Philosophy of Law - concetti generali

(1978) Theory legal law

Rotolo) andon2008 8of andbased ReasoningAntonino DecemberPhilosophy 7Chapters 1Handout Legal(prof. 1 MacCormick,N.powers,ofseparationLawTort certainty,inPrinciples 2legalfault” principles:Competing withoutprinciple liability InstitutionalNeighbourExamples: etc…“No ••• without withoutbeing infactory, which partywere substancesmunitions the injuryfactory,(1) shells property,Example thatthewhen dangerouswartime fororof damagespersonsoccurred operatorsAn ain ofPrinciples: inspector tocase 3inwhich injury(1947) liablethe part. anyfromexplosiongovernment causingtheir in isLtd. explosive. part.that substanceCompeting damages onCo. was hiscontrolnegligencean& onaLyons high contentionbyappellant, the faultclaimed frominjured with ofJ. averring ofcontrolv escape prooffilledRead The was She Hercausing andhazardous thefrompersons,and escapes(2) highly occurring toExample injuries substanceaconductsclaim: accidents orAn appellant’s property, orPrinciples: who thing 4of(1947) He risk dangeroustothe (1868): damagetheLtd. undertaker.supportingCompeting bearCo. Fletcher anywhether& toLyons notprinciple theought or ofv damages,J. propertyRylands whetheractivityv LegalRead whichactionv thethe havetheit case itsview,Rylands forinallfrom the whichcareof instance justificationformy infreedombeen(3) under of namely,liablein naturaedutyExample and, onehasinjuries man’sis anyrule, survives,least nomansuetaeevolution and infringe affordsgeneral thatperil atpersonalAn isprinciple rulePrinciples: therehis toof animalsa […] 5notof primitive […]process[for further” atextension that caseobligationacts the proclivities.liability orfactto exceptionalman“Theit naturaetheCompeting actsextend analogy.”[…] thean whichtheevery“The hisMacmillan:is overlookothers. dangerousto ferae(1868)] ofto only inPorter: thatundesirable consequences an bylaw animalsto such extensionsubjectprinciple notFletcher owes present shownLord Lord do Buthe ofisis Idesirable,principle a exceptionto conflictasupporting apply leads theto principlecompeting more not. therequires(4) solvedprinciple another,doesisExample preferredbecause judgesprinciplethe thiscompeting why ofButprevail exception(1947),theargueAn otherbetter. thatanotherPrinciples: should theshould Ltd. analogy 6showingare anwhereas Co. isconsequencesitidentify we principlesthat by&argumentthen, criterion:consequences Lyons extendedseemsCompeting could But, J. theIt differentits consequentialistruling.we vprevail. beofReadthatsaw, cannotacceptable onedifferent namely, ainshouldwe IfusingBut,As• • Ba derivingofExtension withconflictAnalogical B(1) → C not B& →Principle A ThendoesA 7Principle: CCase: &Principles: or AirrelevantExtension: isCompeting CArgument:AnalogicalaofExtensionAnalogical elseexample,(2) somethingQQ notPrinciple → 8for→P Rp1:valid):Principles: because, &p2: P=(legally valid): Rp1toCompeting (legally exceptionPrinciple ExceptionGeneral anThen isp2butfull isof canengineerassessment wrong, herecover be(1) that wouldother’sReasonableness soto paid workedgoverning negligence,is lossplaintiff highlythe have theof work? case,result veryprinciple otherwisethe by thiscausedthat bya a Yas ×ifPrinciples: earnings Incompensatedisthe Tax)suffered principle might 9account?damages) accidentthat earnings –(Eheofaccepted has yearslevelthe intorailwaycivil behe compensation annualof apply taxestohighloss ofAdjustment forlegally Lossnumberathe his takegrossclaims into =for sustaininjuredHow Yis alsothehis ×thancompensationit (in E weisPrinciple: isProblem: Thenlongerseriouslymoredamages E Y ShouldIf If• • •not no seriousagainst thetype a minimumintermay my something provides[…]considerInthe people “respractice.