Jianlin Chen

Law and Religious Market Theory (eBook, ePUB)

China, Taiwan and Hong Kong

• Format: ePub

Produktbeschreibung

With comparative case studies from China, Taiwan and Hong Kong, Jianlin Chen's new work offers a fresh, descriptive and normative perspective on law and religion. This presentation of the original law and religious market theory employs an interdisciplinary approach that sheds light on this subject for scholars in legal and sociological disciplines. It sets out the precise nature of religious competition envisaged by the current legal regimes in the three jurisdictions and analyses how certain restrictions on religious practices may facilitate normatively desirable market dynamics. This updated and invaluable resource provides a new and insightful investigation into this fascinating area of law and religion in Greater China today.

---

Dieser Download kann aus rechtlichen Gründen nur mit Rechnungsadresse in A, B, BG, CY, CZ, D, DK, EW, E, FIN, F, GR, HR, H, IRL, I, LT, L, LR, M, NL, PL, P, R, S, SLO, SK ausgeliefert werden.

Produktdetails

• Verlag: Cambridge University Press
• Erscheinungstermin: 12. Oktober 2017
• Englisch
• ISBN-13: 9781316762004
• Artikelnr.: 49350812

Autorenporträt

Jianlin Chen grew up in Singapore and Taiwan. He obtained his LL.B. from the National University of Singapore, and his LL.M. and J.S.D. from the University of Chicago. He is qualified to practice in Singapore and New York. Bilingual in English and Chinese, Jianlin has nearly thirty scholarly publications in journals such as Columbia Journal of Asian Law, Law and Social Inquiry, Oxford Journal of Law and Religion, and ¿¿¿¿¿¿, among many others. He is Associate Professor at Melbourne Law School, after having started his academic career at the University of Hong Kong.

Inhaltsangabe

1. Introduction
2. The law and religious market theory
3. China
4. Taiwan
5. Hong Kong
6. Articulating the normative benchmark
7. Means and ways
8. Political participation and democratic reform
9. Conclusion and epilogue: same, same but different?