1,720,988 research outputs found
The theoretical controversy concerning judicial review
No full textReview Article.Book reviewed in this article:Christopher Forsyth (ed), Judicial Review and the Constitution
Or, even, what the law can teach the philosophy of language: a response to Green's Dworkin's Fallacy.
No full textThis essay is a response to the important central theme of Michael Green's recent article, Dworkin's Fallacy, or What the Philosophy of Language Can't Teach Us about the Law, 89 Va. L. Rev. 1897 (2003), which considers the relationship between the philosophy of language and the philosophy of law. Green argues forcefully that a number of theorists with quite different viewpoints commonly maintain a connection between the two which turns out to be unfounded. It is accepted that it is wrong to assume such a connection, but it is suggested that Green has failed to recognise the connection that can be established between the two disciplines due to the particular way in which law as a practice uses words.The reasons given by Green for seeking to maintain a distinction between ordinary language practice and the language practice of the law are considered and rejected in part I of the essay. The general conclusion is reached that, irrespective of which position is adopted in the philosophy of law, at the point of judgment the philosophy of law and the philosophy of language are inextricably linked in being concerned to account for the same practice.Part II of the essay considers the basic issues for the philosophy of language addressed in Green's article, which are concerned with the search for the mechanism which links a particular meaning to a word. One reading of Wittgenstein's rule skepticism, supported by Dennis Patterson, is to reject the existence of any mechanism interrupting the direct connection between the capacity we possess in our language practice and the capacity we possess in the practice to which our language refers. Patterson provides another target for Green's allegation that theorists who take a position in the philosophy of law from their position in the philosophy of language are committing a fallacy. However, it is pointed out that within the Patterson-Wittgenstein position, there is no possibility of moving from one position to the other since both positions are already necessarily connected.The remaining discussion in Part II then explores the apparently common connection between law and language established within the practice of judgment and within the general view of the nature of language favoured in Patterson's reading of Wittgenstein. It is argued that Wittgenstein's philosophical method may maintain a connection between law and language, and the positions adopted within their respective philosophies, but is incapable of resolving the controversy between competing views of how law/"law" should be understood. By contrast, the practice of judgment is used precisely to resolve controversy. Although this judgment is concerned primarily with a specific part of the law, its significance extends to how we regard the philosophical endeavours that need to provide an account of it. This provides lessons for both the philosophy of language and the philosophy of law
Definition in the criminal law
No full textIn recent years, a number of key terms of the criminal law have seemed to defy definition. Scepticism over the possibility of defining basic concepts and identifying general principles has been voiced by both judges and academic commentators. This raises broad issues of theoretical interest, but also touches on such practical concerns as the efforts made by the Law Commission to reform the law as well as wider proposals for the codification of criminal law. Furthermore, the Human Rights Act incorporates a requirement of legality under Article 7 of the ECHR, whose scope is clearly connected to our understanding of how criminal offences are defined. This book undertakes an investigation of the role and scope of definition within the criminal law, set within a wider examination of the nature of legal materials and the diversity of perspectives on law. It offers a fascinating account of how the rules and principles found within legal materials provide opportunities for responding to, rather than merely following the law. In the light of this account, the book takes issue with some of the established views on the roles of judges and academics and, in a series of case studies concerning the definition of theft and changes to the definition of recklessness recently introduced by the House of Lords in R v G , explores the intimate connection between the use of legal materials and the practice of definition.More specific objectives of the book involve providing a more rigorous assessment of the serious challenge made by a 'critical' perspective on the criminal law; challenging the conventional intellectual apparatus of the criminal law; demonstrating how general theoretical insights on the process of definition can assist with the practical problems of defining criminal offences; clarifying the uses of definition in the work of the judiciary and law reformers; and, determining realistic expectations for the principle of legality within the criminal law
Fundamental legal conceptions reconsidered
No full textFundamental legal conceptions are considered in relation to the analytical concerns of Hohfeld and Bentham, and also in relation to the normative concerns of constitutional and common law protection of rights and liberties. The use of a square of opposition to expound fundamental conceptions is rejected in favour of "a triangle of possibilities". It is argued that using this device helps to provide a clearer understanding of which conceptions may appropriately be recognised as analytically fundamental, and in turn avoids confusion over the normative treatment of practical situations that may arise through the designation of legal rights and liberties as "fundamental". In particular, the nature of legal liberties, and the priority accorded to legal rights, are both questioned
- …