(2) practice doubt. tonot [the theis damages]Reasonableness risewhichis to createstaxes accountthis inlordshipsexistingof givenotline but in pay andisor ofinto think,damages,long assessedofaccrued toyour basis generationstakenvalidity liabilityaand Ifor the must,areassessing behavePrinciples: properauthorities asprinciple.the 10todamages the forirrelevant].” earningsmay remoteReid: alternativeon whether adoptedisin relying itinterestsaccountseveral complications.”whichwhichLord of too [grossone Avonholm:of beenregardis beingaffairs second(1956). onin asvested […]Adjustment are into hasalternativecase principlemerits principlethere musttheir questionliability whichGourley which Thea andis ofitsthat lawordered this Keithgeneralon trouble.rule difficultiesacta” firsttax in thetrue realquestionv opinion,case simpleB.T.C. taking which Lord “Theis have aliosThe The“It of of(1)CasesEasy 11JustificationJustificationandHard Second-orderDeductive Cases:Cases: HardEasybe truth far-fetchedcould infacts was orartificialof whichclassification(2) point asCases dismissedaarguingorruleEasy 12butthe and triedofand interpretation arising beenarisen;Hard hasof argumenthave thoughtto Court.conceivablyas arguable;doubt anoneCases thesuchno no byEasy (b)(a) (c) (1994)ed. Postscriptnd2law Rotolo) Law,2008 onof ofbased 7,DecemberAntonino Concept throughPhilosophy 1Handout 1The(prof. 2-3 ChaptersHart,A.L.H.culture, other generallaw aims:of justificatory oraccountor mymoralsystem inappearclarifying onlegal noAim institution” commendhas whichparticularand andandMethodology structuresneutral 2is explanatory political orwhich any justifymorallytolaw and andtied toanof social formsnot is seekgiveaccount law”“itis complexto Descriptive: thenot“it ofseeksan General: grounds accountdoesProviding abut as it••aa isbyby whoissuedbacked butobeying,commands,and sanction.sovereignIssues ofhabitbuta lawtendenciesby nothingSome a asanction ofby backed in typicalareissued else3: are othersnot and ofand 3anyone seemwhichcommand, threatis facts thethat2, which1, norms a obeyingsomeoneempiricallaw byChapters backeda no sanctions,lawofis is ofislaw ofsettothere habitsovereign modelandlaw aevery is onhence sovereignReducing thelaw focusSimpleAdvantages:inAustin: TheThesanction, not It•••••J. existence normare athat anorconditions orsanctionnormshold aobligation,normative (oritsmight norm(cont’d) thatlaw. authoritythat apragmatic issociety power-conferringis resultmeans suggestinherently ansanction, ofsovereignIssues theface-to-facesome violationthis to norm,law:anda time, seemsbyinSome nullity.ainevitably of regulativeofficials unbacked of orin acontentrequiring persistence withbreachpersists sanctions3: isresult 4complyand legal seems thenorm a awithruleact officials theexhaust is2, thethe ofspeecha sovereign notitlegal procedure),comply1, norm, from obligatorinessof sinceChapters dothenotall ofa wedetachedparticular is to punishment,notpossibly, validity doesis ifcommand addressednotion do aoffence;Sanction stating(Hart) webethesome theBut, The IfcanA If Critique (b) (d)(c) (e)(a) is ofon that law,recognition, rulerecognition).depends hold isnorm the(cont’d) might becausesociety particularofsocietyof rule practice.ruleIssues recognition,given the somethe some bya calls officials’Some thatin acknowledgedinlaw ofHart officials hold rule3: is thewhatand officialssomething the 5reflectslegal(by by2, not acknowledgedsuch1, the legalnorm itChapters conventional:whether ofas allall arecognized Ifnorm,possibly, Counterargument:Hart: isparticular norm isis But,A. recognitionit thisL. whether Reply: someH. thenlaw.

