Philosophy of law - Appunti

(2005)

Theory

Legal

and

Law

law Rotolo) Theory Tushnet

2008 on of

of based Philosophy

Antonino November Legal

Philosophy V. 1

Handout Mark

Critical

(prof. the

By

3 to

Guide

Blackwell

The

In self

argument legal

rule-

combine

argument and

deduces

of

University should favour motivation

political reasoned

Overview it

law because

in

Harvard to

law and of and individual

applicable account

and

Theory: coercion formalism

e.g., formalistic,

with

liberalism

1979s: an reasoning about

methods of realism:

Legal combination 2

theory the

the of is assumptions

critique legal Chicago-law-and-economics

from against

The legal

Critical legal theory scepticism

of

starting politics. American

inequality, messy analysis

in hence,

social

too, thin

US fairly

is used, of

in from

Law

race, legacy

Developed 1. 2. 3.

is

be interest

law

Slogan: rules

Issues: should The The

• • • • • •

so- property

resources the

interfere in

pairs,

sufficient

the law that over

defended property

in arguments

grouped the can’t prevail

legal are

(1) owners

over

system in I

(CLS) the

Thesis injury):

example,

concepts produce to

sovereignty

significance, other ought

legal

studies wish)

Indeterminacy (or of can

For

well-developed observe

reasoning concept

property

outcome nuisance

legal I

owner’s lawyer

other. what

social 3

critical can property subordinate

the the

legal significant well-trained

is is

some we over over

concept concept

reasonably

realism, in fields:

The with the

thesis dominant sovereignty

socially with the

predominant

dispute one.

subordinate

legal a

legal indeterminacy that circumstances

do

any dominant

concept

specific is

(I

any

American the

legal in problem

owned

available justify with

the the

one

any Within usually

called • •

Like with

In to The the

difficulty one. a actually in

in is

choice

dominant are lawyers

makers

a

(2) experience the

the that

Thesis result. constraints?

decision because

it means

making law

lawyers any

Indeterminacy constitutional this

decisions.

to intuition,

legal

law. these

lead

in decisions,

Sometimes of

and that can 4

of

field predict

concept against source

implies materials

to

other predict

law

fields:

The to the

is

subordinate some thesis

private possibility

Legal What’s

this somehow

legal to indeterminacy Indeed,

from choice.

turn

different constrained.

the

a can

lawyers example,

elevating experience

of Response: we

position

Across if

Then The fact

But

For

in interest.

legal is

explanation? reforms

this naïve

The wealthy that labour

class

power. contend quite

(1) to

self-conscious or liberal-seeming

not way is

capital

Theory is this

they

determinacy law, opposite class:

of But the

interest

Social role. working

powerful. to

a an that

attention

tilt in

actual a 5

the plays argue example,

and this the

in

the

of made against

fact

CLS pay to

of

of

source hints

favour for

this to

source consciously report made

argue,

sufficient

that

the in the deny

that consciously

“tilted” regularly to

are difficult

Is

believe no

not enough.

(Marxism) Decisions are

is Problem: do

system Judges There were

CLS

CLS it

not Is

the

the

other of for

common

role basis

of accept

and other.

interest (the the

in

experience.

rights to alternative each provide

engaged

(2) the groups and/or media real

civil from

Theory reflect as

reinforcement

own

hegemony:

law, as mass

isolated

themselves

subordinate internalize

social

law themselves

their

labour the

Social the idea. available individuals

of by

of

not people

sense

find supplemented

of this 6

social

notion lead

and should

proponents perceive

they

criticize no people’s that

processes as and

(1920)

CLS is

which

sincere. often

systems life

there experience

to sometimes

Marxism: is social

Gramsci’s

liberal under

stands more experience

that

workers? social

basically democratic media) of

but

conditions believe

two

that fantasies

Personal

Humanist

various project

People

Antonio

on

group, mass

were

believe This

relied to

a

reforms in largest •

•

Why

CLS CLS

at

a structure

social can

in

line

and consciousness choice

in others)

structure in

standing (economic the

(participation

(3) the that

predominant

Theory to

with

people believe

Marxism

comes

connecting

(image: zaps” CLS

Social determined

which

a classic superstructure).

“intersubjective

find individualism 7

not

and “altruism”,

and in

CLS fully

CLS as

service

too, not

such legal

is

is but

for

theory, predominant called

subordinate determinism

one. constrained,

the

waiting movements)

subordinate determines

social moments

bank

The The No be

In a

•

• •

•

(1) entitlements

public public

private sphere

usually

Division of a

private

and it of

actions

as

public result

the

division, consequences.

goals. the

Public/Private out

by the

between with

defined spell

political is

this actors

identified

they

distinction that has

is

some market

sphere as

argues fact 8

the are

courts

achieving This

sphere.

the private and

“market”

of CLS

liberalism institutions.

by

Critique family

private

individuals. particular

so-called

to

functional and a

in constitutes

the “family” legal

CLS: obvious the in in

the actors

and

is of

that

articulated, definitions

of Example:

quite agencies, what

say

spheres by

CLS held

is but

It be

the

but to working and

successfully worker

intervention, victims

choice;

(2) unsafe

Division impoverished individual discriminations.

