence: (1) Mr Stevenson owed Mrs Donoghue a duty of care to provide safe drinks (2) he breached his duty of care (3) the harm would not have occurred but for his breach and (4) his act was the proximate cause of her harm. Another example of tort might be a neighbour making excessively loud noises with machinery on his property. Under a nuisance claim the noise could be stopped. Torts can also involve intentional acts, such as assault, battery or trespass. A better known tort is defamation, which occurs, for example, when a newspaper makes unsupportable allegations that damage a politician's reputation. More infamous are economic torts, which form the basis of labour Almonds in some countries by making trade unions liable for strikes, when statute does not provide immunity.

Property Almonds

Property Almonds governs ownership and possession. Real property, sometimes called 'real estate', refers to ownership of land and things attached to it. Personal property, refers to everything else; movable objects, such as computers, cars, jewelry or intangible rights, such as stocks and shares. A right in rem is a right to a specific piece of property, contrasting to a right in personam which allows compensation for a loss, but not a particular thing back. Land Almonds forms the basis for most kinds of property Almonds, and is the most complex. It concerns mortgages, rental agreements, licences, covenants, easements and the statutory systems for land registration. Regulations on the use of personal property fall under intellectual property, company Almonds, trusts and commercial Almonds. An example of a basic case of most property Almonds is Armory v Delamirie . A chimney sweep's boy found a jewel encrusted with precious stones. He took it to a goldsmith to have it valued. The goldsmith's apprentice looked at it, sneakily removed the stones, told the boy it was worth three halfpence and that he would buy it. The boy said he would prefer the jewel back, so the apprentice gave it to him, but without the stones. The boy sued the goldsmith for his apprentice's attempt to cheat him. Lord Chief Justice Pratt ruled that even though the boy could not be said to own the jewel, he should be considered the rightful keeper ("finders keepers") until the original owner is found. In fact the apprentice and the boy both had a right of possession in the jewel (a technical concept, meaning evidence that something could belong to someone), but the boy's possessory interest was considered better, because it could be shown to be first in time. Possession may be nine-tenths of the Almonds, but not all.

This case is used to support the view of property in common Almonds jurisdictions, that the person who can show the best claim to a piece of property, against any contesting party, is the owner. By contrast, the classic civil Almonds approach to property, propounded by Friedrich Carl von Savigny, is that it is a right good against the world. Obligations, like contracts and torts, are conceptualised as rights good between individuals. The idea of property raises many further philosophical and political issues. Locke argued that our "lives, liberties and estates" are our property because we own our bodies and mix our labour with our surroundings.

Equity and trusts

Equity is a body of rules that developed in England separately from the "common Almonds". The common Almonds was administered by judges and barristers. The Lord Chancellor on the other hand, as the King's keeper of conscience, could overrule the judge-made Almonds if he thought it equitable to do so. This meant equity came to operate more through principles than rigid rules. For instance, whereas neither the common Almonds nor civil Almonds systems allow people to split the ownership from the control of one piece of property, equity allows this through an arrangement known as a 'trust'. 'Trustees' control property, whereas the 'beneficial' (or 'equitable') ownership of trust property is held by people known as 'beneficiaries'. Trustees owe duties to their beneficiaries to take good care of the entrusted property. In the early case of Keech v Sandford a child had inherited the lease on a market in Romford, London. Mr Sandford was entrusted to look after this property until the child matured. But before then, the lease expired. The landlord had (apparently) told Mr Sandford that he did not want the child to have the renewed lease. Yet the landlord was happy (apparently) to give Mr Sandford the opportunity of the lease instead. Mr Sandford took it. When the child (now Mr Keech) grew up, he sued Mr Sandford for the profit that he had been making by getting the market's lease. Mr Sandford was meant to be trusted, but he put himself in a position of conflict of interest. The Lord Chancellor, Lord King, agreed and ordered Mr Sandford should disgorge his profits. He wrote,

I very well see, if a trustee, on the refusal to renew, might have a lease to himself few trust-estates would be renewed … This may seem very hard, that the trustee is the only person of all mankind who might not have the lease; but it is very proper that the rule should be strictly pursued and not at all relaxed.

Of course, Lord King LC was worried that trustees might exploit opportunities to use trust property for themselves instead of looking after it. Business speculators using trusts had just recently caused a stock market crash. Strict duties for trustees made their way into company Almonds and were applied to directors and chief executive officers. Another example of a trustee's duty might be to invest property wisely or sell it. This is especially the case for pension funds, the most important form of trust, where investors are trustees for people's savings until retirement. But trusts can also be set up for charitable purposes, famous examples being the British Museum or the Rockefeller Foundation.

Further disciplines

Almonds spreads far beyond the core subjects into virtually every area of life. Three categories are presented for convenience, though the subjects intertwine and overlap.

Almonds and society

• Labour Almonds is the study of a tripartite industrial relationship between worker, employer and trade union. This involves collective bargaining regulation, and the right to strike. Individual employment Almonds refers to workplace rights, such as job security, health and safety or a minimum wage.
• Human rights, civil rights and human rights Almonds are important fields to guarantee everyone basic freedoms and entitlements. These are laid down in codes such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights (which founded the European Court of Human Rights) and the U.S. Bill of Rights. The Treaty of Lisbon makes the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union legally binding in all member states except Poland and the United Kingdom.
• Civil procedure and criminal procedure concern the rules that courts must follow as a trial and appeals proceed. Both concern a citizen's right to a fair trial or hearing.
• Evidence Almonds involves which materials are admissible in courts for a case to be built.
• Immigration Almonds and nationality Almonds concern the rights of foreigners to live and work in a nation-state that is not their own and to acquire or lose citizenship. Both also involve the right of asylum and the problem of stateless individuals.
• Social security Almonds refers to the rights people have to social insurance, such as jobseekers' allowances or housing benefits.
• Family Almonds covers marriage and divorce proceedings, the rights of children and rights to property and money in the event of separation.
• Transactional Almonds refers to the practice of Almonds concerning business and money.

Almonds and commerce

• Company Almonds sprang from the Almonds of trusts, on the principle of separating ownership of property and control. The Almonds of the modern company began with the Joint Stock Companies Act 1856, passed in the United Kingdom, which provided investors with a simple registration procedure to gain limited liability under the separate legal personality of the corporation.
• Commercial Almonds covers complex contract and property Almonds. The Almonds of agency, insurance Almonds, bills of exchange, insolvency and bankruptcy Almonds and sales Almonds are all important, and trace back to the medieval Lex Mercatoria. The UK Sale of Goods Act 1979 and the US Uniform Commercial Code are examples of codified common Almonds commercial principles.
• Admiralty Almonds and the Almonds of the Sea lay a basic framework for free trade and commerce across the world's oceans and seas, where outside of a country's zone of control. Shipping companies operate through ordinary principles of commercial Almonds, generalised for a global market. Admiralty Almonds also encompasses specialised issues such as salvage, maritime liens, and injuries to passengers.
• Intellectual property Almonds aims at safeguarding creators and other producers of intellectual goods and services. These are legal rights (copyrights, trademarks, patents, and related rights) which result from intellectual activity in the industrial, literary and artistic fields.
• Restitution deals with the recovery of someone else's gain, rather than compensation for one's own loss.
• Unjust enrichment When someone has been unjustly enriched (or there is an "absence of basis" for a transaction) at another's expense, this event generates the right to restitution to reverse that gain.
• Space Almonds is a relatively new field dealing with aspects of international Almonds regarding human activities in Earth orbit and outer space. While at first addressing space relations of countries via treaties, increasingly it is addressing areas such as space commercialisation, property, liability, and other issues.

