This chapter seeks to understand ‘legal science’ from the internal point of view of each tradition and society, in order to avoid a conception too heavily influenced by contemporary views. To do so, reference is made both to the set of activities carried out by ‘legal experts’ in the whole domain of law (legislation, adjudication, legal counseling and education), and to the legal experts themselves, as far as they were regarded as such by their own societies. This approach requires first to establish the extent to which, in each society under consideration, knowledge of law was considered as autonomous knowledge. A sociological perspective is then adopted, identifying who in each society were considered legal experts, i.e. persons deemed to possess the legal knowledge to such a degree that it characterized their social position and/or function. The chapter then proceeds in a progressively more content-oriented manner towards a comparative description of legal science, focusing on how legal training took place in each society under consideration and in what literary forms the legal experts expressed themselves, to finally arrive at the core question, namely the description of the respective forms of legal reasoning.

This chapter describes the law collections from the region such as the Laws of Hammurabi and the other types of extant legal documents such as contracts and trial records. It also explains how this evidence helps us understand the historical context of biblical law and how comparative analysis contributes to its study.

Law students routinely forget that the legal tradition has been concerned with fact finding for centuries. The entire body of evidence law has evolved for two important purposes: ensuring that the evidence presented to a court is legally admissible; and ensuring that the evidence presented to the court is reliable so that the tribunal of fact is able to draw conclusions about whether or not an alleged fact existed in circumstances where the tribunal of fact has not witnessed the event for itself. Legal reasoning is empirically grounded and draws upon centuries of human experience in the examination of materials of this kind. With that in mind, principles from evidence law can be used to help us to think about facts as part of the analysis of a legal problem. Indeed, turning your mind to the rich body of evidence law is essential. It is not possible in a book like this to engage with evidence law in any detail. Evidence law in Australia is comprehensively examined by several authoritative authors, to which the reader is referred to for detail.

The discipline of law is unique as a body of knowledge. It is both theoretical and applied. Abstract and concrete. Moral and amoral. Just and cruel. And at its heart is a moment in which the abstract is translated into concrete action, a process that depends on theoretical application to the physical world. That application is linked to the art of problem solving. Human beings are problem-solving animals. All of us possess skills and experiences that enable us to engage with obstacles and problems in life. A problem is characterised by some event, experience or situation where our usual methods of operating and achieving desired ends are slowed down, prevented from operating or simply no longer work in that environment. Failure to successfully navigate a problem creates a crisis, during which we engage in different forms of conduct and thinking to find a resolution. Crises operate on a spectrum. Some are life- threatening. Some are innocuous. But the underlying dynamic is much the same. Problem solving is an adaptive and evolved trait that humans share with other animals and that enables us to survive in changing environments.

In this chapter the aim is to undertake something of a guided analysis of a problem and apply the principles discussed so far. To that end, let’s now return to the problem set out in Appendix A. For this exercise, it is useful to begin by making notes, both of the information within the hypothetical and of the law. Using the steps explored in the last chapter as a guide, simply begin by reading the hypothetical in Appendix A. Note the people involved, the event(s), and especially the question you have been asked. Make some notes on your initial thoughts, before looking back over the Chapter 5 context. Then begin a systematic examination of the information.

Problem solving is an art form, which takes years of practice, experience, a thorough understanding of the law, and a thorough understanding of human behaviour. This chapter presents some basic ideas to set you on the path. There are several steps involved in dealing with a problem. Please keep in mind that legal reasoning is not linear, although it can be. Much depends on the nature of the problem. It involves the ability to proceed in a linear, logical approach in some cases, and a universal, nomadic approach in others. In this chapter we look at strategies for problem solving. Up to now we have talked about way of thinking about law and fact in the context of a problem solving analytic. The discussion is then steered towards application. Two approaches are suggested: one basic, the other advanced. Both approaches are outlined here. The model you choose really depends on your purpose and the depth of analytical detail needed.

You will have seen that a significant part of legal reasoning is linked to interpretation, and that the law plays an important part in shaping the rules of interpretation. This is especially true in the interpretation of legislation, which forms most of the conceptual terrain in which contemporary criminal law is located. This chapter introduces some of the core concepts linked to statutory interpretation principles applicable to the criminal law. Please note that this is by no means a comprehensive review but serves as an introductory overview.

