Judicial Discretion as a Result of Systemic Indeterminacy

IF 0.4 Q3 LAW

Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence Pub Date : 2020-06-09 DOI:10.1017/cjlj.2020.7

Sebastián A. Reyes Molina

引用次数: 2

Abstract

The topic of ‘judicial discretion’ has been at the center of the debate on legal interpretation in the philosophy of law.1 In a general sense, ‘discretion’ here refers to the exercise of a judgment by a decision-maker due to the lack of legal constraints affecting one’s ability to decide a case. The most fundamental question on this topic is ‘do judges have discretion when interpreting the law?’ There are three kinds of answers to this query. One kind of answer states that judges never have discretion.2 Another kind of answer states that judges always have discretion in interpretation.3 The third kind of answer states that judges sometimes have discretion when interpreting the law, and sometimes they do not.4

查看原文本刊更多论文

制度不确定性导致的司法自由裁量权

在法律哲学中，“司法自由裁量权”一直是法律解释辩论的中心。1在一般意义上，这里的“自由裁量”是指决策者由于缺乏影响其裁决能力的法律约束而行使判决。关于这个话题，最根本的问题是“法官在解释法律时有自由裁量权吗？”这个问题有三种答案。一种答案说法官从来没有自由裁量权。2另一种答案是法官在解释法律时总是有自由裁量。3第三种答案说，法官在解释法时有时有自由裁裁量权，有时没有。4

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence LAW-

CiteScore

1.10

自引率

16.70%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence serves as a forum for special and general jurisprudence and legal philosophy. It publishes articles that address the nature of law, that engage in philosophical analysis or criticism of legal doctrine, that examine the form and nature of legal or judicial reasoning, that investigate issues concerning the ethical aspects of legal practice, and that study (from a philosophical perspective) concrete legal issues facing contemporary society. The journal does not use case notes, nor does it publish articles focussing on issues particular to the laws of a single nation. The Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence is published on behalf of the Faculty of Law, Western University.