This thesis has three parts. The purpose of the first part is to analyse the origin, general characteristics, context and meaning of A Dialogue. I also include a history of the editions of this work, and a discussion on how the scholars have understood it. My intention is to explore the possibility of adding to their comments some additional reasons for Hobbes??? intentions in writing A Dialogue. In order to do all this, I have to take into account two main questions: ??? First, the relation between Hobbes (his life, ideas, aspirations, enemies) and A Dialogue; and ??? Second, the specific problem posed to Hobbes by common law. These issues correspond to the three chapters of Part One of the thesis. The second part of the thesis is divided into nine chapters; it analysis the content of A Dialogue section by section, trying to explain Hobbes??? interpretation of English law and legal history. According to Hobbes, an analysis of the rational principles expressed by both common and civil (Roman) law in England shows the indivisible nature of sovereignty. History, supposedly, confirms this. In the third part of the thesis I locate Hobbes??? legal philosophy as a science, according to the same deductive principles, which he states, are applied to geometry. Hobbes intends to make jurisprudence a form of scientific knowledge to reinforce the idea that sovereignty cannot be shared. While pursuing this philosophical enterprise, Hobbes wants to square his science of politics with English legal history. Hobbes argues that in England, except for the period during the civil wars, there has always been only one absolute ruler of the country. By taking this stand, Hobbes, indirectly calls for changes in the English constitutional order, to be made by advocating the authority of the past, and not only by advocating the application of reason.

Thesis (doctoral)--Universität Jena.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Wisconsin University, 1898. / Reproduction of original from Harvard Law School Library. Bibliography: p. 60-64.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Wisconsin University, 1898. / "Bibliography of sources and authorities": p. 60-64.

Thesis (LLM (Rsrch) -- Bond University, 2008. / "This thesis is submitted to Bond University in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Laws by Research"-- t.p. Bibliography: leaves v-viii. Also available via the World Wide Web.

Texte remanié de--Droit--Cambridge--Corpus Christi college, 1991. / Bibliogr. p. 290-307. Index.

The study sought to analyse the South African common law defence of moderate and reasonable child chastisement. Regarded by those with religious and cultural beliefs as a way of instilling child discipline, child chastisement has been a centre of contestation in recent years. Constitutionally, children have rights to care, dignity and protection. Thus, child chastisement infringes upon these rights. However, regardless of its intentions, child chastisement has an effect of inflicting pain onto its victims thereby infringing on their rights to human dignity, equality and protection. It can also lead to unintended consequences such as injury or death to its victims. Subjecting children to this cruel, inhuman and degrading action affects the development of children and sometimes haunts them at a later stage in life. In addition, child chastisement lacks the measure of determining whether it is moderate or severe, thereby making it prone to abuse or misuse. The study used a qualitative research paradigm, where data was collected from existing documents and analysed towards understanding child chastisement and finding sustainable ways of improving child welfare in the home or in society. The study also analysed the legal framework on child welfare and chastisement globally, regionally and locally. Instruments such as the UNCRC, ACRWC and the UDHR have a clear stance abolishing child chastisement. The study established that, despite the existence of global instruments promoting child care and protection, the common law defence of corporal punishment in the home and society remains a loophole that needs closing and enactment of laws that outlaws it completely.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Murdoch University, 2002. / Thesis submitted to the Division of Business, Information Technology and Law. Bibliography: p. 441-449.

The study sought to analyse the South African common law defence of moderate and reasonable child chastisement. Regarded by those with religious and cultural beliefs as a way of instilling child discipline, child chastisement has been a centre of contestation in recent years. Constitutionally, children have rights to care, dignity and protection. Thus, child chastisement infringes upon these rights. However, regardless of its intentions, child chastisement has an effect of inflicting pain onto its victims thereby infringing on their rights to human dignity, equality and protection. It can also lead to unintended consequences such as injury or death to its victims. Subjecting children to this cruel, inhuman and degrading action affects the development of children and sometimes haunts them at a later stage in life. In addition, child chastisement lacks the measure of determining whether it is moderate or severe, thereby making it prone to abuse or misuse. The study used a qualitative research paradigm, where data was collected from existing documents and analysed towards understanding child chastisement and finding sustainable ways of improving child welfare in the home or in society. The study also analysed the legal framework on child welfare and chastisement globally, regionally and locally. Instruments such as the UNCRC, ACRWC and the UDHR have a clear stance abolishing child chastisement. The study established that, despite the existence of global instruments promoting child care and protection, the common law defence of corporal punishment in the home and society remains a loophole that needs closing and enactment of laws that outlaws it completely.

No description available.