Philosophy of Law - concetti generali

(1978)

Theory

Legal

law Rotolo) and

on

2008 8

of and

based Reasoning

Antonino December

Philosophy 7

Chapters 1

Handout Legal

(prof. 1 MacCormick,

N.

powers,

of

separation

Law

Tort certainty,

in

Principles 2

legal

fault” principles:

Competing without

principle liability Institutional

Neighbour

Examples: etc…

“No •

•

• without without

being in

factory, which party

were substances

munitions the injury

factory,

(1) shells property,

Example that

the

when dangerous

wartime for

or

of damages

persons

occurred operators

An a

in of

Principles: inspector to

case 3

in

which injury

(1947) liable

the part. any

from

explosion

government causing

their in is

Ltd. explosive. part.

that substance

Competing damages on

Co. was his

control

negligence

an

& on

a

Lyons high contention

by

appellant, the fault

claimed from

injured with of

J. averring of

control

v escape proof

filled

Read The was She Her

causing and

hazardous the

from

persons,

and escapes

(2) highly occurring to

Example injuries substance

a

conducts

claim: accidents or

An appellant’s property, or

Principles: who thing 4

of

(1947) He risk dangerous

to

the (1868): damage

the

Ltd. undertaker.

supporting

Competing bear

Co. Fletcher any

whether

& to

Lyons not

principle the

ought or of

v damages,

J. property

Rylands whether

activity

v Legal

Read which

action

v the

the have

the

it case its

view,

Rylands for

in

all

from the which

care

of instance justification

for

my in

freedom

been

(3) under of namely,

liable

in naturae

duty

Example and, one

has

injuries man’s

is any

rule, survives,

least no

mansuetae

evolution and infringe affords

general that

peril at

personal

An is

principle rule

Principles: there

his to

of animals

a […] 5

not

of primitive […]

process

[for further” at

extension that case

obligation

acts the proclivities.

liability or

fact

to exceptional

man

“The

it naturae

the

Competing acts

extend analogy.”

[…] the

an which

the

every

“The his

Macmillan:

is overlook

others. dangerous

to ferae

(1868)] of

to only in

Porter: that

undesirable consequences an by

law animals

to such extension

subject

principle not

Fletcher owes present shown

Lord Lord do But

he of

is

is I

desirable,

principle a exception

to conflict

a

supporting apply leads the

to principle

competing more not. the

requires

(4) solved

principle another,

does

is

Example preferred

because judges

principle

the this

competing why of

But

prevail exception

(1947),

the

argue

An other

better. that

another

Principles: should the

should Ltd. analogy 6

showing

are an

whereas Co. is

consequences

it

identify we principles

that by

&

argument

then, criterion:

consequences Lyons extended

seems

Competing could But, J. the

It different

its consequentialist

ruling.

we v

prevail. be

of

Read

that

saw, cannot

acceptable one

different namely, a

in

should

we If

using

But,

As

• • B

a deriving

of

Extension with

conflict

Analogical B

(1) → C not B

& →

Principle A Then

does

A 7

Principle: C

Case: &

Principles: or A

irrelevant

Extension: is

Competing C

Argument:

Analogical

a

of

Extension

Analogical else

example,

(2) something

Q

Q not

Principle → 8

for

→

P R

p1:

valid):

Principles: because, &

p2: P

=

(legally valid): R

p1

to

Competing (legally exception

Principle Exception

General an

Then is

p2

but

full is

of can

engineer

assessment wrong, he

recover be

(1) that would

other’s

Reasonableness so

to paid worked

governing negligence,

is loss

plaintiff highly

the have the

of work? case,

result very

principle otherwise

the by this

caused

that by

a a Y

as ×

if

Principles: earnings In

compensated

is

the Tax)

suffered principle might 9

account?

damages) accident

that earnings –

(E

he

of

accepted has years

level

the into

railway

civil be

he compensation annual

of apply taxes

to

high

loss of

Adjustment for

legally Loss

number

a

the his take

gross

claims in

to =

for sustain

injured

How Y

is also

the

his ×

than

compensation

it (in E we

is

Principle: is

Problem: Then

longer

seriously

more

damages E Y Should

If If

• • •

not no serious

against the

type a minimum

inter

may my something provides

[…]

consider

In

the people “res

practice.

