DOCSLIB.ORG

Bibliography

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bibliography BIBLIOGRAPHY Adler, Matthew D. 2006a. Constitutional Fidelity, the Rule of Recognition, and the Communitar- ian Turn in Contemporary Positivism. Fordham Law Review 75: 1671–95. ———. 2006b. Popular Constitutionalism and the Rule of Recognition. Northwestern University Law Review 100: 719–805. Alexander, Larry. 1990. Law and Exclusionary Reasons. Philosophical Topics 18: 5–22. ———. 1991. The Gap. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 14: 695–702. ———. 1999a. Can Law Survive the Asymmetry of Authority? In Rules and Reasoning: Essays in Honor of Fred Schauer. Ed. Linda Meyer, 39–54. Oxford: Hart. ———. 1999b. “With Me, It’s All er Nuthin’”: Formalism in Law and Morality. University of Chi- cago Law Review 66: 530–64. Alexander, Larry and Emily Sherwin. 2001. The Rule of Rules. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Alexander, Larry and Frederick Schauer. 2007. Law’s Limited Domain Confronts Morality’s Uni- versal Empire. William and Mary Law Review 48: 1580–604. Alexander, Larry and Kenneth Kress. 1995. Against Legal Principles. In Law and Interpretation. Ed. Andrei Marmor, 279–327. Oxford: Clarendon. Alexy, Robert. 1989. On Necessary Relations between Law and Morality. Ratio Juris 2: 167–83. ———. 1999. A Defence of Radbruch’s Formula. In Recrafting the Rule of Law: The Limits of Legal Order. Ed. David Dyzenhaus, 15–39. Portland: Hart. Allan, T.R.S. 2001. Constitutional Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Allen, C.K. 1931. Legal Duties. Oxford: Clarendon. ———. 1964. Law in the Making. 7th ed. Oxford: Clarendon. (1st ed. 1927.) Almendares, Nicholas and Landa, Dimitri. 2007. Strategic Coordination and the Law. Law and Philosophy 26: 501–29. Alschuler, Albert W. 2000. Law Without Values. Chicago: University of Chicago Press Altman, Andrew. 1986. Legal Realism, Critical Legal Studies, and Dworkin. Philosophy and Pub- lic Affairs 15: 205–35. ———. 1990. Critical Legal Studies: A Liberal Critique. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ———. 2001. Arguing About Law. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Anscombe, G.E.M. 1958. On Brute Facts. Analysis 18: 69–72. Aristotle. The Politics. Trans. T.A. Sinclair. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1962. Attwool, Elspeth. 1997. From Philosophy to Practice: A Sketch of William Galbraith Miller. In Law, Values and Social Practices. Ed. John Tasioulas, 213–33. Aldershot: Dartmouth. Austin, J.L. 1956–1957. A Plea for Excuses. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 57 (N.S.): 1–30. ———. 1962. How To Do Things with Words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Austin, John. 1873. Lectures on Jurisprudence, or, The Philosophy of Positive Law. 4th ed. Ed. Robert Campbell. London: Murray. (1st ed. 1863.) ———. 1954. The Province of Jurisprudence Determined. Ed. H.L.A. Hart. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. Ayers, Ian. 1990. Playing Games with the Law. Stanford University Press 42: 1291–317. Baird, Douglas G., Robert H. Gertner, and Randal C. Picker. 1994. Game Theory and the Law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Baker, G.P. 1977. Defeasibility and Meaning. In Law, Morality, and Society. Ed. P.M.S. Hacker and J. Raz, 26–57. Oxford: Clarendon. Bartlett, Katherine T. 1991. Feminist Legal Methods. In Feminist Legal Theory: Readings in Law and Gender. Ed. Katherine T. Bartlett and Rosanne Kennedy, 370–403. Boulder: Westview. G.J. Postema, A Treatise of Legal Philosophy and General Jurisprudence, DOI 10.1007/978-90-481-8960-1, © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011 586 TREATISE, 11 - 20TH CENTURY: THE COMMON LAW WORLD ———. 2000. Cracking Foundations as Feminist Method. American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy and Law 8: 31–54. Bauman, Richard W. 1996. Critical Legal Studies: A Guide to the Literature. Boulder: Westview. Benditt, Theodore. 1978. Law as Rule and Principle. Stanford: Stanford University Press. ———. 2004. Acting in Concert or Going it Along: Game Theory and the Law. Law and Philoso- phy 23: 615–30. Bentham, Jeremy. 1970. Of Laws in General. Ed. H.L.A. Hart. London: Athlone. ———. 1977. A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government. Ed. J.H. Burns and H.L.A. Hart. London: Athlone. ———. 