Ratio Juris 23 (4):479-492 (2010)
There are two possible ways to understand form and substance in legal reasoning. The first refers to the distinction between concepts and their applications, whereas the second concentrates on the difference between authoritative and non-authoritative reasons. These approaches refer to the formalistic and positivistic conceptions of the law, the latter being the author's point of departure. Nevertheless, they are both helpful means of analysis in legal interpretation. Interpretation is divided into formal and substantive justification. They have certain functions and they are utilized in interaction. Authoritative reasons and formal reasoning constitute the necessary point of departure. However, substantive reasons are also necessary in order to justify choices included in interpretation. In addition to formal and substantive reasoning, the role of legal concepts is analysed
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
The Strategic Use of Formal Argumentation in Legal Decisions.Harm Kloosterhuis - 2008 - Ratio Juris 21 (4):496-506.
Normative Conflicts in Legal Reasoning.Giovanni Sartor - 1992 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 1 (2-3):209-235.
Neil MacCormick's Second Thoughts on Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory. A Defence of the Original View.Aldo Schiavello - 2011 - Ratio Juris 24 (2):140-155.
Rhetoric and the Rule of Law: A Theory of Legal Reasoning.Neil MacCormick - 2005 - Oxford University Press.
Reasoning with Rules: An Essay on Legal Reasoning and its Underlying Logic.Jaap Hage - 1997 - Kluwer Academic Publishers.
On Universal Relevance in Legal Reasoning.Barbara Baum Levenbook - 1984 - Law and Philosophy 3 (1):1 - 23.
Added to index2010-11-15
Total downloads32 ( #162,466 of 2,178,189 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #316,497 of 2,178,189 )
How can I increase my downloads?