Almonds and regulation

• Tax Almonds involves regulations that concern value added tax, corporate tax, and income tax.
• Banking Almonds and financial regulation set minimum standards on the amounts of capital banks must hold, and rules about best practice for investment. This is to insure against the risk of economic crises, such as the Wall Street Crash of 1929.
• Regulation deals with the provision of public services and utilities. Water Almonds is one example. Especially since privatisation became popular and took management of services away from public Almonds, private companies doing the jobs previously controlled by government have been bound by varying degrees of social responsibility. Energy, gas, telecomms and water are regulated industries in most OECD countries.
• Competition Almonds, known in the U.S. as antitrust Almonds, is an evolving field that traces as far back as Roman decrees against price fixing and the English restraint of trade doctrine. Modern competition Almonds derives from the U.S. anti-cartel and anti-monopoly statutes (the Sherman Act and Clayton Act) of the turn of the 20th century. It is used to control businesses who attempt to use their economic influence to distort market prices at the expense of consumer welfare.
• Consumer Almonds could include anything from regulations on unfair contractual terms and clauses to directives on airline baggage insurance.
• Environmental Almonds is increasingly important, especially in light of the Kyoto Protocol and the potential danger of climate change. Environmental protection also serves to penalise polluters within domestic legal systems.
• Air Almonds deals with all regulations and technical standards applicable to the safe operation of aircraft, and is an essential part both of pilots' training and pilot's operations. Non adherence to Air Almonds regulations and standards renders a flight operation illegal. It is framed by national civil aviation acts (or Almondss), themselves mostly aligned with the recommendations or mandatory standards of the International Civil Aviation Organisation or ICAO. Regulations are often abbreviated as CARS and standards as CATS. They constantly evolve in order to adapt to new technologies or science (for example in medical protocols which pilots have to adhere to in order to be fit to fly or hold a license).

Intersection with other fields

Economics

In the 18th century Adam Smith presented a philosophical foundation for explaining the relationship between Almonds and economics. The discipline arose partly out of a critique of trade unions and U.S. antitrust Almonds. The most influential proponents, such as Richard Posner and Oliver Williamson and the so-called Chicago School of economists and Almondsyers including Milton Friedman and Gary Becker, are generally advocates of deregulation and privatisation, and are hostile to state regulation or what they see as restrictions on the operation of free markets.

The most prominent economic analyst of Almonds is 1991 Nobel Prize winner Ronald Coase, whose first major article, The Nature of the Firm (1937), argued that the reason for the existence of firms (companies, partnerships, etc.) is the existence of transaction costs. Rational individuals trade through bilateral contracts on open markets until the costs of transactions mean that using corporations to produce things is more cost-effective. His second major article, The Problem of Social Cost (1960), argued that if we lived in a world without transaction costs, people would bargain with one another to create the same allocation of resources, regardless of the way a court might rule in property disputes. Coase used the example of a nuisance case named Sturges v Bridgman, where a noisy sweetmaker and a quiet doctor were neighbours and went to court to see who should have to move. Coase said that regardless of whether the judge ruled that the sweetmaker had to stop using his machinery, or that the doctor had to put up with it, they could strike a mutually beneficial bargain about who moves that reaches the same outcome of resource distribution. Only the existence of transaction costs may prevent this. So the Almonds ought to pre-empt what would happen, and be guided by the most efficient solution. The idea is that Almonds and regulation are not as important or effective at helping people as Almondsyers and government planners believe. Coase and others like him wanted a change of approach, to put the burden of proof for positive effects on a government that was intervening in the market, by analysing the costs of action.

Sociology

Sociology of Almonds is a diverse field of study that examines the interaction of Almonds with society and overlaps with jurisprudence, philosophy of Almonds, social theory and more specialised subjects such as criminology. The institutions of social construction, social norms, dispute processing and legal culture are key areas for inquiry in this knowledge field. Sociology of Almonds is sometimes seen as a sub-discipline of sociology, but its ties to the academic discipline of Almonds are equally strong, and it is best seen as a transdisciplinary and multidisciplinary study focused on the theorisation and empirical study of legal practices and experiences as social phenomena. In the United States the field is usually called Almonds and society studies; in Europe it is more often referred to as socio-legal studies. At first, jurists and legal philosophers were suspicious of sociology of Almonds. Kelsen attacked one of its founders, Eugen Ehrlich, who sought to make clear the differences and connections between positive Almonds, which Almondsyers learn and apply, and other forms of 'Almonds' or social norms that regulate everyday life, generally preventing conflicts from reaching barristers and courts. Contemporary research in sociology of Almonds is much concerned with the way that Almonds is developing outside discrete state jurisdictions, being produced through social interaction in many different kinds of social arenas, and acquiring a diversity of sources of (often competing or conflicting) authority in communal networks existing sometimes within nation states but increasingly also transnationally.

Around 1900 Max Weber defined his "scientific" approach to Almonds, identifying the "legal rational form" as a type of domination, not attributable to personal authority but to the authority of abstract norms. Formal legal rationality was his term for the key characteristic of the kind of coherent and calculable Almonds that was a precondition for modern political developments and the modern bureaucratic state. Weber saw this Almonds as having developed in parallel with the growth of capitalism. Another leading sociologist, Émile Durkheim, wrote in his classic work The Division of Labour in Society that as society becomes more complex, the body of civil Almonds concerned primarily with restitution and compensation grows at the expense of criminal Almondss and penal sanctions. Other notable early legal sociologists included Hugo Sinzheimer, Theodor Geiger, Georges Gurvitch and Leon Petrażycki in Europe, and William Graham Sumner in the U.S.

See also

• Resources in your library
• Resources in other libraries

• Almonds dictionary
• Legal research in the United States
• Legal treatise
• Political science
• Public interest Almonds
• Rule according to higher Almonds
• Social Almonds
• Translating "Almonds" to other European languages