1983. Constitutional Code, vol. I. E.F. Rosen and J.H. Burns. Oxford: Clarendon. ———. 1989. First Principles Preparatory to Constitutional Code. Ed. Philip Schofield. Oxford: Clarendon. ———. 1993. Official Aptitude Maximized; Expense Minimized. Ed. Philip Schofield. Oxford: Clarendon. ———. 1996. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Ed. J.H. Burns and H.L.A. Hart. With a new introduction by F. Rosen, and an interpretive essay by H.L.A. Hart. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. 1997. De l’ontologie et autre texts sur les fictions, English text ed. Philip Schofield, French trans. and comm. Jean-Pierre Cléro and Christian Laval. Paris: Editions du Seuil. ———. 1998. “Legislator of the World”: Writings on Codification, Law, and Education. Ed. Philip Schofield and Jonathan Harris. Oxford: Clarendon. Bickel, Alexander M. and Henry H. Wellington. 1957. Legislative Purpose and Judicial Process: The Lincoln Mills Case. Harvard Law Review 71: 1–39. Bierling, Ernst. 1883. Zur Kritik der Juristischen Grundbegriffe, vol 2. Gotha: Partha. Bix, Brian. 1999. H.L.A. Hart and the Hermeneutic Turn in Legal Theory. SMU Law Review 52: 167–199. ———. 2002. Natural Law: The Modern Tradition. In The Oxford Handbook of Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law. Ed. Jules Coleman and Scott Shapiro, 61–103. Oxford: Oxford Uni- versity Press. Blackstone, William. 1979. Commentaries on the Laws of England, 4 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (1st ed. 1765–1769.) Bowring, John, ed. 1838–1843. Works of Jeremy Bentham, 11 vols. Edinburgh: W. Tait. Boyle, James. 1992. Critical Legal Studies. New York: New York University Press. Bratman, Michael E. 1999. Faces of Intention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 2006. Dynamics of Sociality. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 30: 1–15. Brennan, William J. Jr. 1986. The Constitution of the United States: Contemporary Ratification. South Texas Law Review 27: 433–45. Broome, John. 2000. Normative Requirements. Normativity. Ed. Jonathan Dancy, 78–99. Oxford: Blackwell. Brown, Jethro. 1906. The Austinian Theory of Law. London: Murray. Brudney, Daniel. 1993. Two Links Between Law and Morality. Ethics 103: 280–301. Bryce, James. 1901. Studies in History and Jurisprudence. London: Oxford University Press. Buckland, W.W. 1890. The Difficulties of Abstract Jurisprudence. Law Quarterly Review 6: 436–45. ———. 1945. Some Reflections on Jurisprudence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Burge, Tyler. 1975. On Knowledge and Convention. The Philosophical Review 84: 249–55. Burley, Justine. 2004. Ronald Dworkin and His Critics. Oxford: Blackwell. Burton, Steven J. 1987. Ronald Dworkin and Legal Positivism. Iowa Law Review 73: 109–29. Calabresi, Guido. 1970. The Costs of Accidents. New Haven: Yale University Press. Calabresi, Guido and A. Douglas Melamed. 1972. Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalien- ability: One View of the Cathedral. Harvard Law Review 85: 1089–128. Campbell, A.H. 1949. International Law and the Student of Jurisprudence. Transactions of the Grotius Society 35: 113–32. BIBLIOGRAPHY 587 Campbell, Tom. 1996. The Legal Theory of Ethical Positivism. Aldershot: Dartmouth. Cardozo, Benjamin N. 1921. The Nature of the Judicial Process. New Haven, CN: Yale University Press. ———. 1947. Selected writings of Benjamin Nathan Cardozo. Ed. Margaret E. Hall. New York: Fallon. Chodorow, Nancy. 1978. The Reproduction of Mothering. Berkeley: University of California Press. Christiano, Thomas and Stefan Sciaraffa. 2003. Legal Positivism and the Nature of Obligation. Law and Philosophy 22: 487–512. Cicero, Marcus Tullius. De Re Publica and De Legibus. Trans. Clinton Walker Keyes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000. Coase, Ronald. 1960. The Problem of Social Cost. Journal of Law and Economics 3: 1–45. Cohen, Felix S. 1933. Ethical Systems and Legal Ideals: An Essay on the Foundations of Legal Criticism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. ———. 1935. Transcendental Nonsense and the Functional Approach. Columbia Law Review 35: 809–49. ———. 1950. Field Theory and Judicial Logic. Yale Law Journal 59: 238–72. Cohen, Marshall, ed. 1965. Law, Morality and Purpose. Villanova Law Review 10: 640–54. ———. 1983. Ronald Dworkin and Contemporary Jurisprudence. