制定新法。专家建议的局限性

Christoph Engel
{"title":"制定新法。专家建议的局限性","authors":"Christoph Engel","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.665521","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Doctrine is a protective tool. It shields individual lawyers from political vulnerability. They are only executing the legislator's will, or they are embedded in the legal system when relying on precedents. All lawyers know that there is an element of fiction in this narrative. Doctrine usually leaves significant room for decision making. The borderline between applying the existing and making new law is never a clear one. And not all lawyers do doctrinal work. Others openly contribute to legal reform. This paper claims that professional lawyers do indeed have a proper role in designing new law. They can help making this a more rational endeavour. Yet there is a long list of caveats to this statement: complexity and uncertainty, epistemic limitations, the autonomy of addressees and their social embeddedness, fundamental normative relativity and the autonomy of law as an institution: all of these have to be taken into account. They make the advice of legal experts more demanding and less reliable. Yet there are ways to maintain a role for expert advice, sketched in the conclusions of the paper.","PeriodicalId":247961,"journal":{"name":"Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods Research Paper Series","volume":"95 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Making New Law. The Limits of Expert Advice\",\"authors\":\"Christoph Engel\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.665521\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Doctrine is a protective tool. It shields individual lawyers from political vulnerability. They are only executing the legislator's will, or they are embedded in the legal system when relying on precedents. All lawyers know that there is an element of fiction in this narrative. Doctrine usually leaves significant room for decision making. The borderline between applying the existing and making new law is never a clear one. And not all lawyers do doctrinal work. Others openly contribute to legal reform. This paper claims that professional lawyers do indeed have a proper role in designing new law. They can help making this a more rational endeavour. Yet there is a long list of caveats to this statement: complexity and uncertainty, epistemic limitations, the autonomy of addressees and their social embeddedness, fundamental normative relativity and the autonomy of law as an institution: all of these have to be taken into account. They make the advice of legal experts more demanding and less reliable. Yet there are ways to maintain a role for expert advice, sketched in the conclusions of the paper.\",\"PeriodicalId\":247961,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods Research Paper Series\",\"volume\":\"95 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2005-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods Research Paper Series\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.665521\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods Research Paper Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.665521","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

教条是一种保护工具。它保护律师个人免受政治上的伤害。它们只是执行立法者的意志,或者在依赖先例的情况下被嵌入法律体系。所有的律师都知道这种说法有虚构的成分。原则通常会给决策留下很大的余地。适用现有法律和制定新法律之间的界限从来都不明确。并不是所有的律师都从事教理工作。其他人则公开支持司法改革。本文认为,职业律师在新法律的设计中确实发挥着应有的作用。他们可以使这成为一种更理性的努力。然而,对于这一说法,有一长串的警告:复杂性和不确定性、认知局限性、对象的自主性及其社会嵌入性、基本规范相对性和法律作为一种制度的自主性:所有这些都必须考虑在内。它们使得法律专家的建议要求更高,可靠性更低。然而,有一些方法可以保持专家建议的作用,这在论文的结论中有所概述。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Making New Law. The Limits of Expert Advice
Doctrine is a protective tool. It shields individual lawyers from political vulnerability. They are only executing the legislator's will, or they are embedded in the legal system when relying on precedents. All lawyers know that there is an element of fiction in this narrative. Doctrine usually leaves significant room for decision making. The borderline between applying the existing and making new law is never a clear one. And not all lawyers do doctrinal work. Others openly contribute to legal reform. This paper claims that professional lawyers do indeed have a proper role in designing new law. They can help making this a more rational endeavour. Yet there is a long list of caveats to this statement: complexity and uncertainty, epistemic limitations, the autonomy of addressees and their social embeddedness, fundamental normative relativity and the autonomy of law as an institution: all of these have to be taken into account. They make the advice of legal experts more demanding and less reliable. Yet there are ways to maintain a role for expert advice, sketched in the conclusions of the paper.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信