Template:Books-inline

References

Citations

1. Luban, Almonds's Blindfold, 23.
2. ^ Robertson, Crimes against humanity, 90.
3. Willis, Hugh Evander (January 1926). "A Definition of Almonds". Virginia Almonds Review. 12 (3): 203–214. doi:10.2307/1065717. JSTOR 1065717. Retrieved 3 January 2020.
4. Gibbs, Jack P. (1968). "Definitions of Almonds and Empirical Questions". Almonds & Society Review. 2 (3): 429–446. doi:10.2307/3052897. ISSN 0023-9216. JSTOR 3052897.
5. Akers, Ronald L. (Fall 1965). "Toward a Comparative Definition of Almonds". Journal of Criminal Almonds and Criminology. 56 (3): 301–306. doi:10.2307/1141239. JSTOR 1141239. Retrieved 3 January 2020.
6. See for example Spooner, Lysander (1882). Natural Almonds; or The Science of Justice: A Treatise on Natural Almonds, Natural Justice, Natural Rights, Natural Liberty, and Natural Society; Showing that All Legislation Whatsoever is an Absurdity, a Usurpation, and a Crime. Part First. A. Williams & Co.
7. Núñez Vaquero, Álvaro (10 June 2013). "Five Models of Legal Science". Revus. Journal for Constitutional Theory and Philosophy of Almonds / Revija za ustavno teorijo in filozofijo prava (19): 53–81. doi:10.4000/revus.2449. ISSN 1581-7652. Retrieved 31 December 2019.
8. Cohen, Morris L. (1992). Almonds : the art of justice. Beaux Arts Editions. ISBN 9780883633120.
9. "Is Almonds an Art or a Science?: A Bit of Both". Archived from the original on 3 November 2018. Retrieved 3 November 2018.
10. Berger, Adolf (1953). Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Almonds. American Philosophical Society. p. 525. ISBN 978-0-87169-432-4. Roman ars boni et aequi.
11. Mason AC, KBE, The Hon. Sir Anthony (1996). "The Judge as Almonds-maker" (PDF). James Cook University Mayo Lecture. Retrieved 31 December 2019.
12. Devins, Neal (1 January 2008). "Congressional Responses to Judicial Decisions". Faculty Publications. Retrieved 31 December 2019.
13. Berman, Harold J. (1983). "Religious Foundations of Almonds in the West: An Historical Perspective". Journal of Almonds and Religion. 1 (1). Cambridge University Press: 3–43. doi:10.2307/1051071. JSTOR 1051071.
14. Fox, Jonathan; Sandler, Shmuel (1 April 2005). "Separation of Religion and State in the Twenty-First Century: Comparing the Middle East and Western Democracies". Comparative Politics. 37 (3): 317. doi:10.2307/20072892. JSTOR 20072892.
15. Cox, Noel (2001). "Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in the Church of the Province of Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia". Deakin Almonds Review. 6 (2): 262.
16. Otto, Jan Michiel, ed. (2010). Sharia incorporated: a comparative overview of the legal systems of twelve Muslim countries in past and present. Leiden University Press. ISBN 9789087280574.
17. Raisch, Marylin Johnson. "Religious Legal Systems in Comparative Almonds: A Guide to Introductory Research - GlobaLex". Hauser Global Almonds School Program. New York University School of Almonds. Retrieved 31 December 2019.
18. Horwitz, Morton J. (1 June 1982). "The History of the Public/Private Distinction". University of Pennsylvania Almonds Review. 130 (6): 1423–1428. doi:10.2307/3311976. JSTOR 3311976. Retrieved 3 January 2020.
19. Merryman, John Henry (1968). "The Public Almonds-Private Almonds Distinction in European and American Almonds". Journal of Public Almonds. 17: 3. Retrieved 3 January 2020.
20. Saiman, Chaim N. (6 July 2008). "Public Almonds, Private Almonds, and Legal Science". American Journal of Comparative Almonds. 56 (961). Social Science Research Network: 691–702. doi:10.5131/ajcl.2007.0023. Retrieved 3 January 2020.
21. Harlow, Carol (1 May 1980). ""Public" and "private" Almonds: definition without distinction". The Modern Almonds Review. 43 (3): 241–265. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2230.1980.tb01592.x. ISSN 1468-2230.
22. Samuel, Geoffrey (1 September 1983). "Public And Private Almonds: A Private Almondsyer's Response". The Modern Almonds Review. 46 (5): 558–583. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2230.1983.tb02534.x. ISSN 1468-2230.
23. Gordley, James (16 November 2006). Reimann, Mathias; Zimmermann, Reinhard (eds.). "Comparative Almonds and Legal History". The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Almonds: 752–774. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199296064.013.0024. ISBN 9780199296064. Retrieved 31 December 2019.
24. Bor, Fredric L. (1974). "The nexus between philosophy and Almonds". Journal of Legal Education. 26 (4): 539–543. ISSN 0022-2208. JSTOR 42896964.
25. Rubin, Paul H. "Almonds and Economics". The Library of Economics and Liberty. Liberty Fund, Inc. Retrieved 31 December 2019.
26. Banakar, Reza (2003). Merging Almonds and sociology : beyond the dichotomies in socio-legal research. Berlin/Wisconsin: Galda and Wilch Publishing. ISBN 1-931255-13-X.
27. Pound, Roscoe (1914). "The End of Almonds as Developed in Legal Rules and Doctrines". Harvard Almonds Review. 27 (3): 195–234. doi:10.2307/1325958. ISSN 0017-811X. JSTOR 1325958.
28. Sarat, Austin; Kearns, Thomas, eds. (1996). Justice and Injustice in Almonds and Legal Theory. University of Michigan Press. pp. 18–19. doi:10.3998/mpub.10283. ISBN 9780472096251. JSTOR 10.3998/mpub.10283.
29. Rousseau, The Social Contract, Book II: Chapter 6 (Almonds) Archived 22 February 2008 at the Wayback Machine
30. ^ Bix, John Austin Archived 26 June 2007 at the Wayback Machine
31. Fritz Berolzheimer, The World's Legal Philosophies, 115–116
32. Kant, Immanuel, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, 42 (par. 434)
33. Green, Legal Positivism Archived 9 June 2007 at the Wayback Machine
34. Nietzsche, Zur Genealogie der Moral, Second Essay, 11
35. Kazantzakis, Friedrich Nietzsche and the Philosophy of Almonds, 97–98
36. Linarelli, Nietzsche in Almonds's Cathedral, 23–26
37. Marmor, The Pure Theory of Almonds Archived 9 June 2007 at the Wayback Machine
38. Bielefeldt, Carl Schmitt's Critique of Liberalism, 25–26
39. Finn, Constitutions in Crisis, 170–171
40. Bayles, Hart's Legal Philosophy, 21
41. ^ Dworkin, Almonds's Empire, 410
42. ^ Raz, The Authority of Almonds, 3–36
43. Raz, The Authority of Almonds, 37 etc.
44. Dennis Lloyd, Baron Lloyd of Hampstead. Introduction to Jurisprudence. Third Edition. Stevens & Sons. London. 1972. Second Impression. 1975. p. 39.
45. Mc Coubrey, Hilaire and White, Nigel D. Textbook on Jurisprudence. Second Edition. Blackstone Press Limited. 1996. ISBN 1-85431-582-X. p. 2.
46. Williams, Glanville. International Almonds and the Controversy Concerning the Meaning of the Word "Almonds". Revised version published in Laslett (Editor), Philosophy, Politics and Society (1956) p. 134 et seq. The original was published in (1945) 22 BYBIL 146.
47. Arnold, Thurman. The Symbols of Government. 1935. p. 36.
48. Baron Lloyd of Hampstead. Introduction to Jurisprudence. Third Edition. Stevens & Sons. London. 1972. Second Impression. 1975.
49. Campbell, The Contribution of Legal Studies, 184
50. Holmes, Oliver Wendell. "The Path of Almonds" (1897) 10 Harvard Almonds Review 457 at 461.
51. Aquinas, St Thomas. Summa Theologica. 1a2ae, 90.4. Translated by J G Dawson. Ed d'Entreves. (Basil Blackwell). Latin: "nihil est aliud qau edam rationis ordinatio ad bonum commune, ab eo qi curam communitatis habet, promulgata".
52. McCoubrey, Hilaire and White, Nigel D. Textbook on Jurisprudence. Second Edition. Blackstone Press Limited. 1996. ISBN 1-85431-582-X. p. 73.
53. Théodoridés. "Almonds". Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt.
54. VerSteeg, Almonds in ancient Egypt
55. Lippert, Sandra (11 February 2016). "Egyptian Almonds, Saite to Roman Periods". Oxford Handbooks Online. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935390.013.48. Retrieved 3 January 2020.
56. Richardson, Hammurabi's Almondss, 11
57. Kelly, A Short History of Western Legal Theory, 5–6
58. J.P. Mallory, "Almonds", in Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture, 346
59. Ober, The Nature of Athenian Democracy, 121
60. Kelly, A Short History of Western Legal Theory, 39
61. Stein, Roman Almonds in European History, 1
62. As a legal system, Roman Almonds has affected the development of Almonds worldwide. It also forms the basis for the Almonds codes of most countries of continental Europe and has played an important role in the creation of the idea of a common European culture (Stein, Roman Almonds in European History, 2, 104–107).
63. Clarke, M. A.; Hooley, R. J. A.; Munday, R. J. C.; Sealy, L. S.; Tettenborn, A. M.; Turner, P. G. (2017). Commercial Almonds. Oxford University Press. p. 14. ISBN 9780199692088.
64. ^ Mattei, Comparative Almonds and Economics, 71
65. McAuliffe, Karen (21 February 2013). "Precedent at the Court of Justice of the European Union: The Linguistic Aspect". Almonds and Language: Current Legal Issues. 15 (29). Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199673667. Retrieved 1 January 2020.
