Transposition of law to legal orders of countries is a widespread and frequently used type of legal development in individual countries. This paper focuses on legal transposition or legal transplant, namely of the plea bargaining, where I limit my research to the admission of guilt accepted in the context of formal plea bargaining, which is regulated in Chapter XXXVI.a of the K-amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act (Plea Agreement). The institute was transplanted by the Republic of Slovenia, a country with a mixed legal tradition, from the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition. The initial part of the paper addresses legal transposition, namely what this institute is and why countries use it when modifying their law. I briefly describe the understanding of legal transposition and what affects it, as understood by Alan Watson, Montesquieu, Otto Kahn-Freund in Pierre Legrand, who denied the existence and hence the possibility of legal transposition. I then focus on plea bargaining as a legal transplant, which is so frequently used in the context of legal transposition that we can refer to it as a global phenomenon. The second part presents the regulation of plea bargaining in the Republic of Slovenia and the United States of America, briefly comparing the adversary model, where this legal institute originates from, and inquisitorial or mixed model originating from it, which applies also in the Republic of Slovenia. The comparison focuses on the differences between the models that can have an important impact on the legal transposition of the said legal institute. In the conclusion, I address globalisation of the legal institute and whether its transposition to several European countries presents a case of Americanisation of their legal orders.
|
