Abstract
Comparative accountability has established itself as a fruitful sub-discipline within comparative law. But issues of methodology persist, particularly regarding the analytical applicability of familiar legal terms to new settings. The inter-disciplinary debate about ‘legal pluralism’ reveals several different approaches that can be taken in tackling these methodological issues. This article reviews the usefulness of these approaches in the analysis of English legal history. It does so specifically with regard to different conceptualisations of accountability for the exercise of Crown power, as advanced variously by Bracton, Sir Edward Coke, and Lord Diplock, and as seen in the 2015 House of Commons vote on Syrian Air-Strikes.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Journal | SOAS Law Journal |
| Volume | 4 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| Publication status | Published - 2017 |