The Concept of National Law and the Rule of Recognition

M. Eisenberg
{"title":"The Concept of National Law and the Rule of Recognition","authors":"M. Eisenberg","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.316864","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"It is a commonly held position that a rule cannot be a legal rule unless it is binding; or to put it differently, that one element that distinguishes legal rules from other kinds of rules is that legal rules are regarded as binding by duly constituted officials - typically, courts - who are called upon to apply them. Similarly, it is an often-held position that the law consists of the rules of a jurisdiction that are duly enacted or adopted by officials who have the power to make rules that are binding in the jurisdiction. The thesis of this article is that both positions are incorrect. I begin by developing a concept that I call national law. The concept of national law is that there is a body of law in the United States that is made by officials across jurisdictions, legal scholars, and scholarly institutions, which constitutes law despite the fact that it is not binding in, and is not necessarily made by, officials of a deciding jurisdiction. Examples of national law are the rules that a donative promise is enforceable if relied upon, that an acceptance is effective on dispatch, and that the remedy for breach of a bargain contract is expectation damages. National law is law because, as I show, under the practice of the legal profession, particularly the courts, the rules of national law (and not simply the reasons for those rules) are invoked as legal rules of decision. Next, I take the concept of a rule of recognition as a postulate, and develop the following four principles concerning the meaning, application, and scope of that concept, which are independent of, but exemplified by, the concept of national law: (1) The social group that must accept a secondary rule for the rule to constitute a rule of recognition is the legal profession, rather than simply judges and other officials. (2) Whether the legal profession accepts a secondary rule as a rule of recognition can be determined by examining the kinds of primary rules that are invoked by the profession as legal rules in resolving legal issues in general, and deciding cases in particular. (3) A rule can be a legal rule even though it is not binding. (4) In the United States, law is made not only by judges and other officials of the deciding jurisdiction, but also by the national judiciary, legal scholars, and professional institutions (in particular, the American Law Institute).","PeriodicalId":81266,"journal":{"name":"Florida State University law review. Florida State University. College of Law","volume":"1998 1","pages":"1229"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Florida State University law review. Florida State University. College of Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.316864","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

It is a commonly held position that a rule cannot be a legal rule unless it is binding; or to put it differently, that one element that distinguishes legal rules from other kinds of rules is that legal rules are regarded as binding by duly constituted officials - typically, courts - who are called upon to apply them. Similarly, it is an often-held position that the law consists of the rules of a jurisdiction that are duly enacted or adopted by officials who have the power to make rules that are binding in the jurisdiction. The thesis of this article is that both positions are incorrect. I begin by developing a concept that I call national law. The concept of national law is that there is a body of law in the United States that is made by officials across jurisdictions, legal scholars, and scholarly institutions, which constitutes law despite the fact that it is not binding in, and is not necessarily made by, officials of a deciding jurisdiction. Examples of national law are the rules that a donative promise is enforceable if relied upon, that an acceptance is effective on dispatch, and that the remedy for breach of a bargain contract is expectation damages. National law is law because, as I show, under the practice of the legal profession, particularly the courts, the rules of national law (and not simply the reasons for those rules) are invoked as legal rules of decision. Next, I take the concept of a rule of recognition as a postulate, and develop the following four principles concerning the meaning, application, and scope of that concept, which are independent of, but exemplified by, the concept of national law: (1) The social group that must accept a secondary rule for the rule to constitute a rule of recognition is the legal profession, rather than simply judges and other officials. (2) Whether the legal profession accepts a secondary rule as a rule of recognition can be determined by examining the kinds of primary rules that are invoked by the profession as legal rules in resolving legal issues in general, and deciding cases in particular. (3) A rule can be a legal rule even though it is not binding. (4) In the United States, law is made not only by judges and other officials of the deciding jurisdiction, but also by the national judiciary, legal scholars, and professional institutions (in particular, the American Law Institute).
国内法概念与承认规则
人们普遍认为,除非规则具有约束力,否则它不能成为法律规则;或者换句话说,将法律规则与其他类型的规则区分开来的一个因素是,法律规则被正式组成的官员——通常是法院——视为具有约束力,他们被要求实施这些规则。同样,人们经常持有的观点是,法律由管辖权的规则组成,这些规则由有权制定在管辖权内具有约束力的规则的官员正式颁布或采用。本文的论点是,这两种观点都是不正确的。我首先提出一个概念,我称之为国内法。国家法律的概念是,在美国有一个由跨司法管辖区的官员、法律学者和学术机构制定的法律体系,尽管它不具有约束力,也不一定是由决定司法管辖区的官员制定的,但它构成了法律。国内法的例子有下列规定:捐赠承诺如被信赖即可强制执行;承诺在发送时有效;违反买卖合同的补救办法是预期损害赔偿。正如我所指出的,国内法之所以是法律,是因为在法律职业,特别是法院的实践中,国内法的规则(而不仅仅是这些规则的理由)被援引为决定的法律规则。接下来,我将承认规则的概念作为一种假设,并就这一概念的含义、适用和范围发展出以下四项原则,这些原则独立于国内法的概念,但又得到国内法的例证:(1)必须接受一条次要规则才能构成承认规则的社会群体是法律专业人士,而不仅仅是法官和其他官员。(2)法律界是否接受一项次要规则作为承认规则,可以通过考察法律界在解决一般法律问题和审理特定案件时援引的主要规则的种类来确定。(3)规则可以是法律规则,即使它没有约束力。(4)在美国,法律不仅由法官和其他具有裁判管辖权的官员制定,而且由国家司法机构、法律学者和专业机构(特别是美国法律协会)制定。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书