Law is an applied and theoretical discipline. To that end, the law must be applied to the facts available when assessing the alignment of the facts with the law. In this respect law is an empirical discipline, one that requires objective fact and law in association with one another in its application. Evidence must exist to establish fact, while law must exist to establish the rule structure. The relationship between law and evidence is unique, for it is not simply the existence of objectively present objects that will establish the fact – the fact in law is subject to further legal construction through the laws of evidence. One aspect of that process is an object or event that has actual existence may not, as a matter of law, be available to the decision maker because of legal invalidity. Hence the empirical foundations of law are based on admissible evidence rather than mere evidence. This will be considered in more detail in Chapter 3.

The Introduction establishes the topic of the book - the creation of states in international law - as well as the method adopted when investigating that topic. It argues that doctrinal debates over state creation have become deadlocked as a result of the prevailing method of 'legal positivism' and that this approach, which focuses exclusively upon the factual provenance of putative laws, should be abandoned. Advocating a form of 'rational reconstruction', whereby the normative appeal of putative laws must be assessed alongside their provenance within international legal practice, it connects this method of law identification to the earlier 'Grotian tradition' developed by scholars such as Hersch Lauterpacht. To aid readers who might be unfamiliar with the details of international legal reasoning, an extended summary of the legal framework endorsed by the text is then presented, followed by a brief overview of the structure of the argument to follow.

This chapter documents Stage One in the mnemohistory of discourses of heresy concerning Abu Hanifa based on sources composed in the first half of the ninth century (800-850). During this phase, hostility towards Abu Hanifa was limited and confined to disagreements in the realm of law and hadith. It demonstrates that a discourse of heresy among proto-Sunni traditionalists cannot be discerned in the sources ⎯ a dramatic change, however, was to occur during phases two and three (850-950).

This chapter begins with a brief overview of the UNCLOS dispute settlement system established under Part XV UNCLOS. It then provides a conceptual framework for understanding what is meant by ‘development of the law’ by international courts and tribunals in order to set the stage for an analysis of the development of the law of the sea in the subsequent chapters. The chapter suggests a working definition of the term ‘development of the law’ and explains the ways in which international courts and tribunals ‘develop the law’. In the course of doing so, the chapter also explores the role of legal reasoning in the assessment of the contribution of judicial decisions to the development of international law.

This chapter establishes the strong link between coherence and legal reasoning. In so doing, it draws three main conclusions. A first conclusion is that legal reasoning is an instance of practical reasoning and practical deliberation. What this means, ultimately, is that when one reasons and argues about the content of the law one does not seek to discover truth in the same sense as when forming an opinion about the way things are in nature. Rather, the aim is to formulate a reasoned opinion and commit oneself to a specific course of action given the presence of a legal problem. A second conclusion is that, when understood as practical reasoning, legal reasoning exhibits certain coherence-related features. These are: (i) a web-like structure; (ii) the fact that rationality in legal reasoning does not depend only on logic but also on plausibility (or fit); and (iii) a purposive nature. A third conclusion is that coherence acts as a substantive and a methodological principle during legal reasoning, thus further confirming the dual dimension of coherence identified in Chapter 1.

This chapter explores the emergence (not always explicit), the uses and the misuses of proportionality analysis during a crucial period of Peruvian democracy: the transition of the 2000s, following the collapse of the Fujimori regime. The history of the principle of proportionality in Peru is associated to the development of judicial review and the expansion of constitutionalism. Its increasing presence in judicial reasoning reveals progress in terms of the effectiveness of constitutional rights and the defense of democratic institutions, but also an alarming trend toward its formalistic use. Since the Constitutional Tribunal has been the main actor behind this process, the chapter mainly focuses on its decisions, but some decisions by the Supreme Court and by administrative courts are also covered, given its recurrent use by the judiciary at large and its role in decentralized judicial review, especially in the context of ordinary criminal procedures where the legality of pretrial detention is examined.