让法律理由为自己说话:Gutachten的法律形式及其启示

Jacco Bomhoff
{"title":"让法律理由为自己说话:Gutachten的法律形式及其启示","authors":"Jacco Bomhoff","doi":"10.1080/1535685x.2023.2259670","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Roughly translatable as “expert memorandum,” the term Gutachten and its cognates refer to, at once, a textual format, a problem-solving technique, and a highly distinctive writing style at the heart of German law and legal education. This article is interested in what this format, technique, and style do, and in how they do it. To this end, it invokes the concept of affordances, to study the way the Gutachten’s formal characteristics are implicated in the production of legitimacy effects. The most important of these combine into a dual disappearance of both author and artefact. This leaves the abstract form of the Gutachten as a transparent and fractal rendering of legal reason itself. The article, finally, builds on this case study of a legal form central to German law and legal thought, to offer reflections on method for the comparative study of legal reasoning formats, techniques, and styles. The suggestion will be that grasping legitimacy effects and uncovering how they may help sustain local legal actors’ commitments to their reasoning tools, will require a cultural study of legal form, containing at least some moment during which critique is suspended.","PeriodicalId":360932,"journal":{"name":"Law and Literature","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Getting Legal Reason to Speak for Itself: The Legal Form of the <i>Gutachten</i> and Its Affordances\",\"authors\":\"Jacco Bomhoff\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/1535685x.2023.2259670\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Roughly translatable as “expert memorandum,” the term Gutachten and its cognates refer to, at once, a textual format, a problem-solving technique, and a highly distinctive writing style at the heart of German law and legal education. This article is interested in what this format, technique, and style do, and in how they do it. To this end, it invokes the concept of affordances, to study the way the Gutachten’s formal characteristics are implicated in the production of legitimacy effects. The most important of these combine into a dual disappearance of both author and artefact. This leaves the abstract form of the Gutachten as a transparent and fractal rendering of legal reason itself. The article, finally, builds on this case study of a legal form central to German law and legal thought, to offer reflections on method for the comparative study of legal reasoning formats, techniques, and styles. The suggestion will be that grasping legitimacy effects and uncovering how they may help sustain local legal actors’ commitments to their reasoning tools, will require a cultural study of legal form, containing at least some moment during which critique is suspended.\",\"PeriodicalId\":360932,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Law and Literature\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Law and Literature\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/1535685x.2023.2259670\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law and Literature","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1535685x.2023.2259670","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

大致可译为“专家备忘录”,Gutachten一词及其同源词同时指的是一种文本格式、一种解决问题的技巧,以及一种高度独特的写作风格,这些都是德国法律和法律教育的核心。本文感兴趣的是这种格式、技术和风格的作用,以及它们是如何做到的。为了达到这个目的,它引用了启示的概念,来研究Gutachten的形式特征是如何与合法性效应的产生相关联的。其中最重要的是作者和人工制品的双重消失。这使得Gutachten的抽象形式成为法律理性本身的透明和分形呈现。最后,本文以德国法律和法律思想的核心法律形式的案例研究为基础,对法律推理形式、技术和风格的比较研究提供方法上的思考。我的建议是,掌握合法性的影响,并揭示它们如何有助于维持当地法律行为者对其推理工具的承诺,将需要对法律形式进行文化研究,其中至少包含一些暂停批评的时刻。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Getting Legal Reason to Speak for Itself: The Legal Form of the Gutachten and Its Affordances
Roughly translatable as “expert memorandum,” the term Gutachten and its cognates refer to, at once, a textual format, a problem-solving technique, and a highly distinctive writing style at the heart of German law and legal education. This article is interested in what this format, technique, and style do, and in how they do it. To this end, it invokes the concept of affordances, to study the way the Gutachten’s formal characteristics are implicated in the production of legitimacy effects. The most important of these combine into a dual disappearance of both author and artefact. This leaves the abstract form of the Gutachten as a transparent and fractal rendering of legal reason itself. The article, finally, builds on this case study of a legal form central to German law and legal thought, to offer reflections on method for the comparative study of legal reasoning formats, techniques, and styles. The suggestion will be that grasping legitimacy effects and uncovering how they may help sustain local legal actors’ commitments to their reasoning tools, will require a cultural study of legal form, containing at least some moment during which critique is suspended.
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