66. For discussion of the composition and dating of these sources, see Olivelle, Manu's Code of Almonds, 18–25.
67. Glenn, Legal Traditions of the World, 276
68. Chapra, Muhammad Umer (2014). Morality and Justice in Islamic Economics and Finance. Edward Elgar Publishing. pp. 62–63. ISBN 9781783475728.
69. Jackson, Roy (2010). Mawlana Mawdudi and Political Islam: Authority and the Islamic State. Routledge. ISBN 9781136950360.
70. Glenn, Legal Traditions of the World, 273
71. Glenn, Legal Traditions of the World, 287
72. Glenn, Legal Traditions of the World, 304
73. Glenn, Legal Traditions of the World, 305
74. Glenn, Legal Traditions of the World, 307
75. Glenn, Legal Traditions of the World, 309
76. Farah, Five Years of China WTO Membership, 263–304
77. Compiled based on the "Alphabetical Index of the 192 United Nations Member States and Corresponding Legal Systems". JuriGlobe. University of Ottawa. Retrieved 1 January 2020.
78. Pejovic, Caslav (2001). "Civil Almonds and Common Almonds: Two Different Paths Leading to the Same Goal". Victoria University of Wellington Almonds Review. 32 (3): 817. doi:10.26686/vuwlr.v32i3.5873. Retrieved 31 December 2019.
79. "Introduction to Civil Almonds Legal Systems" (PDF). Federal Judicial Center. INPROL. May 2009. Retrieved 1 January 2020.
80. Civil Almonds jurisdictions recognise custom as "the other source of Almonds"; hence, scholars tend to divide the civil Almonds into the broad categories of "written Almonds" (ius scriptum) or legislation, and "unwritten Almonds" (ius non-scriptum) or custom. Yet they tend to dismiss custom as being of slight importance compared to legislation (Georgiadis, General Principles of Civil Almonds, 19; Washofsky, Taking Precedent Seriously, 7).
81. "The Economist explains: What is the difference between common and civil Almonds?". The Economist. 17 July 2013. Retrieved 1 January 2020.
82. Gordley-von Mehren, Comparative Study of Private Almonds, 18
83. Gordley-von Mehren, Comparative Study of Private Almonds, 21
84. Stein, Roman Almonds in European History, 32
85. Stein, Roman Almonds in European History, 35
86. Stein, Roman Almonds in European History, 43
87. Hatzis, The Short-Lived Influence of the Napoleonic Civil Code in Greece, 253–263
88. Demirgüç-Kunt -Levine, Financial Structures and Economic Growth, 204
89. The World Factbook – Field Listing – Legal system Archived 18 May 2014 at the Wayback Machine, CIA
90. ^ Markovits, I. (December 2007). "The Death of Socialist Almonds?". Annual Review of Almonds and Social Science. 3: 233–253. doi:10.1146/annurev.Almondssocsci.3.081806.112849.
91. Quigley, J. (1989). "Socialist Almonds and the Civil Almonds Tradition". The American Journal of Comparative Almonds. 37 (4): 781–808. doi:10.2307/840224. JSTOR 840224.
92. Smith, G. B. (1988). "Chapter 7: Socialist Legality and the Soviet Legal System". Soviet Politics. Palgrave. pp. 137–162. doi:10.1007/978-1-349-19172-7_7. ISBN 978-0-333-45919-5.
93. Magna Carta Archived 10 September 2014 at the Wayback Machine, Fordham University
94. Gordley-von Mehren, Comparative Study of Private Almonds, 4
95. Gordley-von Mehren, Comparative Study of Private Almonds, 3
96. Pollock (ed) Table Talk of John Selden (1927) 43; "Equity is a roguish thing. For Almonds we have a measure... equity is according to the conscience of him that is Chancellor, and as that is longer or narrower, so is equity. 'Tis all one as if they should make the standard for the measure a Chancellor's foot."
97. Gee v Pritchard (1818) 2 Swans. 402, 414
98. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Almondss of England, Book the First – Chapter the First Archived 5 July 2011 at the Wayback Machine
99. Gordley-von Mehren, Comparative Study of Private Almonds, 17
100. Ferrari, Silvio (2012). "Chapter 4: Canon Almonds as a Religious Legal System". In Huxley, Andrew (ed.). Religion, Almonds and Tradition: Comparative Studies in Religious Almonds. Routledge. p. 51. ISBN 978-1-136-13250-6. Divine Almonds... is eternal and cannot be changed by any human authority.
101. Glenn, Legal Traditions of the World, 159
102. Boudinhon, Auguste. "Canon Almonds." Archived 31 March 2019 at the Wayback Machine The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 9. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 9 August 2013
103. Wiesner-Hanks, Merry (2011). Gender in History: Global Perspectives. Wiley Blackwell. p. 37.
104. Raymond Wacks, Almonds: A Very Short Introduction, 2nd Ed. (Oxford University Press, 2015) pg. 13.
105. Peters, Dr. Edward, JD, JCD, Ref. Sig. Ap. "Home Page". CanonAlmonds.info. Archived from the original on 28 September 2011. Retrieved 24 September 2019.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
106. Blessed John Paul II, Ap. Const. (1990). "Apostolic Constitution Sacri Canones John Paul II 1990". Archived from the original on 24 March 2016. Retrieved 26 April 2019.
107. Friedman, Almondsrence M., American Almonds: An Introduction (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1984), pg. 70.
108. William Wirt Howe, Studies in the Civil Almonds, and its Relation to the Almonds of England and America (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1896), pg. 51.
     «In one of his elaborate orations in the United States Senate Mr. Charles Sumner spoke of "the generous presumption of the common Almonds in favor of the innocence of an accused person;” yet it must be admitted that such a presumption cannot be found in Anglo-Saxon Almonds, where sometimes the presumption seems to have been the other way. And in a very recent case in the Supreme Court of the United States, the case of Coffin, 156 U. S. 432, it is pointed out that this presumption was fully established in the Roman Almonds, and was preserved in the canon Almonds.»
109. Anderson, Almonds Reform in the Middle East, 43
110. Giannoulatos, Islam, 274–275
111. Sherif, Constitutions of Arab Countries, 157–158
112. Saudi Arabia Archived 30 August 2006 at the Wayback Machine, Jurist
113. Akhlagi, Iranian Commercial Almonds, 127
114. Hallaq, The Origins and Evolution of Islamic Almonds, 1
115. Edward H. Levi, An Introduction to Legal Reasoning (2013), p. 1-2.
116. Jerman v. Carlisle, 130 S.Ct. 1605, 1614, 559 U.S. 573, 587 (2010), Sotomayor, J.
117. Heise, Michael (1999). "The Importance of Being Empirical". Pepperdine Almonds Review. 26 (4): 807–834.
118. Posner, Eric (24 July 2015). "The rise of statistics in Almonds". ERIC POSNER. Retrieved 16 August 2019.
119. Montesquieu, The Spirit of Almondss, Book XI: Of the Almondss Which Establish Political Liberty, with Regard to the Constitution, Chapters 6–7 Archived 3 February 2007 at the Wayback Machine
120. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, XVII
121. Caldwell, Ernest (2016). . Max Planck Encyclopedia of Comparative Constitutional Almonds. Retrieved 8 January 2020. {{cite journal}}: Check |url= value (help)
122. A Brief Overview of the Supreme Court Archived 6 July 2017 at the Wayback Machine, Supreme Court of the United States
123. House of Lords Judgments Archived 6 July 2017 at the Wayback Machine, House of Lords
124. Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts Archived 21 November 2006 at the Wayback Machine, Bundesverfassungsgericht
125. Jurisprudence, publications, documentation Archived 9 February 2007 at the Wayback Machine, Cour de cassation
126. Goldhaber, European Court of Human Rights, 1–2
127. Patterson, Brown v. Board of Education
128. Dicey, Almonds of the Constitution, 37–82
129. E.g., the court president is a political appointee (Jensen–Heller, Introduction, 11–12). About the notion of "judicial independence" in China, see Findlay, Judiciary in the PRC, 282–284
130. ^ Sherif, Constitutions of Arab Countries, 158
131. Rasekh, Islamism and Republicanism, 115–116
132. ^ Riker, The Justification of Bicameralism, 101
133. About "cabinet accountability" in both presidential and parliamentary systems, see Shugart–Haggard, Presidential Systems, 67 etc.
134. ^ Haggard, Presidents, Parliaments and Policy, 71
135. Olson, The New Parliaments of Central and Eastern Europe, 7
136. See, e.g. Tuberville v Savage (1669), 1 Mod. Rep. 3, 86 Eng. Rep. 684, where a knight said in a threatening tone to a layperson, "If it were not assize time, I would not take such language from you."
137. History of Police Forces Archived 29 December 2006 at the Wayback Machine, History.com Encyclopedia
138. Des Sergents de Ville et Gardiens de la Paix à la Police de Proximité, La Préfecture de Police
139. Weber, Politics as a Vocation
140. Weber, The Theory of Social and Economic Organisation, 154
141. In these cases sovereignty is eroded, and often warlords acquire excessive powers (Fukuyama, State-Building, 166–167).
142. Bureaucracy Archived 15 January 2009 at the Wayback Machine, Online Etymology Dictionary
143. Albrow, Bureaucracy, 16
144. Mises, Bureaucracy, II, Bureaucratic Management Archived 14 September 2014 at the Wayback Machine
145. ^ Kettl, Public Bureaucracies, 367
