Spaak, Torben - DiVA Portal

The Aim of Contemporary Jurisprudence - Studentportalen

As Neil MacCormick points out, “argument from analogy is by no means uncommon or unimportant in the application and interpretation of This chapter attempts to establish, with close reference to actual instances of judicial interpretation, what should be acknowledged as good arguments for interpretative conclusions. Topics discussed include categories of interpretative argument, conflicting arguments and conflict resolution, and interpretation within practical argumentation. Philosophy’ (1986) 5 Law & Phil 315; and Roland Schmetz, L’argumentation selon Perelman (Presses Universitaires de Namur 2000). A good brief critical account of Perelman’s theory is Robert Alexy, A Theory of Legal Argumentation (Clarendon Press 1989: tr Ruth Adler and Neil MacCormick) 155–76. (On analogy and extending the law see e.g.

MacCormick. 1] 1. Introduction . Neil MacCormick has deeply influenced contemporary legal theory.

Neil McCormick, Argumentation and Interpretation in Law, 16 Ratio Juris 16 (1993) at 25.

Jure AB - Nätbokhandel - Jure.se

The paper will develop in the following way. In the next section I will present my conceptual definition of legal positivism. 2004. “Certainty and Reasonableness in Law” 18 Argumentation, 465-478.

Åbo Akademis bibliotek - Databasen Biblio

Neil maccormick argumentation and interpretation in law

[Seminar 7] -, “The Artificial Reason and Judgement of Law,” in Neil MacCormick & Aulis Aarnio (eds), Legal Reasoning (1993) pp.
Kumla djursjukhus medlem

at 19-52. 9. I d. at ix. Neil MacCormick authors 'Statement of Evidence by the SNP' to the Select Committee of the House of Lords on A Bill of Rights, 2 August 1977.

167-82. In Rhetoric and the Rule of Law (hereinafter "Rhetoric"), MacCormick sums up the developments of his views on legal reasoning since the publication of Legal Reasoning. Here he maintains, inter alia, the following: in the case of statutory (and constitutional) interpretation, the judge should begin with a tex-8. ld. at 19-52.
Vilken månad börjar man skolan

positivism och normativa teorier om juridisk argumentation, dvs. Se Neil MacCormick, Legal Reasoning Se Andrei Marmor, Interpretation. Vidare diskuterar vi hur juridisk argumentation, speciellt lagtolkning, bedrivs och (1988) pp MacCormick, Neil, Argumentation and Interpretation in Law, Ratio Artikel – Joseph Raz, “Incorporation by Law”, Legal Theory 10 (2004),. ss. 1-14 MacCormick, Neil, “Argumentation and Interpretation in Law”, 6 Ratio Ju-. Guidance and Constraint: The action-guiding capacity of Neil MacCormick's theory of legal reasoning2007Ingår i: Law and philosophy, ISSN 0167-5249, E-ISSN In: Matthias Dahlberg (Ed.), Uppsala-Minnesota Colloquium: Law, Culture and Values (pp. 33-83). Uppsala: Iustus förlagSpaak, T. (2009).

Elements for an Argumentative Method of Interpretation. María G. Navarro - 2010 - Rozenberg Quarterly. The Magazine 1 (1). Argumentation and Interpretation in Law. Neil Maccormick - 1993 - Ratio Juris 6 (1):16-29. Reconstructing Complex Analogy Argumentation in Judicial Decisions: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. (v) The argument from general principles of law says that if any general principle or principles of law are applicable to the subject matter of a statutory provision, one ought to favour that interpretation of the statutory provision which is most in conformity with the general principle or principles, giving appropriate weight to the principle(s) in the light of their degree of importance both generally and in the field of law in question.
Sepa xml datei erstellen

Mord, prejudikattolkning och lagtolkning SvJT

Spaak Torben: Mon 23 Oct (Essays on interpretation and the theory of interpretation taking account of nine major legal systems.) Peczenik, A. (1989) On Law and Reason , Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer. (An excellent account of the unity of practical reason and the differences of factual, moral and legal reasoning.) Case law about insults shows that clear rules about this interpretation are lacking and that the argumentation is often backed with rather vague references to ‘the meaning in context’ and ‘the specific circumstances of the case’. This vague-ness results in uncertainty and – sometimes – in absurd consequences in case law on this topic.