现代欧洲比较法的范式:一个历史。作者:Balázs Fekete[牛津:哈特出版社,2021.]xvi + 203页。精装本70.00英镑。ISBN 978-1-50994-692-1。)

IF 1.5 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Geoffrey J. Samuel
{"title":"现代欧洲比较法的范式:一个历史。作者:Balázs Fekete[牛津:哈特出版社,2021.]xvi + 203页。精装本70.00英镑。ISBN 978-1-50994-692-1。)","authors":"Geoffrey J. Samuel","doi":"10.1017/S0008197322000563","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"that he is Napoleon? Since his claim sits so oddly with his circumstances, we hesitate to treat it as bearing its meaning upon its face. What exactly do the judges mean when they speak of rights and duties? Even if legal rights and duties may generally be viewed as a species of moral right or duty (as Raz claims), this may not be true within a legal system that has manifestly abandoned the pursuit of justice. Might not the obvious injustice of the law drain the vocabulary of its normal moral resonance, converting it into a purely technical language that applies the rules without any claim to justice or moral bindingness? If these interpretative issues could somehow be overcome, a further problem would remain. For, if “claims” can be ascribed to law on the basis of relatively narrow features, independently of the wider context within which those features exist, it is unlikely that any such claims could be regarded as integral to law’s nature. When depicted as depending exclusively upon relatively discrete features abstracted from a wider context, the claims of law come to seem superficial and contingent. Perhaps (as Christoph Kletzer has pointed out) any system of norms (such as the rules of a tennis club) could make the relevant claims, without this affecting the system’s nature in other respects. And, as Finnis has pointed out, a system resembling law in all other respects might choose to make no such claims. Consequently, it could be difficult to treat such claims as essential features of law’s nature. Law does not make claims. But the practices making up a legal order nevertheless express an idea: the idea of law. Those practices are oriented towards the idea of law in much the same way that the relationship of friendship is oriented towards the idea of friendship. Those who are friends value their friendship, and guide their conduct by respect for that value. When they no longer honour the value of friendship, they are no longer friends. Similarly, a system of governance that entirely abandons its concern with justice ceases to be a system of law. For legal thought must be guided by the idea of law, and that is an idea that is intimately bound to justice. In this imperfect world, the demands of legality and of justice may sometimes conflict. But, nevertheless, each is fully attainable only in conjunction with the other. Substantial departures from justice (falling outside the range of good faith moral disagreement but not amounting to a wholesale abandonment of justice as an aspiration) can seriously detract from legality. In such contexts, to honour the value of law, one must sometimes apply the Radbruch formula.","PeriodicalId":46389,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Paradigms in Modern European Comparative Law: A History. By Balázs Fekete. [Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2021. xvi + 203 pp. Hardback £70.00. ISBN 978-1-50994-692-1.]\",\"authors\":\"Geoffrey J. Samuel\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S0008197322000563\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"that he is Napoleon? Since his claim sits so oddly with his circumstances, we hesitate to treat it as bearing its meaning upon its face. What exactly do the judges mean when they speak of rights and duties? Even if legal rights and duties may generally be viewed as a species of moral right or duty (as Raz claims), this may not be true within a legal system that has manifestly abandoned the pursuit of justice. Might not the obvious injustice of the law drain the vocabulary of its normal moral resonance, converting it into a purely technical language that applies the rules without any claim to justice or moral bindingness? If these interpretative issues could somehow be overcome, a further problem would remain. For, if “claims” can be ascribed to law on the basis of relatively narrow features, independently of the wider context within which those features exist, it is unlikely that any such claims could be regarded as integral to law’s nature. When depicted as depending exclusively upon relatively discrete features abstracted from a wider context, the claims of law come to seem superficial and contingent. Perhaps (as Christoph Kletzer has pointed out) any system of norms (such as the rules of a tennis club) could make the relevant claims, without this affecting the system’s nature in other respects. And, as Finnis has pointed out, a system resembling law in all other respects might choose to make no such claims. Consequently, it could be difficult to treat such claims as essential features of law’s nature. Law does not make claims. But the practices making up a legal order nevertheless express an idea: the idea of law. Those practices are oriented towards the idea of law in much the same way that the relationship of friendship is oriented towards the idea of friendship. Those who are friends value their friendship, and guide their conduct by respect for that value. When they no longer honour the value of friendship, they are no longer friends. Similarly, a system of governance that entirely abandons its concern with justice ceases to be a system of law. For legal thought must be guided by the idea of law, and that is an idea that is intimately bound to justice. In this imperfect world, the demands of legality and of justice may sometimes conflict. But, nevertheless, each is fully attainable only in conjunction with the other. Substantial departures from justice (falling outside the range of good faith moral disagreement but not amounting to a wholesale abandonment of justice as an aspiration) can seriously detract from legality. In such contexts, to honour the value of law, one must sometimes apply the Radbruch formula.