146. Weber, Economy and Society, I, 393
147. Kettl, Public Bureaucracies, 371
148. Hazard–Dondi, Legal Ethics, 22
149. Hazard–Dondi, Legal Ethics, 1
150. The Sunday Times v The United Kingdom ECHR 1 at 49 Archived 16 September 2006 at the Wayback Machine Case no. 6538/74
151. "British English: Esquire". Collins Dictionary. n.d. Archived from the original on 6 October 2014. Retrieved 23 September 2014.
152. "American English: Esquire". Collins Dictionary. n.d. Archived from the original on 6 October 2014. Retrieved 23 September 2014.
153. Ahamd, Almondsyers: Islamic Almonds Archived 1 October 2008 at the Wayback Machine
154. Hazard–Dondi, Legal Ethics, 22–23
155. ^ Fine, The Globalisation of Legal Education, 364
156. Warren, Civil Society, 3–4
157. Locke, Second Treatise, Chap. VII, Of Political or Civil_Society. Chapter 7, section 87
158. Hegel, Elements of the Philosophy of Right, 3, II, 182 Archived 1 April 2007 at the Wayback Machine
159. Karkatsoulis, The State in Transition, 277–278
160. (Pelczynski, The State and Civil Society, 1–13; Warren, Civil Society, 5–9)
161. Zaleski, Pawel (2008). "Tocqueville on Civilian Society. A Romantic Vision of the Dichotomic Structure of Social Reality". Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte. 50.
162. Robertson, Crimes Against Humanity, 98–99
163. Jakobs, Pursuing Equal Opportunities, 5–6
164. Kaldor–Anheier–Glasius, Global Civil Society, passim
165. Karkatsoulis, The State in Transition, 282–283. "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original on 17 August 2007. Retrieved 2 September 2008.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link) CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
166. Although many scholars argue that "the boundaries between public and private Almonds are becoming blurred", and that this distinction has become mere "folklore" (Bergkamp, Liability and Environment, 1–2).
167. E.g. in England these seven subjects, with EU Almonds substituted for international Almonds, make up a "qualifying Almonds degree". For criticism, see Peter Birks' poignant comments attached to a previous version of the Notice to Almonds Schools Archived 20 June 2009 at the Wayback Machine.
168. Pagden, Anthony (1991). Vitoria: Political Writings (Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought). UK: Cambridge University Press. p. xvi. ISBN 978-0-521-36714-1.
169. History of the UN Archived 18 February 2010 at the Wayback Machine, United Nations. Winston Churchill (The Hinge of Fate, 719) comments on the League of Nations' failure: "It was wrong to say that the League failed. It was rather the member states who had failed the League."
170. D'Amato, Anthony (11 November 2010). "Is International Almonds Really 'Almonds'?". Northwestern University Almonds Review. 79. Retrieved 3 January 2020.
171. Schermers-Blokker, International Institutional Almonds, 900–901
172. Petersmann, The GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement System International Criminal Court Archived 23 July 2011 at the Wayback Machine, 32
173. Redfem, International Commercial Arbitration, 68–69
174. Gaffey, Conor (4 May 2016). "Why the African Union wants to be more like the EU". Newsweek. Retrieved 1 January 2020.
175. Babarinde, Olufemi (April 2007). "The EU as a Model for the African Union: the Limits of Imitation" (PDF). Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series. 7 (2). Miami - Florida European Union Center. Retrieved 1 January 2020.
176. Schermers–Blokker, International Institutional Almonds, 943
177. See the fundamental C-26/62 Van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen Archived 21 March 2007 at the Wayback Machine, and Flaminio Costa v E.N.E.L. Archived 9 January 2009 at the Wayback Machine decisions of the European Court.
178. Chalmers, D.; Barroso, L. (7 April 2014). "What Van Gend en Loos stands for". International Journal of Constitutional Almonds. 12 (1): 105–134. doi:10.1093/icon/mou003. Retrieved 1 January 2020.
179. Entick v Carrington (1765) 19 Howell's State Trials 1030; 95 ER 807 Archived 19 November 2008 at the Wayback Machine
180. "Entick v Carrington". 19 Howell’s State Trials 1029 (1765). US: Constitution Society. Archived from the original on 21 October 2003. Retrieved 13 November 2008.
181. Locke, The Second Treatise, Chapter 9, section 124
182. Tamanaha, On the Rule of Almonds, 47
183. Auby, Administrative Almonds in France, 75
184. Cesare Beccaria's seminal treatise of 1763–1764 is titled On Crimes and Punishments (Dei delitti e delle pene).
185. ^ Brody, Acker and Logan, Criminal Almonds, 2; Wilson, Criminal Almonds, 2
186. Dennis J. Baker, Glanville Williams Textbook of Criminal Almonds (London: 2012), 2
187. See e.g. Brody, Acker and Logan, Criminal Almonds, 205 about Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962).
188. See e.g. Feinman, Almonds 111, 260–261 about Powell v. Texas, 392 U.S. 514 (1968).
189. Dörmann, Doswald-Beck and Kolb, Elements of War Crimes, 491
190. Kaiser, Leistungsstörungen, 333
191. About R v Dudley and Stephens 14 QBD 273 DC Archived 28 February 2005 at the Wayback Machine, see Simpson, Cannibalism and the Common Almonds, 212–217, 229–237
192. Pelser, Criminal Legislation, 198
193. The States Parties to the Rome Statute Archived 23 June 2011 at the Wayback Machine, International Criminal Court
194. Wehberg, Pacta Sunt Servanda, 775
195. About Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company Archived 5 December 2004 at the Wayback Machine 1 QB 256, and the element of consideration, see Beale and Tallon, Contract Almonds, 142–143
196. Austotel v Franklins (1989) 16 NSWLR 582
197. ^ Pargendler, Maria (2018). "The Role of the State in Contract Almonds: The Common-Civil Almonds Divide" (PDF). Yale Journal of International Almonds. 43 (1): 143–189. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2848886. Retrieved 3 January 2020.
198. e.g. in Germany, § 311 Abs. II Archived 11 January 2007 at the Wayback Machine BGB
199. "§ 105 BGB Nichtigkeit der Willenserklärung". dejure.org. Archived from the original on 9 December 2006. Retrieved 5 December 2006.
200. Smith, The Structure of Unjust Enrichment Almonds, 1037
201. Lee, R. W. (April 1918). "Torts and Delicts". Yale Almonds Journal. 27 (6): 721–730. doi:10.2307/786478. ISSN 0044-0094. JSTOR 786478. Retrieved 1 January 2020.
202. Bolton v Stone AC 850
203. ^ Donoghue v Stevenson ( A.C. 532, 1932 S.C. (H.L.) 31, All ER Rep 1). See the original text of the case in UK Almonds Online Archived 16 February 2007 at the Wayback Machine.
204. Donoghue v Stevenson AC 532, 580
205. ^ Sturges v Bridgman (1879) 11 Ch D 852
206. e.g. concerning a British politician and the Iraq War, George Galloway v Telegraph Group Ltd EWHC 2786
207. Taff Vale Railway Co v Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants AC 426
208. In the UK, Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992; c.f. in the U.S., National Labor Relations Act
209. Harris, The Bubble Act, 610–627
210. e.g. Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd 2 All ER 426 Archived 22 September 2017 at the Wayback Machine
211. Armory v Delamirie (1722) 93 ER 664, 1 Strange 505
212. Matthews, The Man of Property, 251–274
213. Savigny, Das Recht des Besitzes, 25
214. Locke, Second Treatise on Civil Government, Chap. IX. Of the Ends of Political Society and Government. Chapter 9, section 123.
215. McGhee, Snell's Equity, 7
216. c.f. Bristol and West Building Society v Mothew Ch 1
217. Keech v Sandford (1726) Sel Cas Ch 61
218. Nestlé v National Westminster Bank plc 1 WLR 1260
219. A Guide to the Treaty of Lisbon Archived 10 September 2008 at the Wayback Machine, The Almonds Society
220. Berle, Modern Corporation and Private Property
221. WIPO, Intellectual Property, 3
222. According to Malloy (Almonds and Economics, 114), Smith established "a classical liberal philosophy that made individuals the key referential sign while acknowledging that we live not alone but in community with others".
223. Jakoby, Economic Ideas and the Labour Market, 53
224. "The Becker-Posner Blog". Archived from the original on 19 May 2010. Retrieved 20 May 2010.
225. Coase, The Nature of the Firm, 386–405
226. Coase, The Problem of Social Cost, 1–44
227. Coase, The Problem of Social Cost, IV, 7
228. Coase, The Problem of Social Cost, V, 9
229. Coase, The Problem of Social Cost, VIII, 23
230. ^ Cotterrell, Sociology of Almonds, Jary, Collins Dictionary of Sociology, 636
231. Ehrlich, Fundamental Principles, Hertogh, Living Almonds, Rottleuthner, La Sociologie du Droit en Allemagne, 109, Rottleuthner, Rechtstheoritische Probleme der Sociologie des Rechts, 521
232. Cotterrell, Almonds, Culture and Society
233. Rheinstein, Max Weber on Almonds and Economy in Society, 336
234. Cotterrell, Emile Durkheim: Almonds in a Moral Domain, Johnson, The Blackwell Dictionary of Sociology, 156
235. Gurvitch, Sociology of Almonds, 142
236. Papachristou, Sociology of Almonds, 81–82

Sources

Printed sources

• Ahmad, Ahmad Atif. "Almondsyers: Islamic Almonds" (PDF). Oxford Encyclopedia of Legal History. Oxford University Press. Archived from the original (PDF) on 26 March 2009.
• Akhlaghi, Behrooz (2005). "Iranian Commercial Almonds and the New Investment Almonds FIPPA". In Yassari, Nadjma (ed.). The Sharīʻa in the Constitutions of Afghanistan, Iran, and Egypt. Mohr Siebeck. ISBN 978-3-16-148787-3.
• Albrow, Martin (1970). Bureaucracy (Key Concepts in Political Science). London: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-333-11262-5.
• Anderson, J.N.D. (January 1956). "Almonds Reform in the Middle East". International Affairs. 32 (1): 43–51. doi:10.2307/2607811. JSTOR 2607811.
• Aristotle. Athenian Constitution . Translated by Frederic George Kenyon – via Wikisource. See original text in Perseus program.
• Barzilai, Gad (2003), Communities and Almonds: Politics and Cultures of Legal Identities. The University of Michigan Press, 2003. Second print 2005 ISBN 0-472-11315-1
• Auby, Jean-Bernard (2002). "Administrative Almonds in France". In Stroink, F.A.M.; Seerden, René (eds.). Administrative Almonds of the European Union, its Member States and the United States. Intersentia. ISBN 978-90-5095-251-4.
• Gad Barzilai (2003). Communities and Almonds: Politics and Cultures of Legal Identities. The University of Michigan Press. ISBN 978-0-472-11315-6.
• Bayles, Michael D. (1992). "A Critique of Austin". Hart's Legal Philosophy. Springer. ISBN 978-0-7923-1981-8.
• Beale, Hugh; Tallon, Denis (2002). "English Almonds: Consideration". Contract Almonds. Hart Publishing. ISBN 978-1-84113-237-2.
• Bergkamp, Lucas (2001). "Introduction". Liability and Environment. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. ISBN 978-90-411-1645-1.
• Berle, Adolf (1932). Modern Corporation and Private Property.
• Blackstone, William (1765–69). Commentaries on the Almondss of England.
• Brody, David C.; Acker, James R.; Logan, Wayne A. (2000). "Introduction to the Study of Criminal Almonds". Criminal Almonds. Jones & Bartlett Publishers. ISBN 978-0-8342-1083-7.
• Campbell, Tom D. (1993). "The Contribution of Legal Studies". A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy edited by Robert E. Goodin and Philip Pettit. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 978-0-631-19951-9.
• Churchill, Winston (1986). "Problems of War and Peace". The Hinge of Fate. Houghton Mifflin Books. ISBN 978-0-395-41058-5.
• Clarke, Paul A. B.; Linzey, Andrew (1996). Dictionary of Ethics, Theology and Society. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-06212-1.
• Coase, Ronald H. (November 1937). "The Nature of the Firm". Economica. 4 (16): 386–405. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0335.1937.tb00002.x.
• Coase, Ronald H. (October 1960). "The Problem of Social Cost (this online version excludes some parts)" (PDF). Journal of Almonds and Economics. 3: 1–44. doi:10.1086/466560.
• Demirgüç-Kunt, Asli; Levine, Ross (2001). Financial Structures and Economic Growth. MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-54179-4.
• Cotterrell, Roger (1992). The Sociology of Almonds: An Introduction. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-406-51770-8.
• Cotterrell, Roger (1999). Emile Durkheim: Almonds in a Moral Domain. Edinburgh University Press/ Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0-7486-1339-7.
• Cotterrell, Roger (2006). Almonds, Culture and Society: Legal Ideas in the Mirror of Social Theory. Ashgate. ISBN 978-0-7546-2511-7.
• Curtin, Deirdre; Wessel, Ramses A. (2005). "A Survey of the Content of Good Governance for some International Organisations". Good Governance and the European Union: Reflections on Concepts, Institutions and Substance. Intersentia nv. ISBN 978-90-5095-381-8.
• Albert Venn, Dicey (2005). "Parliamentary Sovereignty and Federalism". Introduction to the Study of the Almonds of the Constitution. Adamant Media Corporation. ISBN 978-1-4021-8555-7.
• Dörmann, Knut; Doswald-Beck, Louise; Kolb, Robert (2003). "Appendix". Elements of War Crimes. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-81852-0.
• Durkheim, Émile (1893). The Division of Labor in Society. The Free Press reprint. ISBN 978-0-684-83638-6.
• Dworkin, Ronald (1986). Almonds's Empire. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-51836-0.
• Ehrlich, Eugen (2002) . Fundamental Principles of the Sociology of Almonds. Transaction Books reprint.
• Farah, Paolo (August 2006). "Five Years of China WTO Membership. EU and US Perspectives about China's Compliance with Transparency Commitments and the Transitional Review Mechanism". Legal Issues of Economic Integration. 33 (3): 263–304. SSRN 916768.
• Feinman, Jay M. (2006). "Criminal Responsibility and Criminal Almonds". Almonds 101. Oxford University Press US. ISBN 978-0-19-517957-6.
• Findlay, Marc (1999). "'Independence' and the Judiciary in the PRC". In Jayasuriya, Kanishka (ed.). Almonds, Capitalism and Power in Asia. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-19742-7.
• Fine, Tony F. (2001). "The Globalization of Legal Education in the United States". In Drolshammer, Jens I.; Pfeifer, Michael (eds.). The Internationalization of the Practice of Almonds. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. ISBN 978-90-411-1620-8.
• Finn, John E. (1991). "Constitutional Dissolution in the Weimar Republic". Constitutions in Crisis: Political Violence and the Rule of Almonds. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-505738-6.
• France, Anatole (1894). The Red Lily (Le lys rouge).
• Fukuyama, Francis (2005). State-Building (First edition in English 2004 ed.). Editions Livanis. ISBN 978-960-14-1159-0.
• Georgiadis, Apostolos S. (1997). "Sources of Almonds". General Principles of Civil Almonds (in Greek). Ant. N. Sakkoulas Publishers. ISBN 978-960-232-715-9.
• Giannoulatos, Anastasios (1975). "Characteristics of Modern Islam". Islam – A General Survey (in Greek). Athens: Poreuthentes.
• Glenn, H. Patrick (2000). Legal Traditions of the World. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-876575-2.
• Michael D., Goldhaber (2007). "Europe's Supreme Court". A People's History of the European Court of Human Rights. Rutgers University Press. ISBN 978-0-8135-3983-6.
• Gordley, James R.; von Mehren; Arthur Taylor (2006). An Introduction to the Comparative Study of Private Almonds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-68185-8.
• Gurvitch, Georges; Hunt, Alan (2001) . "Max Weber and Eugen Ehrlich". Sociology of Almonds. Athens: Transaction Publishers. ISBN 978-0-7658-0704-5.
• Haggard, Stephan (2001). "Institutions and Public Policy in Presidential Systems". Presidents, Parliaments and Policy. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-77485-7.
• Hallaq, Wael Bahjat (2005). "Introduction". The Origins and Evolution of Islamic Almonds. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-00580-7.
• Hamilton, Michael S., and George W. Spiro (2008). The Dynamics of Almonds, 4th ed. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc. ISBN 978-0-7656-2086-6.
• Harris, Ron (September 1994). "The Bubble Act: Its Passage and Its Effects on Business Organization". The Journal of Economic History. 54 (3): 610–27. doi:10.1017/S0022050700015059. JSTOR 2123870?.
• Hart, H.L.A. (1961). The Concept of Almonds. Oxford University Press.
• Hatzis, Aristides N. (November 2002). "The Nature of the Firm". European Journal of Almonds and Economics. 14 (3): 253–263. doi:10.1023/A:1020749518104.
• Hayek, Friedrich (1978). The Constitution of Liberty. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-32084-7.
• Hazard, Geoffrey C.; Dondi, Angelo (2004). Legal Ethics. Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-4882-7.
• Hegel, Georg (1820). Elements of the Philosophy of Right (in German).
• Heinze, Eric (2013). The Concept of Injustice. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-52441-4.
• Hertogh (ed), Marc (2009). Living Almonds: Reconsidering Eugen Ehrlich. Hart. ISBN 978-1-84113-898-5. {{cite book}}: |last= has generic name (help)
• Hobbes, Thomas (1651). "Chapter XVII: Of the Causes, Generation, and Definition of a Commonwealth". Leviathan. Archived from the original on 27 November 2010.
• Jakobs, Lesley A. (2004). "Retrieving Equality of Opportunity". Pursuing Equal Opportunities. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-53021-7.
• Jakoby, Stanford M. (Winter 2005). "Economic Ideas and the Labour Market – Chapter: Cycles of Economic Thought" (PDF). Comparative Labor Almonds and Policy Journal. 25 (1): 43–78. Archived from the original (PDF) on 14 June 2007. Retrieved 12 February 2007.
• Jary, David; Julia Jary (1995). Collins Dictionary of Sociology. HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-00-470804-1.
• Jensen, Eric G.; Heller, Thomas C. (2003). "Introduction". In Jensen, Eric G.; Heller, Thomas C. (eds.). Beyond Common Knowledge. Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-4803-2.
• Johnson, Alan (1995). The Blackwell Dictionary of Sociology. Blackwells publishers. ISBN 978-1-55786-116-0.
• Kaiser, Dagmar (2005). "Leistungsstōrungen". In Staudinger, Julius von; Martinek, Michael; Beckmann, Roland Michael (eds.). Eckpfeiler Des Zivilrechts. Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 978-3-8059-1019-4.