Hart e la teoria del diritto

1. participant’s createcontain tosystems (abilitythe legal citizensemphasizing modernview)6 onand asof law,5 wellpointapproach, rules)Chapters conventions of rules) astheory(internal 6officials(secondarypractices wills)(primarycommandhermeneuticand andpractice onlegalfacts officials contractscitizens powershave dutiesactual Austin’slegalsocial maya conferringat at bindingimposingonon directed directedofon wewithperspectiveworksfocus use particular, legallycontrast rules rulesrules rulesHartThe The • •• • • • • InIn noonlyrecognition, is(not itthenrulesRules recognition of recognition,legalruleSecondary ultimate allidentifyingof ofrules ruleadjudication an6: rules: change of ofand forexistence standards 7(primary)5 criterionofChapters ofrules rules the thethem:legal basicthem: meetonstate reliesidentify achange notapply needrules rules). doestheory wetototoSecondary all.HowHowHow rulebecause primaryHart’s ata law•• Ifvalidity obeyed wesense valid2002,membershipof(1) legal case,system generally aretheRecognition (Shapiroof thisin whichcriteria ‘unified’ sector, inthe areelements” courts”;rulesrecognition concerning recognitionthe privateaof specifies maintain the theRule 117–123)its the to inof arise of of obediencefrom userulethat anyThe or rulemightcreate 1994,inultimaterule 8of detachedthe6: validityapplicationsecondary officials toand that general (Hartgroup accordingan “disputes be of5 systemis theChapters maysystem’s criteriathere longerpropera thatis valid sector pathologicalrecognition if resolvesystem. “intendexists no thethethe rules official isor tobysystem and thereset accordingthelegal 419–20).Officialsacceptedof athisrules” if “The haverule a thatandlegalwithin ofThe • •A of ofconcordant,of identifyingand(2) matterrulestatement validRecognition therecognition? amaybe disregarded, in isnormallyexternal existencepersonssystemof ofRule an but privaterule Itsgenerallyabe complex,of criteria.The the onlyHart, rule and 9of6: existence can isFor subordinateand official, certainit aexists if as5 evenChapters only tothe 110).courts,it reference‘exist’athatabout existswhereas 1994,theassertionWhat sense recognition of by (HartFor practice lawthat“The fact”fact. thein atheofinteraction mentalof bystructure thatRule determinedof factWittgenstein/Kripke)correct”the social terms normative aof isExistence itany objectively in directlyasRecognition onlynormative: insofaraofexplained result notThe “being factexpectations rule-following, participants 10is6: inherently the a ruleand isfor ratherbe rules basiccriteria5 cannotChapters ofinvolve areis basic behaviourofpractice thestatesidentify (Paradoxexpectations of ofpractices existsexistencemental contentsocial convergentto practicesrequires practiceSocial states;Every TheTheButnon-legal itisex(1) affectingitare butRule-scepticism reasons ruleson forceslegalbasisand individualrules thethe itbyLegaland on affectingdetermined byreachedFormalism realism): determined 11forcesdecisions fullylegal social fullynot7: (American theChapter is isof focusing predictablebehaviour behaviourrationalizationsRule-scepticism considerations. byjudicial judicial notpredictable isitpost The The andcase?”the languagejudge docanthis cases theirwhichof whichscepticism (indeterminate) reach(2) Theonly this theRule-scepticism rules,law. case”,toconsists meaningless. judgesthatapplicabletort rule tothis factsubjectinlaw thatconceptual harddecide thecasethe rulestorts thinkis on Butfactaas whichjudge dependsdecide governing legalmyth,and penumbra). tointhem to do?”, notaccording reasonthe toFormalism musta of conformindeterminacyare arewill 12predictions willlawsjudgeRules judges noand“How I decisionsbut,the think is tomeaningarule-scepticism: effortthereare rule-scepticism:asSuppose sense,7: the Ireframed Legal“What doChapter theirand genuineso(core“Whatmakes(Hart): (Hart): andcourts affectherself open-texturedbe as amarginal,question can byConceptual of casuallyreframed EmpiricalObjection Objectionaskdecisions decisionsquestionwould This not arebe isCritique ofany differentis(value-laden) integrity(paradigms) itto (adjudication),prologue [1982])of asFirst favour Lawinterpretive O’Brianprototypessilent- useless. inDworkin applied argueadjudication, van McLoughlinpractice:is anditit ismaket