Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T22:38:21.128Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Foundations of Legal Reasoning by Geoffrey Samuel Antwerp: Maklu 1994, 294 + (bibliography and indices) 52pp (paperback £25)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

John Bell
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Book Review
Information
Legal Studies , Volume 15 , Issue 3 , November 1995 , pp. 461 - 466
Copyright
Copyright © Society of Legal Scholars 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 C. Perelman and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca The New Rhetoric (Baton Rouge, 1971); T Viehweg Topik und Recht (4th edn, Munich 1964); J Stone Legal Systems and Lawyers Reasoning (Stanford 1964); R Alexy The Theory of Argumentation (Oxford 1989); A Peczenik On Law and Reason (Dordrecht 1989) ch 2; A Aarnio On Legal Reasoning (Turku 1977).

2 J. Wroblewski The Judicial Application of Law (edited by Z Bankowski and N MacCormick, Dordrecht 1992) Part 1 ; D N MacCormick Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory (Oxford 1978); R S Summers Two Types of Substantive Reasoning (1978) 63 Cornell LR 707; R M Dworkin Law's Empire (London 1986) pp 216-28.

3 See G. Lewis Lord Atkin (London, 1983) p 57 on Donoghue v Stevenson.

4 To be fair, the classical description of law as propositional is usually accompanied by a recognition that there must be criteria which judges and other lawyers use for selecting the material they wish to use as normative propositions of law in legal reasoning and these second-order criteria are not propositional at all: see J Levin How Judges Reason (New York 1992) p 34.

5 The Inner Relationship between English and Roman Law (1935) Cambridge LI 347.

6 See An Introduction to Comparative Law (2nd edn, Oxford 1987) p 70.

7 Pp 139,200. On the importance of analogy in legal reasoning see D N MacCormick, above n 2. ch I .

8 N MacCormick and 0 Weinberger Law as Institutional Fact (Dordrecht 1986).

9 O. Weinberger Law, Institutions and Legal Politics (Drodrecht 1991) ch 1.

10 A Deductivist Rejoinder to a Semiotic Critique (1992) International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 215.

11 See Zweigert & Kotz, op cit, p 70.

12 Esso Petroleum Lid v Southport Corpn [ 19561 AC 218; [ 19451 2 QB 182.

13 White v Jones [ 19951 1 All ER 691.

14 J M Broekman in P Nerhot (ed) Legal Knowledge and Analogy (Kluwer, Deventer 1992) p 2 17,240.

15 See J Bell Reflections on the Procedure of the Conseil detat in G Hand and J McBride Droit suns Frontieres (Birmingham 1991) 21 1 at 224-3 1; M Lasser Judicial (Self-) Portraits: Judicial Discourse in the French Legal System (1995) 104 YaleLJ 1325

16 J. Bell Conceptions of Public Policy in P Cane and J Stapleton Essaysfor Patrick Atiyuh (Oxford 1991), 86 at 105-1 10.

17 C. Atias kpisthologie juridique (Aix-en-Provence 1985); J-L Bergel ThPorie gknnerale du droir (2nd edn, Pans 1989); MacCormick and Dworkin, especially works cited above n 2.

18 Broekrnan, op cit p 229.

19 Works cited above, notes 1 and 2.

20 2nd edn, Oxford 1980, esp chs VI and VII.