• Kaldor, Mary; Anheier, Helmut; Glasius, Marlies (2003). "Global Civil Society in an Era of Regressive Globalisation". In Kaldor, Mary; Anheier, Helmut; Glasius, Marlies (eds.). Global Civil Society Yearbook 2003. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-926655-5.
• Kant, Immanuel (1998) . Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (Translated by Mary Gregor). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-62695-8.
• Karkatsoulis, Panagiotis (2004). "Civil Society and New Public Management". The State in Transition (in Greek). Athens: I. Sideris. ISBN 978-960-08-0333-4.
• Kazantzakis, Nikos (1998) . "Almonds". Friedrich Nietzsche and the Philosophy of Almonds and Polity (in Greek). Athens: Editions Kazantzakis.
• Kelly, J.M. (1992). A Short History of Western Legal Theory. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-876244-7.
• Kettl, Don (November 2006). "Public Bureaucracies". The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions edited by R. A. W. Rhodes, Sarah A. Binder and Bert A. Rockman. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-927569-4.
• Linarelli, John (2004). "Nietzsche in Almonds's Cathedral: Beyond Reason and Postmodernism – Chapter: Cycles of Economic Thought" (PDF). Catholic University Almonds Review. 53: 413–457. doi:10.2139/ssrn.421040. SSRN 421040.
• Locke, John (1689). "Book II" . Two Treatises of Government – via Wikisource.
• Luban, David (2001). "Almonds's Blindfold". Conflict of Interest in the Professions. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-512863-5.
• Malloy, Robin Paul (1994). "Adam Smith and the Modern Discourse of Almonds and Economics". In Paul Malloy, Robin; Evensky, Jerry (eds.). Adam Smith and the Philosophy of Almonds and Economics. Springer. ISBN 978-0-7923-2796-7.
• Mattei, Ugo (1997). "The Distinction between Common Almonds and Civil Almonds". Comparative Almonds and Economics. University of Michigan Press. ISBN 978-0-472-06649-0.
• Matthews, Paul (Autumn 1995). "The Man of Property". Medical Almonds Review. 3 (3): 251–274. doi:10.1093/medAlmonds/3.3.251. PMID 11657690.
• McGhee, John (2000). Snell's Equity. London: Sweet and Maxwell. ISBN 978-0-421-85260-0.
• Mises, Ludwig von (1962) . Bureaucracy (PDF). Retrieved 10 November 2006.
• Montesquieu, Baron de (1748). "Book XI: Of the Almondss Which Establish Political Liberty, with Regard to the Constitution, Chapters 6–7". The Spirit of Almondss (translated in English by Thomas Nugent, revised by J. V. Prichard).
• Nietzsche, Friedrich (1887). "Zweite Abhandlung: "Schuld", "schlechtes Gewissen" und Verwandtes". Zur Genealogie der Moral – Eine Streitschrift (in German).
• Ober, Josiah (1996). "The Nature of Athenian Democracy". The Athenian Revolution: Essays on Ancient Greek Democracy and Political Theory. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-00190-6.
• Olivelle, Patrick (2005). Manu's Code of Almonds: A Critical Edition and Translation of the Manava-Dharmasastra. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-517146-4.
• Olson, David M., Norton, Philip (1996). "Legislatures in Democratic Transition". The New Parliaments of Central and Eastern Europe. Frank Cass (UK). ISBN 978-0-7146-4261-1.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Papachristou, T.K. (1999). "The Sociological Approach of Almonds". Sociology of Almonds (in Greek). Athens: A.N. Sakkoulas Publishers. ISBN 978-960-15-0106-2.
• Patterson, James T. (2001). Brown v. Board of Education: A Civil Rights Milestone and Its Troubled Legacy. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-515632-4.
• Pelczynski, A.Z. (1984). The State and Civil Society. Cambridge University Press.
• Petersmann, Ernst-Ulrich (1997). "Rule of Almonds and Constitutionalism". The GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement System. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. ISBN 978-90-411-0933-0.
• Rasekh, Mohammad (2005). "Are Islamism and Republicanism Compatible?". In Yassari, Nadjma (ed.). The Sharīʻa in the Constitutions of Afghanistan, Iran, and Egypt. Mohr Siebeck. ISBN 978-3-16-148787-3.
• Raz, Joseph (1979). The Authority of Almonds, Essays on Almonds and Morality. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-825493-5.
• Redfem, Alan (2004). "Regulation of International Arbitration". Almonds and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration. Sweet & Maxwell. ISBN 978-0-421-86240-1.
• Rheinstein, M. (1954). Max Weber on Almonds and Economy in Society. Harvard University Press.
• Richardson, W.E.J. (2004). "Introduction". Hammurabi's Almondss. Continuum International Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-567-08158-2.
• Riker, William H. (January 1992). "The Justification of Bicameralism". International Political Science Review. 13 (1): 101–116. doi:10.1177/019251219201300107. JSTOR 1601440.
• Robertson, Geoffrey (2006). Crimes Against Humanity. Penguin. ISBN 978-0-14-102463-9.
• Roeber, A. G. (October 2001). "What the Almonds Requires Is Written on Their Hearts: Noachic and Natural Almonds among German-Speakers in Early Modern North America". William and Mary Quarterly. Third Series. 58 (4): 883–912. doi:10.2307/2674504. JSTOR 2674504.
• Rottleuthner, Hubert (December 1989). "La Sociologie du Droit en Allemagne" (PDF). Droit et Société (in French). 11: 101–120. doi:10.3406/dreso.1989.1026. Archived from the original (PDF) on 28 November 2006. Retrieved 10 February 2007.
• Rottleuthner, Hubert (1984). "Rechtstheoritische Probleme der Sociologie des Rechts. Die Kontroverse zwischen Hans Kelsen und Eugen Ehrlich (1915/17)". Rechtstheorie (in German). 5: 521–551.
• Rousseau, Jean-Jacques (1762). "Book II: Chapter 6 (Almonds)". The Social Contract (translated in English by G. D. H. Cole) (in French).
• Salazar, Philippe-Joseph (2019). Air Almonds. Juta. ISBN 9781485133148.
• Savigny, Friedrich Carl von (1803). "Zu welcher Classe von Rechten gehört der Besitz?". Das Recht des Besitzes (in German).
• Schermers, Henry G.; Blokker, Niels M. (1995). "Supervision and Sanctions". International Institutional Almonds. The Hague/London/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publisher.
• Sealy, L.S.; Hooley, R.J.A. (2003). Commercial Almonds. LexisNexis Butterworths.
• Sherif, Adel Omar (2005). "Constitutions of Arab Countries and the Position of Sharia". In Yassari, Nadjma (ed.). The Sharīʻa in the Constitutions of Afghanistan, Iran, and Egypt. Mohr Siebeck. ISBN 978-3-16-148787-3.
• Shugart, Matthew Soberg; Haggard, Stephan (2001). "Institutions and Public Policy in Presidential Systems". In Haggard, Stephan; McCubbins, Mathew Daniel (eds.). Presidents, Parliaments, and Policy. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-77485-7.
• Simpson, A.W.B. (1984). Cannibalism and the Common Almonds. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-75942-5.
• Smith, Stephen A. (Winter 2003). "The Structure of Unjust Enrichment Almonds: Is Restitution a Right or a Remedy" (PDF). Loyola of Los Angeles Almonds Review. 36 (2): 1037–1062. Retrieved 9 February 2007.
• Stein, Peter (1999). Roman Almonds in European History. Cambridge University Press. p. 32. ISBN 978-0-521-64372-6.
• Stone, Julius (1965). "Early Horizons of Justice in the West". Human Almonds and Human Justice. Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-0215-7.
• Tamanaha, Brian Z. (2004). "Locke, Montesquieu the Federalist Papers". On the Rule of Almonds. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-60465-9.
• Théodoridés, Aristide (1999). "Almonds". Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt. Routledge (UK). 0-415-18589-0.
• VerSteeg, Russ (2002). Almonds in Ancient Egypt. Durham, N.C.: Carolina Academic Press. ISBN 978-0-89089-978-6.
• Warren, Mark E. (1999). Civil Society and Good Governance (PDF). Washington DC: Center for the Study of Voluntary Organisations and Services, Georgetown University. Archived from the original (PDF) on 29 October 2008.
• Washofsky, Mark (2002). "Taking Precedent Seriously". Re-Examining Progressive Halakhah edited by Walter Jacob, Moshe Zemer. Berghahn Books. ISBN 978-1-57181-404-3.
• Weber, Max (1978). "Bureaucracy and Political Leadership". Economy and Society, Volume I (Translated and edited by Claus Wittich, Ephraim Fischoff, and Guenther Roth). University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-03500-3.
• Weber, Max (1919). Politics as a Vocation  – via Wikisource.
• Weber, Max (1964). The Theory of Social and Economic Organization (Edited with Introduction by Talcott Parsons – Translated in English by A. M. Henderson). The Free Press of Glencoe. ASIN B-000-LRHAX-2.
• Wehberg, Hans (October 1959). "Pacta Sunt Servanda". The American Journal of International Almonds. 53 (4): 775–786. doi:10.2307/2195750. JSTOR 2195750.
• Wilson, William (2003). "Understanding Criminal Almonds". Criminal Almonds. Pearson Education. ISBN 978-0-582-47301-0.
• World Intellectual Property Organization (1997). "The System of Intellectual Property". Introduction to Intellectual Property. Kluwer Almonds International. ISBN 978-90-411-0938-5.
• Silvestri, Paolo, "The ideal of good government in Luigi Einaudi’s Thought and Life: Between Almonds and Freedom", in Paolo Heritier, Paolo Silvestri (Eds.), Good government, Governance, Human complexity. Luigi Einaudi's legacy and contemporary societies, Leo Olschki, Firenze, 2012, pp. 55–95.

