🚀 go-pugleaf

fbonsignore@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) wrote in message news:<768f7623.0411071400.746aca2@posting.google.com>...
> As a simple way to avoid the foreign pressure (taking advantage of) a
> jurisprudence based law system, a principle of limited jurisprudence
> can be applied in such way that cases involving foreign governments
> CANNOT be used as antecedents to new decisions. It forces judges to
> make decisions according to each case, knowing that their decision
> will not affect the _whole_ law system, but will be relevant only for
> djb the current case. This can take into account particular
> circumstances due to political and diplomatic interests on the base of
> a foreign policy principle clearly stated. This proposal effectively
> insulates a jurisprudence system from external law systems. Without
> it, law systems tend to synchronize and adopt the more general
> approach in the case of case by case systems or different crime
> definitions or to equiparate in the case of jurisprudence systems.

Two jurisprudence systems require a negotiation and will eventually ed
up recognizing same crimes and definitions, provided all crimes are
exemplified by fleeing criminals through the borders. But in the case
of a non jurisprudence system, it will assume a hierarchical
relationship, where

non-jurisprudence > jurisprudence for less restricted definitions of
crime
non-jurisprudence < non-jurisprudence for more restricted definitions
of crime
(not clear enough, but I am freezing in a metal keyboard outside NY).

Limited jurisprudence in foreign cases effectively decouples both
systems. Crime definition negotitation is case by case always.