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Al- lanheld. Cohen, Morris R. 1933. Law and Social Order. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co. ———. 1937. A Critical Sketch of Legal Philosophy in America. In Law: A Century of Progress 1835–1935. Ed. Alison A. Reppy. Vol. 2: 266–319. New York: New York University Press. ———. 1950. Reason in Law. Glenco, IL: Free Press. Coke, Sir Edward. 2003. The Selected Writings of Sir Edward Coke, 2 vols. Ed. Steve Sheppard. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund. Coleman, Jules L. 1982. Negative and Positive Positivism. Journal of Legal Studies 11: 139–64. ———. 1988, Markets, Morals, and the Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 1996. Authority and Reason. In The Autonomy of Law. Ed. Robert P. George, 287–319. Oxford: Clarendon. ———. 1998a. Incorporation, Conventionality and the Practical Difference Theory. Legal Theory 4: 381–425. (Reprinted in Jules Coleman, Hart’s Postscript. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 99–147.) ———. 1998b. Second Thoughts and Other First Impressions. In Analyzing Law. Ed. Brian Bix, 257–322. Oxford: Clarendon. ———. 2000. Constraints on the Criteria of Legality. Legal Theory 6: 171–83. ———. 2001a. The Practice of Principle. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. 2001b. Tort Law
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Do Children Have Rights?
    Do Children Have Rights? Five theoretical reflections on children's rights Mhairi Catherine Cowden A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of the Australian National University June 2012 Declaration This work is the result of original research carried out by the author. Where joint research was undertaken during the candidature and used in this thesis, it has been acknowledged as such in the body of the text. The applicable research is listed below, alongside the contribution from the author. Chapter Three: the paper 'Capacity' and 'Competence' in the Language of Children's Rights is co-authored with Joanne C Lau (Australian National University). The paper constitutes equal contribution between authors in conceiving the core argument and writing the text. Mhairi Catherine Cowden 29th June 2012 Acknowledgments The idea for this thesis first arose after I was asked several years ago to write a brief article for the UNICEF newsletter entitled, 'What are rights and why children have them'. After doing some preliminary reading I found that surprisingly there was a lack of consensus on either question. It struck me that without such foundational theory that rhetoric to secure and expand children's rights seemed fairly empty. A country built on shaky foundations. Bringing this project to fruition, however, was a lot harder than identifying the problem. I could not have done it without the help of many people. First thanks must go to my principal supervisor, Keith Dowding. Without his help and guidance I would never have read Hohfeld nor got past the first paper of this thesis.
    [Show full text]
  • Satirical Legal Studies: from the Legists to the Lizard
    Michigan Law Review Volume 103 Issue 3 2004 Satirical Legal Studies: From the Legists to the Lizard Peter Goodrich Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr Part of the Law and Philosophy Commons, Law and Society Commons, Legal Profession Commons, and the Legal Writing and Research Commons Recommended Citation Peter Goodrich, Satirical Legal Studies: From the Legists to the Lizard, 103 MICH. L. REV. 397 (2004). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol103/iss3/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Law Review at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SATIRICAL LEGAL STUDIES: FROM THE LEGISTS TO THE LIZARD Peter Goodrich* ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .................... .............................................. ........ .... ..... ..... 399 I. FRAGMENTA ANTIQUITATIS (THE ENDURING TRADITION) .. 415 A. The Civilian Tradition .......................................................... 416 B. The Sermon on the Laws ......................... ............................. 419 C. Satirical Themes ....................... ............................................. 422 1. Personification .... ............................................................. 422 2. Novelty .......................................