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46389,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cambridge Law Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cambridge Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197322000563\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cambridge Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197322000563","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

他就是拿破仑?由于他的主张与他的情况如此奇怪,我们不愿意将其视为表面上的意义。法官在谈到权利和义务时究竟是什么意思?即使法律权利和义务通常可以被视为一种道德权利或义务(正如拉兹所声称的那样),但在一个明显放弃追求正义的法律体系中,这可能不是真的。法律的明显不公正难道不会耗尽其正常道德共鸣的词汇,将其转化为一种纯粹的技术语言,在没有任何正义或道德约束的情况下应用规则吗?如果这些解释性问题能够以某种方式得到解决,那么还有一个问题。因为,如果“权利要求”可以根据相对狭窄的特征归属于法律,而不依赖于这些特征存在的更广泛的背景,那么任何此类权利要求都不太可能被视为法律性质的组成部分。当被描述为完全依赖于从更广泛的背景中抽象出来的相对离散的特征时,法律主张似乎是肤浅的和偶然的。也许(正如Christoph Kletzer所指出的)任何规范体系(如网球俱乐部的规则)都可以提出相关主张,而不会在其他方面影响该体系的性质。而且,正如芬尼斯所指出的,一个在所有其他方面都类似法律的体系可能会选择不提出这样的主张。因此,很难将这种索赔视为法律性质的基本特征。法律不会提出索赔。然而,构成法律秩序的实践却表达了一种理念:法律理念。这些做法是以法律理念为导向的,就像友谊关系是以友谊理念为导向一样。那些朋友珍视他们的友谊,并通过尊重这种价值观来指导他们的行为。当他们不再尊重友谊的价值时,他们就不再是朋友。同样,一个完全放弃对正义的关注的治理体系也不再是一个法律体系。因为法律思想必须以法律理念为指导,而法律理念与正义息息相关。在这个不完美的世界里,合法性和正义的要求有时可能会发生冲突。但是,尽管如此,每一种都只有与另一种结合才能完全实现。严重背离正义(不属于善意道德分歧的范围,但不等于完全放弃正义作为一种愿望)可能会严重损害合法性。在这种情况下,为了尊重法律的价值,有时必须应用拉德布鲁赫公式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Paradigms in Modern European Comparative Law: A History. By Balázs Fekete. [Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2021. xvi + 203 pp. Hardback £70.00. ISBN 978-1-50994-692-1.]
that he is Napoleon? Since his claim sits so oddly with his circumstances, we hesitate to treat it as bearing its meaning upon its face. What exactly do the judges mean when they speak of rights and duties? Even if legal rights and duties may generally be viewed as a species of moral right or duty (as Raz claims), this may not be true within a legal system that has manifestly abandoned the pursuit of justice. Might not the obvious injustice of the law drain the vocabulary of its normal moral resonance, converting it into a purely technical language that applies the rules without any claim to justice or moral bindingness? If these interpretative issues could somehow be overcome, a further problem would remain. For, if “claims” can be ascribed to law on the basis of relatively narrow features, independently of the wider context within which those features exist, it is unlikely that any such claims could be regarded as integral to law’s nature. When depicted as depending exclusively upon relatively discrete features abstracted from a wider context, the claims of law come to seem superficial and contingent. Perhaps (as Christoph Kletzer has pointed out) any system of norms (such as the rules of a tennis club) could make the relevant claims, without this affecting the system’s nature in other respects. And, as Finnis has pointed out, a system resembling law in all other respects might choose to make no such claims. Consequently, it could be difficult to treat such claims as essential features of law’s nature. Law does not make claims. But the practices making up a legal order nevertheless express an idea: the idea of law. Those practices are oriented towards the idea of law in much the same way that the relationship of friendship is oriented towards the idea of friendship. Those who are friends value their friendship, and guide their conduct by respect for that value. When they no longer honour the value of friendship, they are no longer friends. Similarly, a system of governance that entirely abandons its concern with justice ceases to be a system of law. For legal thought must be guided by the idea of law, and that is an idea that is intimately bound to justice. In this imperfect world, the demands of legality and of justice may sometimes conflict. But, nevertheless, each is fully attainable only in conjunction with the other. Substantial departures from justice (falling outside the range of good faith moral disagreement but not amounting to a wholesale abandonment of justice as an aspiration) can seriously detract from legality. In such contexts, to honour the value of law, one must sometimes apply the Radbruch formula.
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
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
6.70%
发文量
56
期刊介绍: The Cambridge Law Journal publishes articles on all aspects of law. Special emphasis is placed on contemporary developments, but the journal''s range includes jurisprudence and legal history. An important feature of the journal is the Case and Comment section, in which members of the Cambridge Law Faculty and other distinguished contributors analyse recent judicial decisions, new legislation and current law reform proposals. The articles and case notes are designed to have the widest appeal to those interested in the law - whether as practitioners, students, teachers, judges or administrators - and to provide an opportunity for them to keep abreast of new ideas and the progress of legal reform. Each issue also contains an extensive section of book reviews.
×
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