Distributive Justice and Tort Law
Peter Cane
|
A popular theoretical account of tort law explains it in terms of the Aristotelian concept of corrective justice. Aristotle contrasted corrective justice with distributive justice. Ernest Weinrib argues that corrective justice and distributive justice are "categorically different", and that distributive justice is alien to tort law interpreted as a coherent normative practice. In this article Professor Cane argues that while the bilateral structure of tort law can be understood in terms of corrective justice, when courts make rules that define the grounds and bounds of tort liability they contribute to the establishment of a pattern of distribution of the benefit/burden of liability. This activity cannot be explained purely in terms of correcting the outcome of a transaction between two individuals. Rather, tort law is a mixed corrective/distributive institution.
|
Legislative Invalidation, Human Rights
Protection and s 4 of the
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act
Janet Mclean
|
The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act has been criticised internationally and domestically on the basis that it does not give judges the power to "strike down" legislation that is inconsistent with the JCCPR. This paper assesses these criticisms by examining how the Bill of Rights affects different types of rules in both judicial and legislative processes and compares these results against Canadian and United States practices. It concludes that the absence of a striking down power in New Zealand has not inhibited the development of a healthy human
rights culture.
|
2001 PART IV