    [Show full text]
  • Ross and Olivecrona on Rights
    Scholarship Repository University of Minnesota Law School Articles Faculty Scholarship 2009 Ross and Olivecrona on Rights Brian H. Bix University of Minnesota Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/faculty_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Brian H. Bix, Ross and Olivecrona on Rights, 34 AUSTL. J. LEG. PHIL. 103 (2009), available at https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/faculty_articles/211. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in the Faculty Scholarship collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Ross and Olivecrona on Rights BRIAN H. BIX1 Introduction The Scandinavian legal realists, critically-inclined theorists from Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, who wrote in the early and middle decades of the 20t century,2 are not as widely read as they once were in Britain, and they seemed never to have received much attention in the United States. This is unfortunate, as the work of those theorists, at their best, is as sharp in its criticisms and as sophisticated philosophically as anything written by the better known (at least better known in Britain and the United States) American legal realists, who were writing at roughly the same time. The focus of the present article, Alf Ross and Karl Olivecrona, were arguably the most accessible of the Scandinavian legal realists, with their clear prose, straight- forward style of argumentation, and the availability of a number of works in English.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Law Liberty, the Archetype and Diversity: a Philosophy of Judging
    Page1 Public Law 2010 Liberty, the archetype and diversity: a philosophy of judging Terence Etherton Subject: Administration of justice Keywords: Human rights; Integrity; Judicial decision-making; Jurisprudence; Justice; Supreme Court Legislation: Human Rights Act 1998 *P.L. 727 A conscientious judge always wishes to reach the correct decision. It is important for us that the judge does so for we wish to live in a just society. It is usually said to be a critical feature of the advanced liberal democracy, which is Great Britain today, as of other such democracies, that it is governed by the rule of law. There is no fixed meaning to that term,1 but it would at the least carry for most people the idea of law that is ascertainable and consistently and fairly applied. How can we be certain, however, that the correct decision, that is to say, the best possible decision, or at least a legitimate one, has been reached in a case in which different judges of the highest ability, knowledge and sensitivity disagree on the outcome, and either outcome would be regarded by some other judges, lawyers and citizens as correct2 ? We are not so naive as to think that difficult and important legal decisions are merely the result of a process in the nature of an algorithm. Is there, then, an analytical and adjudicative approach that will enable the conscientious judge to be confident that the decision reached is the best possible decision, and certainly a legitimate one, even if judicial colleagues, politicians and other citizens disagree with it? These are not, of course, new questions.
    [Show full text]
  • Nasty Women and the Rule of Law
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of San Francisco Nasty Women and the Rule of Law By ALICE WOOLLEY and ELYSA DARLING* “Such a nasty woman.”1 “There’s just something about her that feels castrating, overbear- ing, and scary.”2 “She undoubtedly suffered in the trial . but she was not likable.”3 “Marie Henein is a successful female lawyer at the top of her pro- fession. Total bitch.”4 “Not a feminist.”5 Introduction NO ONE ENTERS THE LEGAL PROFESSION expecting social pop- ularity—or, at least, no one should.6 But recent events create the im- * Alice Woolley is Professor of Law at the Faculty of Law, University of Calgary, and President of the International Association of Legal Ethics. Elysa Darling graduated from the University of Calgary in 2016, and currently practices law in Calgary. The authors would like to thank Amy Salyzyn and Alex Darling for their helpful comments and feedback, and Joshua Davis and the University of San Francisco School of Law for including this paper in the 2017 Workshop on Jurisprudence and Legal Ethics. 1. Daniella Diaz, Trump calls Clinton ‘a nasty woman’, CNN (Oct. 20, 2016), http:// www.cnn.com/2016/10/19/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-nasty-woman [https:// perma.cc/U94K-H8L3]. 2. Yvonne A. Tamayo, Rhymes with Rich: Power, Law and the Bitch, 21 ST. THOMAS L. REV. 281, 286 (2009) (quoting Tucker Carlson on Hillary Clinton during her 2007-2008 run for the Democratic presidential nomination). 3.
    [Show full text]
  • The Law As a Moral Enterprise Fifth Annual John Courtney Murray Lecture— November 14, 2013
    The Law As a Moral Enterprise Fifth Annual John Courtney Murray Lecture— November 14, 2013 Robert John Araujo, S.J., John Courtney Murray, S.J. University Professor, Loyola University Chicago I. Introduction First of all, I want to thank you for being at this lecture this evening. I am grateful for your attendance and participation!1 In preparing my remarks for this fifth lecture in a series that I pray will continue, I recalled that this fall marks the fortieth anniversary of my admission to the bar and membership in the legal profession. During these four decades, I have often heard thoughtful individuals, both professional and lay, assert that the law and morality are separate institutions. But I also recall being told something quite different by other equally thoughtful individuals—i.e., there is an overlap or an intersection between law and morality—perhaps, even an inextricable and necessary link between the two. Josiah Royce may well have been on to something to this lecture when he suggested that there exists a “moral burden of the individual”2 in his consideration of the role of the human person in society. Of course, this role includes the making and administration of law. Royce’s thoughts were further developed by the Yale historian, Robert L. Calhoun, who, in his comments on Royce, suggested that it is imperative to proper human development that the individual person 1 This lecture was not delivered as scheduled due to medical issues experienced by the author. 2 Robert L. Calhoun, Democracy and Natural Law, 5 NATURAL LAW FORUM 31, 46 (1960).
