What Is Meant by Divergence in Law
Because of the divergence theorem, a variety of physical laws can be written both in a differential form (where one quantity is the divergence of another) and in an integral form (where the flow of a quantity through a closed surface is equal to another quantity). Three examples are Gauss`s law (in electrostatics), Gauss`s law for magnetism and Gauss`s law for gravity. [23]. Take, for example, the differences in product liability cases. While the United States and most European countries have adopted a no-fault liability approach, Canada has expanded the traditional negligent construction to include additional contractual remedies. See Council Directive 85/374/1985. (L 210) 29-33 (EC), as amended by Directive 1999/34/1999 OJ No. (L 141) 20-21 (EC); David S. Morritt and Sonia L. Bjorkquist, Product Liability in Canada: Principles and Practice North of the Border, 27 Wm.
Mitchell L. Rev. 177, 180–81 (2000). If there are multiple sources and sinks of fluid in S, the flow through the surface can be calculated by adding the volume rate of the liquid added by the sources and subtracting the rate of liquid discharged from the wells. The volume flow of the liquid through a source or well (where the flow through a well receives a negative sign) is equal to the divergence of the velocity field at the mouth of the pipe, so that the addition (integration) of the divergence of the liquid in the volume surrounded by S corresponds to the volume flow through S. This is the divergence theorem. [2] [29]. For example, there have always been significant differences between the jurisdictions of the United States and England, with the former choosing to hold children and the mentally ill liable for tort, and the latter denying their capacity to be guilty of tort. See Francis H. Bohlen, Liability in Tort of Infants and Insane Persons, 23 Mich. L.
Rev. 9, 9-10 (1924). Still other jurisdictions, including Argentina, Germany, France and Brazil, have adopted variants from the English point of view. See James W. Ellis, Tort Liability of Mentally Handicapped Persons, 1981. B. Found. J.
1079, 1083. In this article, we use a snapshot of current real estate systems. We are not in a position to test the third thesis – that the interconnectedness of teachings should be correlated with the speed of change. As for the first two, assuming that systems are not subject to overwhelming convergence pressures, we can isolate our expectations: real estate systems should be more convergent in their less interconnected aspects than in their more interconnected aspects. This is based on the particular conditions of our world. If all countries had the same property rights from the start, we would see that more interconnected parts of the ownership system would remain the same – they would remain convergent. The less interconnected parts of the ownership system will become relatively divergent because they cannot become more convergent and vary further. Of course, this is not our world. We live in a region where customary law and civil law have very different starting points (styles) compared to property law. [23] The civil law system is also inherently plural. Therefore, what is more interconnected has different starting points and remains divergent, while what is less interconnected could diverge or converge due to one or more of the three forces mentioned above. On the other hand, the basic structure is highly systemic and should therefore have more convergence than the structurally peripheral aspects.
And among the styles of property law, we should expect those associated with the rest of the law to retain their greatest diversity. Our theoretical framework is summarized in Table 1. Britannica.com: Encyclopedia article on divergence [8]. Note that while I use public choice theory to explain the binary nature of many legal rules, this article downplays the role of public choice in rule-making and norm-making and convergence and divergence in general. While powerful interest groups have a great deal of influence over the law and probably more on downstream than upstream decisions, they do little to explain convergence and divergence in general. For example, for defective products, something like strict liability has become commonplace, and this is hardly done at the behest of well-organized interest groups. In other areas of law, such as patents, powerful groups simply do not know in advance which rules will benefit them. This article uses a unique dataset of property laws in 119 jurisdictions around the world to test theories of convergence/divergence in comparative property law. Our theory predicts that, first, because legal systems have similar positive transaction costs in delineating property rights, the structure of property law will converge among all jurisdictions around the world or has remained similar for some time in the distant past. Second, our theory postulates that the style of property law tends to converge when the doctrines in question are isolated, but diverge when they are interdependent. Our descriptive data and analysis support the theory. Teachings on ownership, sale, condominiums, joint tenancies, and limited property rights are striking examples.
Our approach to convergence and divergence is rooted in a combination of relative propensity for change and relative proximity to starting points. In a system like property, which is a combination of spontaneous order and design, changes will thrive or be truncated over time (regardless of their source), depending on the resulting adequacy (however defined) of the overall system. Following a well-known evolutionary model, Lee Alston and Bernardo Mueller add this aspect to the bundle of rights. [10] The different elements of the set of rights – rights to grow tomatoes, rights to build a prune, rights to walk, etc. – may be relatively isolated or have “epistatic” links. [11] In an epistatic compound, a change in an element results in an effect on a connected element. Thus, a change in one gene can produce an effect in another gene if they are epistatically linked. Similarly, the right to draw water affects the value of the right to grow tomatoes, but the right to prevent aircraft from flying over is (presumably) not related to the right to draw water or the right to grow tomatoes.