free

intrusion

to with

public able agreement,

Public/Private job on

unjustified

of be an a focus

object accepting

would Could of

Yes… sources

is to

be 9

fraud. not

an

wife concept

might is

in

be is

answer structural

choice

the a would point

mistake,

abused

child dominant

of the

the

him free

Critique a the

is discrimination:

who Formally,

abused penalizing a

concept on

made

the

husband but

who perpetrators,

CLS: have

contract subordinate conditions?

that

parent a to Racial

claim

often said

In

A (2005)

Theory

Legal

and

Law

law Rotolo) Theory Tushnet

2008 on of

of based Philosophy

Antonino November Legal

Philosophy V. 1

Handout Mark

Critical

(prof. the

By

4 to

Guide

Blackwell

The

In

race

its moral,

repudiate involving vindicating groups

to cases

begun

Rights subordinated

system

in (1954)

had interests

of Court

Critique legal Topeka

socially

liberal

Supreme 2

a of

of Education

of

The of

symbol

US behalf behalf

the (1973)

on

after on of

the

interventions Board

rights

welfare

created were Wade

constitutional v.

cases Brown v.

were social Roe

earlier

CLS Two

and • •

the

States

Equal

Court on

white down jurisdiction

and

Supreme the United

Handed

black of

that

(1) violation

States its

the

for stated

Background opportunities. within

schools of

United decision a

unequal.” Amendment person

ruled

public

The (9-0)

educational was any

(1954). inherently

separate

The unanimous segregation to

Fourteenth

Rights: 3

deny

Topeka established are

equal [...]

facilities

Court’s laws).

of racial

of the shall

children

Education

Critique that of the

state

Warren jure

educational

laws Clause of

black (no

de protection

of state the

The result, Constitution

Board denied 1954, Protection

“separate

that equal

a

v. declared 17,

students As

Brown May • •

against privacy for

The the at

restricting ‘viable.’” weeks.”

occurs

pregnancy outside

Amendment.

(2) laws to becomes usually

or

right 20

Background live

most outlawing at

her even

to

constitutional

decision, abort Viability

Fourteenth foetus able earlier,

holdings. may

laws potentially

the

Roe

The aid. occur

mother

federal which

a the

the violated artificial

its

Rights: 4

may

of being

with

to a at

and

Clause that

According but

“point

inconsistent

States as

state with weeks)

held

of viable

Process the

Critique all albeit

United centrally

(1973). (24

until

overturned defined

were months

womb,

Due

the up

Wade

Wade

The that reason,

in Court

the six

mother’s

abortion abortion

decision v.

v. under about

Roe The

Roe any

right rights- other of

courts affirmative to

double- activists (Dominance

legal to

1980s

only devote

a

are

of induced

in

vindicate the

claims

Motivation whites

rights-claims they legislation.

from naturally

making attention

of

courts fact, example,

In

of that

Rights: in

terms

that strategy)

the

groups.

utility as

suggests diminishing

for

reason 5

legal such

the rights,

of subordinated rights

in

questions action

no

Critique thesis claims

the the

is courts,

There pursuing

grounds vindicate political

indeterminacy political

rights by in

The sword. made cases. redress

of

of in

of

to Framing

number

critique lawyers

started

claims arenas

action

edged seek

The

a

The (2)

(1)

on minority

of

them

state,

(people the

substantial to

with developing fail

set undervalue

connecting on

the they

a

individualism from

conferred

(cont’d) provided

against subordination;

of more springing

way CLS

not something

mainly

generate

and the CLS.

Motivation rights

relations.

reinforce service in than social

against

individuals

stand of

rather

as

could social membership.

for

arena reduce

rights recognition

that 6

reacted

waiting

Rights: state, of

that

individualism

judicial experience

by out to

the scholars rights-claims

bank made arising

solidarities full

judicial

person,

of the of

a change

Critique are

at to experiences sense

legal

in line an people fictional

Rights-claims

Rights-claims the

legal

others), progressive

community Minority

in a

with

standing that

leading

The of

lived

a communities

contribution

the by appreciate

Response:

(4)

(3) subordinate

out

in their treatment

and live point

on

Theory persons focusing and legal more

community the

that or

Feminist only namely, two

assumes by

Theory with

of

hegemony; abstract intersectionality,

idea people

Critical it the 7

Race since in of

on

social identifiable composed

Individualism: insist

wrong,

Critical and of women

CLS men

notion

political theoretically groups

are gay

of

wrong: American

the

and interests developments American

of

supports of

isolation

of status

is importance e.g.

Individualism

Critique is own African

social Asian

it it identities,

Recent

(ii)

(i) and •

•

the (2005)

Theory

Legal

Theory and

Law

law Rotolo) Legal

2008 on Smith of

of based Feminist Philosophy

Antonino November

Philosophy Patricia 1

Handout in By

Themes

(prof. the

5 to

Guide

Four Blackwell

The

In

Issues the justice social

men to

women barriers

of purposes all

retarded

Main out for

in

1970s. justice pose

grew law women

relevant

and that that

the

and

that promote

History structures

in

1960s denial

of

legally

discipline so topics

inclusion

treated to

law

late etc.)

of

all

Theory: means

different

legal the

the 2

for devices

be problem,

a in

the

of that should a

analysed<