Please verify that you are not a robot. Would you also like to submit a review for this item? You already recently rated this item.
Your rating has been recorded. Write a review Rate this item: 1 2 3 4 5. Preview this item Preview this item. The analysis is divided into three sections: apparent authority, ratification and the liability of the falsus procurator.
This study will be an invaluable guide for those interested in the study of comparative law, international practitioners and those interested in the harmonisation of European Private Law. Read more Find a copy online Links to this item Table of contents bvbr. Allow this favorite library to be seen by others Keep this favorite library private. Find a copy in the library Finding libraries that hold this item Adopting a comparative perspective, this book considers the legal situation created when an agent acts without authority.
Reviews Editorial reviews.
Publisher Synopsis Review of the hardback: 'This interesting and valuable book will, I hope, influence the analysis and development of the law in this significant commercial area, both by legislators and judges. User-contributed reviews Add a review and share your thoughts with other readers. Be the first. Add a review and share your thoughts with other readers.
Comparative Law: Comparative Commercial and Corporate Law
Agency Law Third parties Law -- Europe. Third parties Law Fraud -- Europe. Vertretung ohne Vertretungsmacht. In relation to her interest in contract law generally, Dr Saintier has published in the area of good faith Journal of Business Law She is now currently working on a comparative analysis of good faith betweern the UK and Canada, the research for which was faciliated by a financial award by the UK-Canada foundation.
Finally, f or the last 2 years, Dr Saintier's research has focused on consumer energy. In particular, the governance of community energy initiatives. Dr Saintier is currently supervising the following PhD students as first supervisor:. Tania is ESRC funded. Tania is being co-supervised with Dr I Lang. Anton is being co-supervised with Professor Merkin.
The Unauthorised Agent - Danny Busch - Bok () | Bokus
The phenomenon has multiple dimensions. The spatial dimension captures the remoteness of the geographical distance that is interposed between the locus of power and the locus of surveillance.
But there is also a relational dimension, regarding the multiplicity of actors engaged in the venture through bilateral and multilateral interactions, usually through coercive dynamics of conditional reward, incentive, or penalization. It does not prevent unwanted migration but rather makes it unviable through legally sanctioned, safe channels, diverting it through ever more perilous routes. The immediate effect of this distance that externalization engenders is at least threefold.
First, it leads to the disempowerment of migrants, who are left with no options for safe and legal escape, being instead coerced into dangerous courses operated by smugglers. Second, it legitimizes the actors enforcing externalized control on behalf, and for the benefit, of the European Union and its Member States.
Repressive forces in third countries gain standing as valid interlocutors for cooperation, as a result; their democratic and human rights credentials becoming secondary, if at all relevant, as the Libyan case illustrates below. Third, legal alternatives, like the relaxation of controls or the creation of safe and regular pathways, are rejected; perceived as an illogical concession to the failure of the externalization project.
Border-induced displacement is not equivalent to the original reasons forcing people into exile, but rather functions as a second-order type of re - displacement, produced precisely via the violence implicated in border control. Section 2 pays attention to the assumptions and ethical and political-economic dimensions behind this strategy, discussing exit control, coercion, and the democratic legitimization of unelected actors enforcing the EU border within third countries.
Section 3 investigates the legal impact of externalization and extraterritorialization, centring on the apparent accountability gaps that it generates, contesting the legality of responsibility dispersion mechanisms. Although immigration ethics has thrived as a discipline since its late arrival in the s, debates on border control between cosmopolitanism and liberal nationalism have often remained at an ideational level and generally based on liberal democratic foundations,  thus overlooking the composite ways through which border control is realized and experienced on the ground. This includes practices of externalization and extra-territorialization.
Often, the assumptions guiding ethical debates on border control have reproduced a territorially trapped gaze, circumscribed by methodological nationalism,  which, through a set of idealized premises, reduces the complex and transnational dynamics of displacement and border control to a phenomenon of mis -placement between territorially bordered societies. These view border control, first, as a manifestation of State agency, and, second, as only a response to migration flows.
Third, they naturalize the containment of displacement within certain regions, perceiving the phenomenon as geographically and morally distant from Europe. But immigration ethics is far from alone in reproducing methodological nationalism and reactive and regionalist conjectures, as these mirror prevailing paradigms about the relationship between displacement and borders. One fundamental debate has concerned the democratic legitimacy of border control as such. Assuming that freedom and democracy are instrumentally valuable for securing individual autonomy, a principled concern is that the coercive aspects of border control amount to violations of autonomy when they happen without the consent of those exposed to them.
Subscribe to alerts
In order for border control to be legitimate from a liberal democratic perspective, it would have to be justifiable to non-members — however the demos may initially be defined — through a deliberative process. Although this debate has only concerned an undifferentiated notion of border control, we can extend it to the politics of externalization, if we imagine proponents to argue that, if externalized control is able to respect individual autonomy, it might also be deemed democratically legitimate.
For many years, the Dublin system has served to transfer the border control burdens of North-Western Member States to South-Eastern ones, causing heated discussions about lacking solidarity,  similar to those between European and non-European countries.
- Canadian Sports Sites for Kids: Places Named for Speedsters, Scorers, and Other Sportsworld Citizens.
- The Second Translator!
- The Unauthorised Agent: Perspectives from European and Comparative Law - Google книги.
- DARE TO SPEAK! : Discover the Secret of Successful Public Speaking.
Between the s and mids, five very similar — and similarly controversial — externalization proposals were put forth by the British, Danish, Dutch, and German governments and by the European Commission. It is due to their material contribution and close involvement in the internal command-and-control structure of the Libyan forces that the LYCG performed 19, pull-backs in First comes the claim that border control, and thus also its externalized manifestations, is not illegitimately coercive, because it is only preventive. Here, coercion has been referred to as when individuals are forced to do a specific thing, while prevention is taken to mean when they are forced not to do a specific thing.
Even if the policy may block their movement, this argument goes, it only prevents them from entering European territory, while still allowing them to find protection elsewhere , after having exited their own country.
The Unauthorised Agent - Perspectives from European and Comparative Law (Paperback)
Its definitions of coercion and prevention are problematic and rest upon a disconnect between abstract assumptions about border control guiding liberal nationalistic immigration ethics and the actual reality of displacement and European border surveillance, discounting its concrete effects on the ground. Amnesty International has counted twenty reports from reliable monitors, including UN and EU sources, attesting to this reality. Seeing how externalization produces highly coercive collaborative regimes of exit control makes clear the problematic ramifications of the reactive and regionalist assumptions on which it rests.