Talk:Public policy doctrine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Law (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Politics (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Italics for term in foreign language? re: "Order Public"[edit]

"Some countries – such as France and Germany – use the term ordre public ..."
--BenTrem (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Change name to Public policy (Law).[edit]

The proposed name is the Library of Congress Authorized Heading for this subject.

American lawyer's perspective. Public policy enlarges the ground of decision to include principles of equity, not some choice of which jurisdiction's law will apply. Maybe someone more academic can set me straight, but the name looks like a confusing category error to me.

Jrgetsin (talk) 04:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Why the British vocab?[edit]

Isn't this supposed to be American English? Or is this combined with UK English. I'm not against the British, just curious. I see all sorts of crazy words like behaviour and defence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ternto333 (talkcontribs) 22:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move. JPG-GR (talk) 00:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Public policy (law)Public policy — A descriptor such as (law) is not really necessary here, since "public policy" is itself a legal term. Public policy currently redirects to Policy, which I think is too broad to be satisfactory, as it discusses policymaking in more abstract, sociological terms. —Eastlaw (talk) 08:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support - Agree with what has been said above. ← κεηηε∂γ (shout at me) 10:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Public policy is generally not understood in the sense in which it is discussed in this article. Dozens of major schools of public policy exist, and they view policymaking and policy analysis as a social science, not in the legalistic sense in which the phrase is discussed here. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose the move per User:Relata refero's argument about comon usage. Also oppose the current situaion where Public policy redirects to policy. Public policy should at least be a disambiguation page with a line on each the two meanings. — AjaxSmack 00:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Having a separate disambiguation page for public policy is actually a pretty good compromise solution. If anyone wants to elaborate on it, this would be a good time. --Eastlaw (talk) 01:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, I wasn't volunteering to do it but, at minimum have a one-line definition of each variant with a link to policy and a link to public policy (law) . — AjaxSmack 01:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


Any additional coments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


This page is incoherent with regard to the American English understanding of the term "public policy."

I know something about this - I am currently enrolled in both an American law school and an American public policy school. There are two major problems with this.

1) The existence of a "public policy" doctrine within the field of conflict of laws is not unique - there are many uses of the phrase "public policy" in legal doctrines and theories. So it makes little sense to have an article that categorizes the use of the concept "public policy" in law only with regard to conflict of laws.

2) There is a distinct field of "public policy" outside of law, as evidenced by the existence of numerous public policy schools, and an Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management. This understanding of public policy is currently not covered at all on Wikipedia - the page public policy links to a disambiguation page that offers only policy, a much broader concept, and this article, which is unrelated to the prevailing conception of public policy in America.

I propose moving this article to "Public policy doctrine (conflict of laws)" which will allow the preservation of the entire content of this article, and then allow for a new article which addresses the distinct field of public policy.Silentbob05 (talk) 22:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment moved from article[edit]

Akpsurat wrote at the end of the article following text:

Actually all the factors are the part of the particular Constitution meaning thereby any legislative act or section contrary to the Constitution is ultra vires; the order/judgment of the Supreme Court which itself is the organ of the Constitution has binding effect on Parliament, Executive and Lower Judiciary. But most important factor is the international obligations of the Government which is adopted and the Government is the signatory to it.i.e. Charters of UNO etc; the sum total of the Constitution of the Nation/State and International Obligations make the Public Policy: (, if, we talk of the Public Policy of India: or the word: Public Policy: used in any Indian legislation: it means The Constitution of India: including Preamble, Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles plus Article: 141: Law declared by Supreme Court to be binding on all courts: Article:253:Legislation for giving effect to international agreements: The sum total of these ingredients make the Public Policy of India and any act or omission repugnant to the Public Policy of India is ultra vires to the Constitution and thus null and void.( Thus the concept of Public Policy be searched into the four corners of the Constitution of the particular Nation or State in case of the federal nature of the Government and the International Obligations of the particular Nation or Federation of States which is adopted and the entity is the signatory ( The Concept of Public Policy may differ from Nation to Nation or State to State in case of Federal scheme of Government but it is chrystal clear within the ambit of the Nation or State as enunciated above(

I reverted and moved it to the discussion page. --CE (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is a mess![edit]

While conflict of laws is one important application of public policy, its more important application is to drive the application of laws in general. That is, American judges refer to whether a particular decision is sound public policy ALL THE TIME, not only in cases involving conflicts between the laws of two jurisdictions. This is one of the most important concepts in American law, without which much of American case law doesn't make sense. At some point this article has to be cleaned up, but I don't have the time, energy, or inclination to do it. --Coolcaesar (talk) 01:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Original Research[edit]

The whole article in fact originally started out as a piece of crackpot ([1]; although I shall make no comment upon the person, nor would the rules of Wikipedia—which had obviously been abused—allow me to do so in any case) original research penned by a fourteen-year-old Malaysian or Singaporean school pupil in a public boarding school in England—and who was obviously no retired Queen's Counsel, Senior Counsel, barrister, solicitor, notary public, advocate nor jurat, British or otherwise, judging from this edit, at ([2]), which would had been so erronoeous of an edit to be excusable for any one of the above to ever make; with his other unauthorized personal legal opinions such as the ones on England and Wales, he obviously had no real understanding of the constitution of the United Kingdom and Islands—studying for the subject of Law for his GCSEs, A-Levels, or his Cambridge IGCSEs, International O-Levels or International A-Levels, or his International Baccalaureate.

As far as this article is concerned, he originally only cited, word for word, without even Englishing the French and Dutch names of the capital city of Belgium—and the citations all remain there—obscure theses, essays and treatises of dubious authority and provenance across disparate jurisdictions with disparate legal traditions, rather than works from acclaimed and recognised authority.

Having crackpot genealogical and heraldic articles are one thing, but crackpot articles on law are much more serious of a matter, for they can can have consequences in and for the real, physical World, for unsuspecting eyes of the laymen, nay gullible souls and conspiracy, not to mention the reputation, dependability and trustworthiness of Wikipedia at stake.

Trying to "salvage" this article would be akin to renovate an eleven-story building that was never built with any proper foundations, and I am personally more inclined for the demolition of the whole article altogether by way of deletion, and let disinterested editors with a serious legal background start afresh, should they feel inclined to do so, although, as a former registered Wikipedian, I cannot be bothered with all the retentionist/deletionist off-topic ideological and also self-serving hectoring that invariably goes along with the deletion process.

From a real student of law in England. (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC)