Philosophy of Law - concetti generali terza parte

(2005)

Theory

Legal

and

Law

Realism

law Rotolo) on

2008 of

Leiter

of based Philosophy

Antonino Legal

Philosophy October Brian 1

Handout American By

20

(prof. the

to

Guide

Blackwell

The

In

judges and

which are

of against reached

in

law)

methods they discovery

reasons,

which (and

tested decisions

because

jurisprudence the behaviour

to be

Basics and of

emulate

according to of context

rules desires

has rationalizations

The human

mechanical Hypotheses

legal should

method, considerations:

and

Realism: distinctively explain

jurisprudence beliefs

case case: post

resting. responses

should 2

Legal in ex

every on

of non-legal

formalism are

empirical focus we

world

basis in that causing reasons

American Rather,

result

the claim the no on

against science:

on stimuli and

unique of Behaviourism: unobservable. basis

the observations

cases justification

rules

Reaction Method: of

a the

natural

decide justify Legal

terms on

•

•

•

• the

explain

not

do on

Indeterminacy to

reasons indeterminacy reasons

suffice

legal not legal

do

available to

rational

Legal reasons responsive

Realism: entails

the legal do 3

are

indeterminate: they

indeterminate: decision indeterminate: judges

indeterminacy

Legal as

decide that

unique

American judges assumption

Rationally

is Causally

a

law Causal

justify why

The •

•

•

• some

following for

text” standing

the “loosely”

its case

both

Examples beyond the

solutions as

endorse it

of

or

implemented treat

facts

“strictly”

legal

Indeterminacy: and

the

courts many to case

read specific

be

cases, the

text” 4

contradiction: be

must can from

is

its

many statute case

precedents

beyond

Legal abstract

the

in a in

purpose of

go

that, are can

rule

that

cannot principles

argued we

the

argued

its form

effect “loosely”:

statute “strictly”: general

Llewellyn

Llewellyn principles these

“To

“A 3. 4.

1. 2. But that

the requires

always

case, of are

master dictated cases but

the almost decisions, it

of

Realism those

myself behaviour,

facts sense I not

but

the made moral of

authorities or

of

Legal judicial

course

whether

stimulus first the

and the

“I and

American the

Kent): case,

the affect

lay, case” effect rule

search

to justice the between

primarily Chancellor never

the little)

to of

of 5

of down

where facts rules

view (or relation

Claim decision

respond no

underlying

sat my

quoting legal

saw have

then to any investigation

“I

the

judges that

suited

Core rules

Then I

Frank is

affect time. imply there

the legal

principles significant

cases,

The […]”

(J. the to

causally if

not cases

react empirical

Example: case,

half

deciding facts. does

found

court hard

Judges legally any

which the This an

In

In in •

•

•

• his

buyer

as for

and judgements

rules, value to

compete

general employee

the

any

legal to

(1) situation-specific business

too had to

Law where (soon-to-be-former)

not

were longer promises

Case a

but rules of

no seller

decisis,

in rules

legal more

fact-specific. contractual

Rules the

legal

Oliphant, of

stare a

by

favour by

Legal that 6

made made

to of

was

more

return in enforceability

to

of compete compete

practice them enforcement)

according

are

Role to courts, ignored

suggests

The to

that to

not not

time,

by enforcement)

of rule:

who no

promise

articulated promise

result

Oliphant (No:

abstract.

that General

judges,

The Example: employer

At 1: 2:

(Yes:

• •

• Case

Case

governing is

it so

because

that do

norms to

(2) is circumstances

behaviour

Law differently

informal

Case judicial prevailing

in factual

out

Rules divergent come 7

those

the

Legal matters

account under

particular,

this

of business

Role the best

into

behind economically

The take in

and

rationale Judges,

Judges labour

• •

The

the is are argued

it

etc.): responses

but behaviourism?)

predictable

rules

Moore,

Realism legal Decision

judges’

it

Llewellyn, affecting not

the

Legal are

by =

Freud;

etc.): Decision judge

determined they

forces

American (Oliphant, (Frank, by

so the

=

facts,

social (influenced of

Facts 8

Personality

fully Wing formula

idiosyncratic

Wing the

of +

not Rule

Branches focusing “Idiosyncrasy” Wing

is the

“Sociological” +

behaviour replace Stimuli

by “Idiosyncrasy”

by

Two determined

predictable should

judicial

The The we

• • with

The that

the

the

(commercial identify correct

follows:

Method behaviour

to

and

institution

as judge

Institutional wing courts normality certain institutional

a

sociological of cause act

any tendencies a

from when to

for will courts

The quantitatively from

determine

the behaviour 9

deviation

Wing: and cause

of X

view regularities degree will

“Sociological” to

the normal which is

deviations of

goal

systematized Deviation

etc.): beyond the

the words,

deviation

banking,

Identify Identify

The point

Moore other

• •

U. In (2005)

Theory

Legal

and

Law

Realism

law Rotolo) on

2008 of

Leiter

of based Philosophy

Antonino Legal

Philosophy October Brian 1

Handout American By

21

(prof. the

to

Guide

Blackwell

The

In

the is are argued

it

etc.): responses

but behaviourism?)

predictable

rules

Moore,

Realism legal Decision

judges’

it

Llewellyn, affecting not

the

Legal are

by =

Freud;

etc.): Decision judge

determined they

forces

American (Oliphant, (Frank, by

so the

=

facts,

social (influenced of

Facts 2

Personality

fully Wing formula

idiosyncratic

Wing the

of +

not Rule

Branches focusing “Idiosyncrasy” Wing

is the

“Sociological” +

behaviour replace Stimuli

by “Idiosyncrasy”

by

Two determined

predictable should

judicial

The The we

• • with

The that

the

the

(commercial identify correct

follows:

Method behaviour

to

and

institution

as judge

Institutional wing courts normality certain institutional

a

sociological of cause act

any tendencies a

from when to

for will courts

The quantitatively from

determine

the behaviour 3

deviation

Wing: and cause

of X

view regularities degree wi