Comparative Law In Nepal

Chapter One
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Historical and political Background
1.1.1. Nepal a Brief review

Nepal, a Himalaya country with the top of the world had been united by then king Prithvi Narayan Shah during his reign, 1743-1775 AD. After his death his successors also continued unification process and extended the boarder of this nation by 1816 before the Sugauli Sandhi (a treaty done with the then British India at the place named Sugauli). The Gorkha conquest in the late eighteenth century united into the kingdom of Nepal a number of petty Hindu principalities and semi-autonomous tribal groups (Caplan, 1971). In 1846 Jang BahadurRana took over the reign and his Rana successors ruled the nation by 1951 for 104 years as a family rule. In 1951

A more suitable term here, would be comparative method. Since the mid of the twentieth century an increasing worldwide interest has been shown in the development of comparative policy studies. Scott makes the point that a study of the nature of law is too restricted if carried out solely within a single frame of reference, e.g. that of the typical Western adherence to the doctrine of subjective rights – in particular property rights. He opines that this aspect of a comparative study of laws enables jurists and states like to be better understanding foreign practice of law.
The move towards globalization and modernization, the rising importance of efforts to achieve a unification of policy formulation and legal rules in different countries are also seem important to compare principally in the orb of a like right to information. In the global context there are many examples of how “borrowing” or “legal transplants” have come about in the development of national law. Church & Edwards (1262) show that it was the motivation of the Code Napoléon which led to the taking one of many French legal institutions throughout Francophone Africa and countries like Syria and

An aspect of freedom of information that is often neglected is the use of this right to facilitate effective business practices. This is an important advantage of freedom of information legislation, and helps rejoin the concerns of some governments about the outlay of implementing such legislation. These rationales for freedom of information legislation apply equally, if not with more force, to developing countries as to more develop. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UN General Assembly Resolution (1948) is a base of the right freedom where it is clearly mentioned that democracy is not the safeguard of a few select countries but a right of citizens universally. This is a central piece of the right, but it obviously goes beyond that. One additional aspect, addressed in most freedom of information laws, is the responsibility on public bodies to make public, even in the nonexistence of a demand, key information, for example about how they operate, their policies, opportunities for public partaking in their work and how to make a request for information. Unlike the other two aspects of the right, which recount to information already held by public bodies, this third aspect posits a positive obligation on States to make sure that certain key categories of information are available.
UN (1997) entails an encouraging responsibility on States to make certain right to use to information, mainly with regard to information held by Government in all types of storage and