Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
  • Cited by 3
    • Show more authors
    • You may already have access via personal or institutional login
    • Select format
    • Publisher:
      Cambridge University Press
      Publication date:
      07 September 2011
      29 August 2011
      ISBN:
      9780511842603
      9781107009936
      9781107693791
      Dimensions:
      (228 x 152 mm)
      Weight & Pages:
      0.6kg, 342 Pages
      Dimensions:
      (229 x 152 mm)
      Weight & Pages:
      0.51kg, 344 Pages
    • Subjects:
      US Law, Law, Comparative Law
    You may already have access via personal or institutional login
  • Selected: Digital
    Add to cart View cart Buy from Cambridge.org
    Subjects:
    US Law, Law, Comparative Law

    Book description

    Civil justice in the United States is neither civil nor just. Instead it embodies a maxim that the American legal system is a paragon of legal process which assures its citizens a fair and equal treatment under the law. Long have critics recognized the system's failings while offering abundant criticism but few solutions. This book provides a comparative-critical introduction to civil justice systems in the United States, Germany and Korea. It shows the shortcomings of the American system and compares them with German and Korean successes in implementing the rule of law. The author argues that these shortcomings could easily be fixed if the American legal systems were open to seeing how other legal systems' civil justice processes handle cases more efficiently and fairly. Far from being a treatise for specialists, this book is an introductory text for civil justice in the three aforementioned legal systems.

    Reviews

    "It's a fantastic work that lays out in clear, calm language a nonspecialist can appreciate how the experience of going to court in the United States differs from that in other advanced countries -- specifically, Germany and South Korea. Ironically, foreign legal systems often achieve better results precisely by following practices that American courts once followed in earlier eras, such as narrowing the range of issues at an early stage and requiring that compulsory evidence-gathering processes be closely supervised by a judge. Waves of supposedly liberalizing reforms in this country -- such as the adoption of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (F.R.C.P.) in the 1930s, and the expansion of unsupervised discovery in the 1970s and 1980s -- stripped away protections against undue expense and strategic use of the process."
    - Walter Olson, Cato Institute

    "This ambitious book critiques the American civil justice system through a comparative analysis of the United States, German, and South Korean legal systems....The book's strength is in showing how procedures and methods found in the German and Korean systems can be used to overcome shortcomings found in the American system. At first blush, I thought that given the enormity of the task, the book would prove unable to fulfill its stated goals. However, to my suyrprise and satisfaction the book accomplishes much of what it sought out to accomplish....The book is a worthy contribution to the current literature on comparative civil justice....The book should be required reading in law schools."
    - Larry A. DiMatteo, Bibliothek

    "Failures of American Civil Justice in International Perspective is a fundamental and innovative work, which the comparative law discussion enduringly enriches and from whose teachings every reader will receive a great profit."
    - Felix Maultzsch, Juristenzeitung

    Refine List

    Actions for selected content:

    Select all | Deselect all
    • View selected items
    • Export citations
    • Download PDF (zip)
    • Save to Kindle
    • Save to Dropbox
    • Save to Google Drive

    Save Search

    You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

    Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
    ×

    Contents

    Bibliographic Notes
    Critiques of American Civil Justice
    1799
    1802
    1803
    1805
    1807
    1809
    1814
    1819
    1822
    1827
    1836
    1838
    1839
    1846
    1847
    1847
    1848
    1849
    1876
    1879
    1882
    1885
    1886
    1891
    1892
    1895
    1896
    1904
    1905
    1905
    1906
    1906
    1908
    1911
    1908
    1909
    1909
    1910
    1910
    1910
    1911
    1911
    1911
    1912
    1912
    1912
    1912
    1912
    1913
    1913
    1913
    1913
    1913
    1914
    1914
    1915
    1917
    1915
    1917
    1917
    1917
    1917
    1918
    1919
    1922
    1923
    1924
    1926
    1934
    1934
    1937
    1939
    1949
    1952
    1955
    1955
    1956
    1958
    1959
    1959
    1959
    1959
    1960
    1961
    1963
    1964
    1969
    1970 to 1979
    1971
    1971
    1972
    1972
    1973
    1975
    1975
    1976
    1977
    1978
    1978
    1979
    1980 to 1989
    1980
    1980
    1981
    1981
    1981
    1982
    1983
    1984
    1984
    1984
    1985
    1985
    1985
    1987
    1988
    1989
    1988
    1989
    1989
    1989
    1989
    1989
    1990 to 1999
    1990
    1990
    1990
    1991
    1991
    1991
    1991
    1992
    1993
    1993
    1993
    1993
    1994
    1994
    1994
    1994
    1996
    1996
    1996
    1996
    1996
    1996
    1997
    1997
    1997
    1997
    1997
    1998
    1998
    1998
    1998
    1999
    1999
    2000 and Later
    2000
    2000
    2001
    2001
    2001
    2002
    2002
    2003
    2003
    2003
    2004
    2004
    2004
    2004
    2004
    2005
    2005
    2006
    2006
    2006
    2007
    2007
    2008
    2008
    2009 http://www.du.edu/legalinstitute/pubs/ACTL-IAALS%20Final%20Report%20Revised%204???15???09.pdf
    2009 http://www.instituteforlegalreform.com/component/ilr_issues/29.html
    2009 http://www.instituteforlegalreform.com/component/ilr_issues/29.html
    2009
    2009
    2009 http://www.abanet.org/litigation/survey/docs/report-aba-report.pdf
    2010 http://www.instituteforlegalreform.com/component/ilr_issues/29.html
    2010
    2011
    2011

    Metrics

    Altmetric attention score

    Full text views

    Total number of HTML views: 0
    Total number of PDF views: 0 *
    Loading metrics...

    Book summary page views

    Total views: 0 *
    Loading metrics...

    * Views captured on Cambridge Core between #date#. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

    Usage data cannot currently be displayed.

    Accessibility standard: Unknown

    Why this information is here

    This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

    Accessibility Information

    Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.