    [Show full text]
  • Reading Is Positivist Legal Ethics an Oxymoron?
    Is Positivist Legal Ethics an Oxymoron? ALICE WOOLLEY* ABSTRACT Positivist legal ethics defines the duties of lawyers in light of the structure and ethics of law, and the relationship between the system of laws and those to whom it applies. But is positivist legal ethics in fact a theory of legal ethics? That is, does it identify the ethical principles and virtues of the good lawyer? This paper argues that it does not. Positivist legal ethics provides a theory of the ethics of law, from which it identifies the duties with which lawyers must comply. The duties it identifies are legal, not moral or ethical. That does not make positivist legal ethics wrong, but it does have important implications for the scope and limits of the theory. It means certain questions are central to positivist legal ethics that may not be that important to other theories (e.g., how law ought to be interpreted or reformed). But at the same time there are other questions that positivist legal ethics cannot answer. Moral questions left to law­ yers’ discretion or that the law does not address, and the point at which a law­ yer may simply be unwilling to violate moral norms even if her role requires it, are things which positivist legal ethics cannot illuminate. Understanding the scope and limits of positivist legal ethics is essential for those who want to write and teach from that perspective, as well as for those who challenge it. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ......................................... 78 I. POSITIVIST LEGAL ETHICS ............................ 83 A. THE POSITIVIST PERSPECTIVE ON LAW .............
    [Show full text]
  • University of Southampton Research Repository Eprints Soton
    University of Southampton Research Repository ePrints Soton Copyright © and Moral Rights for this thesis are retained by the author and/or other copyright owners. A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder/s. The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given e.g. AUTHOR (year of submission) "Full thesis title", University of Southampton, name of the University School or Department, PhD Thesis, pagination http://eprints.soton.ac.uk UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON FACULTY OF BUSINESS AND LAW School of Law Agamben, the Exception and Law by Thomas Michael Frost Thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy August 2011 ii iii UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON ABSTRACT FACULTY OF BUSINESS AND LAW SCHOOL OF LAW Doctor of Philosophy AGAMBEN, THE EXCEPTION AND LAW by Thomas Michael Frost Giorgio Agamben‘s work has been at the forefront of modern debates surrounding sovereign exceptionalism and emergency powers. His theory of the state of exception and engagements with Michel Foucault appear to focus upon sovereign power‘s ability to remove legal protections from life with impunity, described by the figure of homo sacer. Much secondary scholarship concentrates upon this engagement. This thesis contends that this approach is too narrow and assimilates Agamben‘s work into Foucault‘s own thought.
    [Show full text]
  • Constructing Human Dignity: an Investment Concept Submitted By
    Daniel Bedford 31/10/2015 Constructing Human Dignity: An Investment Concept Submitted by Daniel Jonathan William Bedford to the University of Exeter as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Law In December 2014 This thesis is available for Library use on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement. I certify that all material in this thesis which is not my own work has been identified and that no material has previously been submitted and approved for the award of a degree by this or any other University. Signature: 1 Daniel Bedford 31/10/2015 2 Daniel Bedford 31/10/2015 Abstract: This thesis explores the meaning of human dignity in law and its potential value as a legal concept. It claims that existing methods of analysis are predominantly caught up with seeking a fixed and conventional meaning, which has proven difficult and has invariably led to claims that the concept is vague or vacuous. In this light, the thesis proposes a fresh method of conceptual analysis that progresses the current debate on the meaning of the concept in a more fruitful and productive direction. It seeks to shift the focus of analysis away from the formal search for a clear concept that is simply there to be applied or repeated, in favour of constructing the concept to respond to the shifting problems that emerge in life, as well as unlocking new pathways to promote more dynamic, rich, active and joyful modes of living.
