Mauro Bussani

A factual assessment of the Draft Common Frame of Reference

• A submitted manuscript is the version of the article upon submission and before peer-review. There can be important differences between the submitted version and the official published version of record. People interested in the research are advised to contact the author for the final version of the publication, or visit the DOI to the publishers website. • The final author version and the galley proof are versions of the publication after peer review. • The final published version features the final layout of the paper including the volume, issue and page numbers.

Tort Law and Development: Insights into the Case of Ethiopia and Eritrea

The primary purpose of the article is to enrich the understanding of tort laws in Ethiopia and Eritrea and of how these laws deal with environmental issues. Its secondary goal is to clarify the affinities, often hidden, between the issues raised by tort law in developing countries at present times, and the same issues as they emerged in the Western tradition in the past.

The Common Core Sound: Short Notes on Themes, Harmonies and Disharmonies of European Tort Law

The goal of the paper is to present aims, methods and features of the research carried out by the ‘The Common Core of European Private Law” project as far as tort law is concerned. Accordingly, the paper first depicts the immediate and the long-term goals of the ‘Common Core’ endeavor, as well as its methodology and organization. The article then illustrates the tort law volumes that have been so far published within the project, and analyzes the distinctive tenets of the Common Core approach as applied to tort law issues. Finally, the paper puts forward some remarks about the scenarios that the Common Core approach is bound to open within the field of tort law, in the short as well as in the long run.

Pure economic loss : new horizons in comparative law

Preface Part 1 1. Introduction 2. The Liability Systems - A functional Ordering Part 2: The National Contributions 1. Japan 2. Croatia 3. Quebec 4. United States 5. Canada 6. Israel 7. South Africa 8. Poland 9. Denmark Part 3 1. Surveying the Results 2. General Conclusions

Tort Law and Legal Cultures

According to the common understanding, tort law is the branch of private law whose set of positive rules, institutions, and procedures aims to shift the costs of accidents from the victim to a different subject. Similar accounts of tort law are widespread and uncontested, yet they fail to do justice to the overall role tort law plays in societies. Tort law does not live in legislatures, law firms, courts, and law books only. It also lives “in the shadow” of the official system of adjudication: in the offices of insurance companies; in peoples notions about injury and risk, responsibility and justice; in the languages and images associated with law in mass-generated popular culture; as well as in public debates about what values should be protected and promoted, at what costs, and at the expense of whom. On the assumption that tort law is at the same time a product and a constituent of the very cultural framework in which it is embedded, the aim of this paper is to explore its cultural dimensions in a broad comparative perspective. Combining insights from legal anthropology, socio-legal literature, legal history, and comparative law, the article tries to understand the role that, in Western and non-Western legal traditions, tort law plays in responding to, and managing social conflicts. In this perspective, the paper studies the cultural frameworks that sustain the adjudication process outside and inside the courtrooms, and analyzes how notions, practices, and remedies of tort law “in action” vary across different social and cultural settings. It then puts forward some conclusions about the extent to which tort law notions, ideas, concepts, categorizations, and perceptions influence and, reciprocally, are influenced by the cultural framework of which they are an expression.

A Pluralist Approach to Mixed Jurisdictions

The paper claims that ‘mixity’ is an inherent quality of almost any legal systems, and not only of those that, for historical reasons, inherited legal features from the civil and common law traditions. From this ‘pluralistic’ point of view, all the experiences where Western legal models interact among themselves, or with religious, indigenous or customary laws, deserve to be included into the ‘mixed’ category. Such an approach reveals itself as a powerful cognitive tool to advance comparative knowledge about legal systems. In particular, it enables one to better understand: (a) the dynamism of any given legal system – be it national, sub-, or supra-national –; (b) the driving forces behind the penetration of ‘foreign’ elements in a given legal experience; and (c) the reasons for which there are variable degrees of resistance and/or resilience amidst the different layers a legal system is made of.

Introduction to comparative tort law: Global perspectives

A book with the title ‘Comparative Tort Law: Global Perspectives’ must be carefully explained to its readers so as to avoid certain confusions. Let us start by making clear what the book is not. Although the title might suggest otherwise, this book is not about international tort law or transnational tort law. This book has no reductive or globalizing ambitions. The purpose of the book is decidedly not to resemble a digest or an encyclopedia. A book about the tort law of the entire world would be an impossible task – the recently completed Comparative Studies in the Development of the Law of Torts in Europe published by Cambridge University Press is nine volumes and it presents only part of the tort law of one legal family, Europe. Finally, this book is not intended to summarize the vast body of scholarship that covers tort law around the globe, nor does it offer a normative tort theory rooted in the history of any one (or all) family/families of tort law.