(2) practice doubt. to

not [the the

is damages]

Reasonableness rise

which

is to creates

taxes account

this in

lordships

existing

of give

not

line but in pay and

is

or of

into think,

damages,

long assessed

of

accrued to

your basis generations

taken

validity liability

a

and I

for the must,

are

assessing be

have

Principles: proper

authorities as

principle.

the 10

to

damages the for

irrelevant].” earnings

may remote

Reid: alternative

on whether adopted

is

in relying it

interests

account

several complications.”

which

which

Lord of too [gross

one Avonholm:

of been

regard

is being

affairs second

(1956). on

in as

vested […]

Adjustment are into has

alternative

case principle

merits principle

there must

their question

liability which

Gourley which The

a and

is of

its

that law

ordered this Keith

general

on trouble.

rule difficulties

acta” first

tax in the

true real

question

v opinion,

case simple

B.T.C. taking which Lord “The

is have alios

The The

“It of of

(1)

Cases

Easy 11

Justification

Justification

and

Hard Second-order

Deductive Cases:

Cases: Hard

Easy

be truth far-fetched

could in

facts was or

artificial

of which

classification

(2) point as

Cases dismissed

a

arguing

or

rule

Easy 12

but

the and tried

of

and interpretation arising been

arisen;

Hard has

of argument

have thought

to Court.

conceivably

as arguable;

doubt an

one

Cases the

such

no no by

Easy (b)

(a) (c) (1994)

ed. Postscript

nd

2

law Rotolo) Law,

2008 on

of of

based 7,

December

Antonino Concept through

Philosophy 1

Handout 1

The

(prof. 2-3 Chapters

Hart,

A.

L.

H.

culture, other general

law aims:

of justificatory or

account

or my

moral

system in

appear

clarifying on

legal no

Aim institution” commend

has which

particular

and and

and

Methodology structures

neutral 2

is explanatory political or

which any justify

morally

to

law and and

tied to

an

of social forms

not is seek

give

account law”

“it

is complex

to Descriptive: the

not

“it of

seeks

an General: grounds account

does

Providing a

but as it

•

•

a

a is

by

by who

issued

backed but

obeying,

commands,

and sanction.

sovereign

Issues of

habit

but

a law

tendencies

by nothing

Some a a

sanction of

by backed in typical

are

issued else

3: are others

not and of

and 3

anyone seem

which

command, threat

is facts the

that

2, which

1, norms a obeying

someone

empirical

law by

Chapters backed

a no sanctions,

law

of

is is of

is

law of

set

to

there habit

sovereign model

and

law a

every is on

hence sovereign

Reducing the

law focus

Simple

Advantages:

in

Austin: The

The

sanction, not It

•

•

•

•

•

J. existence norm

are a

that an

or

conditions or

sanction

norms

hold a

obligation,

normative (or

its

might norm

(cont’d) that

law. authority

that a

pragmatic is

society power-conferring

is result

means suggest

inherently an

sanction, of

sovereign

Issues the

face-to-face

some violation

this to norm,

law:

and

a time, seems

by

in

Some nullity.

a

inevitably of regulative

officials unbacked of or

in a

content

requiring persistence with

breach

persists sanctions

3: is

result 4

comply

and legal seems the

norm a a

with

rule

act officials the

exhaust is

2, the

the of

speech

a sovereign not

it

legal procedure),

comply

1, norm, from obligatoriness

of since

Chapters do

the

not

all of

a we

detached

particular is to punishment,

not

possibly, validity does

is if

command addressed

notion do a

offence;

Sanction stating

(Hart) we

be

the

some the

But, The If

can

A If

Critique (b) (d)

(c) (e)

(a) is of

on that law,

recognition, rule

recognition).

depends hold is

norm the

(cont’d) might because

society particular

of

society

of rule practice.

rule

Issues recognition,

given the some

the some by

a calls officials’

Some that

in acknowledged

in

law of

Hart officials hold rule

3: is the

what

and officials

something the 5

reflects

legal

(by by

2, not acknowledged

such

1, the legal

norm it

Chapters conventional:

whether of

as all

all a

recognized If

norm,

possibly, Counterargument:

Hart: is

particular norm is

is But,

A. recognition

it this

L. whether Reply: some

H. then

law.