    [Show full text]
  • The Justification of Basic Rights: a Discourse-Theoretical Approach1 Rainer Forst
    The Justification of Basic Rights: A Discourse-Theoretical Approach1 Rainer Forst 1. Justifying Basic Rights Very few people doubt that it is a fundamental demand of justice that members of legal- political normative orders ought to have legal rights that define their basic standing as subjects of such an order.2 But when it comes to the concrete understanding of such rights, debates abound. What is the nature of these rights – are they an expression of the sovereign will of individuals, or are they based on important human interests? How should these rights be justified – do they have a particular moral ground, and if so, only one or many? In what follows, I suggest a discourse theory of basic legal rights that answers such questions in a way that I argue is superior to rival approaches, such as a will-based or an interest-based theory of rights. The main argument runs as follows.3 Basic rights are reciprocally and generally valid – i.e. mutually justifiable – claims4 on others (agents or institutions) that they should do or refrain from doing certain things determined by the content of these rights. We call these rights basic or fundamental because they define the status of persons as full members of a normative order in such a way that they provide 1 Many thanks for helpful critical remarks to the editors of this journal, Lisette ten Haaf, Elaine Mak and Bertjan Wolthuis and to my critics at the occasion of the VWR conference in June 2016 to whom I will have the pleasure to reply: Laura Valentini, Marcus Düwell, Glen Newey and Stefan Rummens.
    [Show full text]
  • Can the Law Help Us to Be Moral?1
    Can the Law Help Us to be Moral?1 Kimberley Brownlee and Richard Child A good constitution is not to be expected from morality, but, conversely, a good moral condition of a people is to be expected only under a good constitution. Immanuel Kant, Perpetual Peace2 1. Introduction There are many interpretations of what it means to be moral and, hence, many ways of interpreting whether the law can help us to be moral. For consequentialists, what matters is whether the law can help us to realise more valuable states of affairs than those we could realise without it. For deontologists, the issue is whether the law can help us to honour our moral duties better than we could do without it. And for virtue ethicists, the question is whether the law can help us to be more virtuous than we could be without it. In this essay, we consider our central question from all three of these perspectives. In doing so, we are careful to distinguish between (a) the general concept of law and (b) the actual law of any particular legal system. We argue that, although the law does have the potential to help us to be moral in each of the three ways just noted, many actual legal systems are conducive to great immorality and injustice. Being moral and living well under such regimes is likely to be much harder than it would be otherwise, even in the absence of any legal system. 2. The Instrumental Value and Intrinsic Value of Law If the law can indeed help us to be moral, its value is either instrumental or intrinsic (or both).
    [Show full text]
  • Catalog of Books in Library
    KKKARNATAKA JJJUDICIAL AAACADEMY Crescent House, Crescent Road Bangalore ––– 560 001 Sl. Title Author No. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 01 An Introduction to Administration Peter Cane 02 Administrative Law Massey 03 Administrative Law D. J. Galligon 04 Indian Administrative Law (in 3 Vols.) Wadhwa 05 Administrative Law Wade 06 Administration & Regulation Policy Breyer Administrative system of developing Societies 07 R.D. Sharma 08 Administration of Justice Mackey 09 Administrative Law Craig 10 Administrative Law D. D. Basu 11 Principles of Administrative Law Jain Cases & Materials on Indian Administrative Law ( in 3 12 Jain Vols.) 13 Administrative Law Sathe ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS Central Administrative Tribunal Digest 14 Malik (in 2 Vols.) ADVERSE POSSESSION 15 Adverse Possession M.R. Murthy 16 Adverse Possession Krishnaswamy ADVOCATES & ADVOCACY Art of a Lawyer, Advocacy, 17 Malik’s Cross-examination AFFIDAVITS 18 Affidavits Narayan 19 Law of Affidavits Bakshi 20 APARTMENT OF OWNERSHIP 21 Apartment of Ownership KLJ Publication APPEALS 22 Law of Appeals Narayan’s 23 Powers of Appellate Revisional Courts LLB Publication 24 Civil Appeals and Revisions (in 3 Vols) Banerjee’s 25 Criminal Appeals Banerjee 1 KKKARNATAKA JJJUDICIAL AAACADEMY Crescent House, Crescent Road Bangalore ––– 560 001 Sl. Title Author No. ARBITRATION 26 Arbitration & Conciliation Act C. Rao 27 Law of Arbitration & Conciliation Act Basu 28 Law of Arbitration & Conciliation Malik 29 Law of Arbitration & Conciliation Bachawat’s 30 Supreme Court on an Arbitration Ashwani 31 Law
    [Show full text]