Graduate studies at Western
Journal of the Philosophy of History 5 (3):383-405 (2012)
|Abstract||Abstract This paper argues that not only does history matter to legal epistemology, but also that understanding legal epistemology can yield a certain understanding of the past. The paper focuses on the common law practice of precedent and argues that there is no set of rules, principles, reasons or material facts that constitute the fixed or foundational content of past decisions (a `timeless what' that determines its own relevance), but rather that what is taken by a judge resolving a particular dispute to be the content of past decisions depends on the active and creative construal of relevance engaged in by that judge. Precedents are better thought of as `thick resources with dynamic content'. Such content is constrained by a variety of stabilising practices, but never so constrained as to determine how it can be construed to be relevant. This image of law's past may offer a general view of the past as something with which we can actively and creatively relate in the course of coping with the present|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Mark Greenberg (2006). How Facts Make Law. In Scott Hershovitz (ed.), Exploring Law's Empire: The Jurisprudence of Ronald Dworkin. Oxford University Press.
Barbara Baum Levenbook (1984). On Universal Relevance in Legal Reasoning. Law and Philosophy 3 (1):1 - 23.
John Beatty & Isabel Carrera (2012). When What Had to Happen Was Not Bound to Happen: History, Chance, Narrative, Evolution. Journal of the Philosophy of History 5 (3):471-495.
Amalia Amaya (2007). Formal Models of Coherence and Legal Epistemology. Artificial Intelligence and Law 15 (4):429-447.
L. Karl Branting (2003). A Reduction-Graph Model of Precedent in Legal Analysis. Artificial Intelligence 150 (1-2):59-95.
Veronica Rodriguez-Blanco (2010). Objectivity in Law. Philosophy Compass 5 (3):240-249.
Brian Leiter (2009). Naturalizing Jurisprudence. In John R. Shook & Paul Kurtz (eds.), The Future of Naturalism. Humanity Books.
Dov M. Gabbay & Moshe Koppel (2011). Uncertainty Rules in Talmudic Reasoning. History and Philosophy of Logic 32 (1):63-69.
Added to index2011-12-06
Total downloads9 ( #122,521 of 739,355 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,680 of 739,355 )
How can I increase my downloads?