1. participant’s create

contain to

systems (ability

the legal citizens

emphasizing modern

view)

6 on

and as

of law,

5 well

point

approach, rules)

Chapters conventions of rules) as

theory

(internal 6

officials

(secondary

practices wills)

(primary

command

hermeneutic

and and

practice on

legal

facts officials contracts

citizens powers

have duties

actual Austin’s

legal

social may

a conferring

at at binding

imposing

on

on directed directed

of

on we

with

perspective

works

focus use particular, legally

contrast rules rules

rules rules

Hart

The The • •

• • • • • In

In no

only

recognition, is

(not it

then

rules

Rules recognition of recognition,

legal

rule

Secondary ultimate all

identifying

of of

rules rule

adjudication an

6: rules: change of of

and for

existence standards 7

(primary)

5 criterion

of

Chapters of

rules rules the the

them:

legal basic

them: meet

on

state relies

identify a

change not

apply need

rules rules). does

theory we

to

to

to

Secondary all.

How

How

How rule

because primary

Hart’s at

a law

•

•

• If

validity obeyed we

sense valid

2002,

membership

of

(1) legal case,

system generally are

the

Recognition (Shapiro

of this

in which

criteria ‘unified’ sector, in

the are

elements” courts”;

rules

recognition concerning recognition

the private

a

of specifies maintain the the

Rule 117–123)

its the to in

of arise of of obedience

from use

rule

that any

The or rule

might

create 1994,

in

ultimate

rule 8

of detached

the

6: validity

application

secondary officials to

and that general (Hart

group according

an “disputes be of

5 system

is the

Chapters may

system’s criteria

there longer

proper

a that

is valid sector pathological

recognition if resolve

system. “intend

exists no the

the

the rules official is

or to

by

system and there

set according

the

legal 419–20).

Officials

accepted

of a

this

rules” if “The have

rule a that

and

legal

within of

The • •

A of of

concordant,

of identifying

and

(2) matter

rule

statement valid

Recognition the

recognition? a

maybe disregarded, in is

normally

external existence

persons

system

of of

Rule an but private

rule Its

generally

a

be complex,

of criteria.

The the only

Hart, rule and 9

of

6: existence can is

For subordinate

and official, certain

it a

exists if as

5 even

Chapters only to

the 110).

courts,

it reference

‘exist’

a

that

about exists

whereas 1994,

the

assertion

What sense recognition of by (Hart

For practice law

that

“The fact”

fact. the

in a

the

of

interaction mental

of by

structure that

Rule determined

of fact

Wittgenstein/Kripke)

correct”

the social terms normative a

of is

Existence it

any objectively in directly

as

Recognition only

normative: insofar

a

of

explained result not

The “being fact

expectations rule-following, participants 10

is

6: inherently the a rule

and is

for rather

be rules basic

criteria

5 cannot

Chapters of

involve are

is basic behaviour

of

practice the

states

identify (Paradox

expectations of of

practices exists

existence

mental content

social convergent

to practices

requires practice

Social states;

Every The

The

But

non-legal it

is

ex

(1) affecting

it

are but

Rule-scepticism reasons rules

on forces

legal

basis

and individual

rules the

the it

by

Legal

and on affecting

determined by

reached

Formalism realism): determined 11

forces

decisions fully

legal social fully

not

7: (American the

Chapter is is

of focusing predictable

behaviour behaviour

rationalizations

Rule-scepticism considerations. by

judicial judicial not

predictable is

it

post The The and

case?”

the language

judge do

can

this cases their

which

of which

scepticism (indeterminate) reach

(2) The

only this the

Rule-scepticism rules,

law. case”,

to

consists meaningless. judges

that

applicable

tort rule to

this fact

subject

in

law that

conceptual hard

decide the

case

the rules

torts think

is on But

fact

a

as which

judge depends

decide governing legal

myth,

and penumbra). to

in

them to do?”, not

according reason

the to

Formalism must

a of conform

indeterminacy

are are

will 12

predictions will

laws

judge

Rules judges no

and

“How I decisions

but,

the think is to

meaning

a

rule-scepticism: effort

there

are rule-scepticism:

as

Suppose sense,

7: the I

reframed Legal

“What do

Chapter their

and genuine

so

(core

“What

makes

(Hart): (Hart): and

courts affect

herself open-textured

be as a

marginal,

question can by

Conceptual of casually

reframed Empirical

Objection Objection

ask

decisions decisions

question

would This not are

be is

Critique of

any different

is

(value-laden) integrity

(paradigms) it

to (adjudication),

prologue [1982])

of as

First favour Law

interpretive O’Brian

prototypes

silent

- useless. in

Dworkin applied argue

adjudication, v

an McLoughlin

practice:

is and

it

it is

make

t