Book Proposal
| Abstract | When judges decide cases in courts of law, are they ethically obligated to apply the law correctly? Many people who think about legal systems believe so. The conviction that judges are “bound” by the law is common among lawyers, judges, legal scholars, and members of the general public. One of the most severe accusations one can make against a public official is that she has deviated from the law in her official capacity. The principle of judicial fidelity figures centrally in one of the most celebrated Western political values: the rule of law. This is an ideal which some Western powers, notably the United States, aspire to export on a global scale. The principle of judicial fidelity implies many basic norms of adjudication. These vary from one legal system to another, but in Anglo-American systems they include the following: trial judges must take all admissible evidence into account; judges must follow recognized sources of law, such as constitutions, legislation, and common-law rules; inferior courts must follow superior court rulings on matters of law; courts should give at least substantial weight even to “horizontal” precedent; et cetera. Limits of Legality is a scholarly monograph, in progress, that advances our understanding of the principle of judicial fidelity and defends a refined and unorthodox version of it. The book draws on my background as both a lawyer and a philosopher, addressing issues at the intersection of legal philosophy and ethical theory. It breaks new ground in the normative theory of adjudication – the branch of legal philosophy that concerns how judges in courts of law should decide cases. Mine is one of the first projects to apply the resources of contemporary normative ethics to central questions concerning the rule of law and judicial obligation. I model the normative presuppositions of existing theories of the rule of law in terms that take into account developments in ethical theory over the past two decades.. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | No categories specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,631 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Only published papers are available at libraries |
Similar books and articlesSteven J. Burton (1992). Judging in Good Faith. Cambridge University Press.
Anthony Reeves (2011). Judicial Practical Reason: Judges in Morally Imperfect Legal Orders. Law and Philosophy 30 (3):319-352.
Marcin Matczak & Denis Galligan (2005). Strategies of Judicial Review. Exercising Judicial Discretion in Administrative Cases Involving Business Entities. E&Y Better Government Programme.
Anthony R. Reeves (2010). Do Judges Have an Obligation to Enforce the Law?: Moral Responsibility and Judicial-Reasoning. Law and Philosophy 29 (2):159-187.
Kim Lane Scheppele (1988). Legal Secrets: Equality and Efficiency in the Common Law. University of Chicago Press.
Marcin Matczak, Zdenek Kuhn & Matyas Bencze (2011). Constitutions, EU Law and Judicial Strategies in the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland. Journal of Public Policy 30 (01):81-99.
Neil MacCormick (2005). Rhetoric and the Rule of Law: A Theory of Legal Reasoning. Oxford University Press.
Theodore M. Benditt (1978). Law as Rule and Principle: Problems of Legal Philosophy. Stanford University Press.
Jeffrey Brand-Ballard (2010). Limits of Legality: The Ethics of Lawless Judging. Oxford University Press.
Neil McArthur (2005). David Hume and the Common Law of England. Journal of Scottish Philosophy 3 (1):67-82.
Analytics
Monthly downloads
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
|
Added to index2010-12-22Total downloads0Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
