000			01994 a2200205 4500
005			20250205083757.0
020			_a9780198785675
050			_aK 212 _bLUN 2024
100	1		_aThomas, Lundmark,, _eauthor.
245	1	0	_aNiversals of legal reasoning by judges : _bA Plea for candour in decision making / _cLundmark, Thomas.
264		1	_aNew York : _bOxford University Press, _c2024.
300			_apages cm
336			_atext _btxt _2rdacontent
337			_aunmediated _bn _2rdamedia
338			_avolume _bnc _2rdacarrier
520			_a"The lion's share of the pages of this volume extract illustrations from judicial judgments that utilize one or more of a matrix of four varieties of legal argument inspired by the rich academic tradition of Germany. These varieties are denominated here as the textual, historical, purposive, and system-contextual. Briefly, textual justifications are those that are fashioned around the terms of a rule. Historical justifications focus on the circumstances surrounding the making or judicial modification of a rule. Purposive justifications explicitly employ the policies that a rule is said to promote. System-contextual justifications are those arguments that employ the terms analogical, reasonable, right, legal, constitutional, legitimate, appropriate, proportionate, fair, just, equitable, merciful, or in accordance with Treu und Glauben, good faith, the rule of law, or some other expression of justice. It is contended that this matrix of four is the most descriptive and convenient matrix of categories of legal argument. This book also exhibits dozens of instances in which judges erect a faȧde of disinterest and impartiality by stating or implying that a rule dictates a particular result when, in fact, the choice of argument or method is goal-oriented: the arguments merely serve to rationalize and justify decisions that the judges have reached"--
650			_aLegal Reasoning
942			_2lcc _cBK _h212 _iLUN _kK
999			_c11440 _d11440