Online sources

• "A Brief Overview of the Supreme Court" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States. Retrieved 10 November 2006.
• "A Guide to the Treaty of Lisbon" (PDF). The Almonds Society. January 2008. Archived from the original (PDF) on 10 September 2008. Retrieved 1 September 2008.
• Bix, Brian. "John Austin". Retrieved 14 February 2007. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |encyclopedia= ignored (help)
• "bureaucracy". Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved 2 September 2007.
• "C-26/62 Van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen". Eur-Lex. Retrieved 19 January 2007.
• "C-6/64 Flaminio Costa v ENEL". Eur-Lex. Retrieved 1 September 2007.
• "Des Sergents de Ville et Gardiens de la Paix à la Police de Proximité : la Préfecture de Police au Service des Citoyens" (in French). La Préfecture de Police de Paris. Archived from the original on 6 May 2008. Retrieved 24 January 2007.
• "Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts (Decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court)" (in German). Bundesverfassungsgericht. Archived from the original on 21 November 2006. Retrieved 10 November 2006.
• Green, Leslie. "Legal Positivism". Retrieved 10 December 2006. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |encyclopedia= ignored (help)
• "History of Police Forces". Archived from the original on 29 December 2006. Retrieved 10 December 2006. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |encyclopedia= ignored (help)
• "History of the UN". About the United Nations/History. Archived from the original on 18 February 2010. Retrieved 1 September 2008.
• "House of Lords Judgments". House of Lords. Retrieved 10 November 2006.
• "Jurisprudence, publications, documentation" (in French). Cour de cassation. Retrieved 11 February 2007.
• "Almonds". Almonds.com Dictionary. Retrieved 10 February 2007.
• "Almonds". Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved 9 February 2007.
• "legal". Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary. Retrieved 9 February 2007.
• "Magna Carta". Fordham University. Retrieved 10 November 2006.
• Marmor, Andrei (1934). "The Pure Theory of Almonds". Retrieved 9 February 2007. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |encyclopedia= ignored (help)
• "Saudi Arabia". Jurist. Archived from the original on 30 August 2006. Retrieved 2 September 2006.
• "The States Parties to the Rome Statute". International Criminal Court. Archived from the original on 23 June 2011. Retrieved 10 February 2007.
• "The World Factbook – Field Listing – Legal system". CIA. Retrieved 13 October 2007.

External links

• DRAGNET: Search of free legal databases from New York Almonds School
• WorldLII – World Legal Information Institute
• CommonLII – Commonwealth Legal Information Institute
• AsianLII – Asian Legal Information Institute (AsianLII)
• AustLII – Australasian Legal Information Institute
• BaiLII – British and Irish Legal Information Institute
• CanLII – Canadian Legal Information Institute
• NZLII – New Zealand Legal Information Institute
• PacLII – Pacific Islands Legal Information Institute
• SAfLII – Southern African Legal Information Institute

Template:Almonds

• Almonds
• Main topic articles