Law and Philosophy 39 (6):577-616 (2020)

Authors
Katharina Stevens
University of Lethbridge
Abstract
Some authors argue that the rule-of-law ideal gives judges a prima facie duty to provide a determinate formulation of the precedent’s general norm in all their precedent-opinions. I question that claim. I agree that judges have a duty to decide their cases based on reasons and that they should formulate these reasons in their opinions. I also agree that formulations of general norms should be the goal of common-law development and that judges have a duty to contribute to the realization of this goal. However, I argue that judges may sometimes do so better if they do not provide a determinate formulation of a general norm in their opinion. Often, judges may not feel confident that they are able to formulate a good general norm for their precedent decision, even if they believe that their decision is both correct and justifiable through argument. In this case, various reasons speak against providing a determinate formulation of a general norm, including rule-of-law reasons.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s10982-020-09383-6
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Translate to english
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 70,008
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Do Precedents Create Rules?Grant Lamond - 2005 - Legal Theory 11 (1):1-26.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Knowledge Norms and Acting Well.Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa - 2012 - Thought: A Journal of Philosophy 1 (1):49-55.
Applicability of Legal Norms.Pablo Navarro - 2004 - Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 17 (2):337-359.
Do Precedents Create Rules?Grant Lamond - 2005 - Legal Theory 11 (1):1-26.
NO Revision and NO Contraction.Gregory Wheeler & Marco Alberti - 2011 - Minds and Machines 21 (3):411-430.
Resource Allocation and the Duty to Give Reasons.John Stanton-Ife - 2006 - Health Care Analysis 14 (3):145-156.
A Dilemma for Protected Reasons.Christopher Essert - 2012 - Law and Philosophy 31 (1):49-75.
XV—The Russellian Retreat.Clayton Littlejohn - 2013 - Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 113 (3pt3):293-320.
No Epistemic Norm for Action.SImion Mona - 2018 - American Philosophical Quarterly 55 (3):231-238.
Vagueness in Law.Timothy Endicott - 2000 - Oxford: Oxford University Press.
``Knowing and Asserting&Quot.Timothy Williamson - 1996 - Philosophical Review 105 (4):489-523.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2020-04-09

Total views
31 ( #368,267 of 2,505,176 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
6 ( #118,975 of 2,505,176 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes