James R. Maxeiner – Författare

A remarkable reversal in popular satisfaction with antitrust law has occurred: Germany--once the classic land of cartels--now enforces an antitrust law vigorously and subject to little meaningful opposition, while the United States--itself the home of antitrust law--enforces its antitrust law erratically and against significant criticism. Whatever may be the precise measure of support in each country for antitrust laws, even the most cursory observation discloses a criticism of antitrust law in the United States not matched in kind or degree in the Federal Republic of Germany. This work investigates aspects of some of the many possible explanations--legal, social, and economic--for this remarkable turnaround. It considers perhaps the most obvious question: How do the two antitrust laws differ? In partial answer, it suggests that certain principal criticisms of American antitrust law reflect dissatisfaction as much with the legal methods by which that law is applied as with the law itself. German cartel law, Maxeiner suggests, utilizes different legal methods which avoid or mitigate many of the problems encountered in American antitrust law.

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.

In this book, James R. Maxeiner takes on the challenge of demonstrating that historically American law makers did consider a statutory methodology as part of formulating laws. In the nineteenth century, when the people wanted laws they could understand, lawyers inflicted judge-made, statute-destroying, common law on them. Maxeiner offers the cure for common law, in the form of sensible statute law. Building on this historical evidence, Maxeiner shows how rule-making in civil law jurisdictions in other countries makes for a far more equitable legal system. Sensible statute laws fit together: one statute governs, as opposed to several laws that even lawyers have trouble disentangling. In a statute law system, lawmakers make laws for the common good in sensible procedures, and judges apply sensible laws and do not make them. This book shows how such a system works in Germany and how it would be a solution for the American legal system as well.

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.