巴罗斯勋爵谈立法意图、法定目的和“永远说话”原则

IF 0.3 Q3 LAW
Jeffrey Goldsworthy
{"title":"巴罗斯勋爵谈立法意图、法定目的和“永远说话”原则","authors":"Jeffrey Goldsworthy","doi":"10.1093/slr/hmaa019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n In his 2017 Hamlyn Lectures, Professor (now Lord) Burrows set out his opinions about statutory interpretation. Given his recent appointment to the UK Supreme Court, these opinions now have more practical importance than those of most academic theorists. One of his main theses is that the modern approach to statutory interpretation, which focuses on text, context and purpose, should not include any reference to legislative intention. He dismisses this as ‘an unhelpful fiction or mask that should be avoided altogether’. I show that this thesis is mistaken, internally inconsistent, and might in practice undermine sound interpretation based on fundamental constitutional principles.","PeriodicalId":43737,"journal":{"name":"Statute Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/slr/hmaa019","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Lord Burrows on Legislative Intention, Statutory Purpose, and the ‘Always Speaking’ Principle\",\"authors\":\"Jeffrey Goldsworthy\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/slr/hmaa019\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n In his 2017 Hamlyn Lectures, Professor (now Lord) Burrows set out his opinions about statutory interpretation. Given his recent appointment to the UK Supreme Court, these opinions now have more practical importance than those of most academic theorists. One of his main theses is that the modern approach to statutory interpretation, which focuses on text, context and purpose, should not include any reference to legislative intention. He dismisses this as ‘an unhelpful fiction or mask that should be avoided altogether’. I show that this thesis is mistaken, internally inconsistent, and might in practice undermine sound interpretation based on fundamental constitutional principles.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43737,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Statute Law Review\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-10-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/slr/hmaa019\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Statute Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/slr/hmaa019\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Statute Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/slr/hmaa019","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

Burrows教授(现为Lord)在2017年的哈姆林讲座中阐述了他对法定解释的看法。鉴于他最近被任命为英国最高法院法官,这些意见现在比大多数学术理论家的意见更有实际意义。他的主要论点之一是,注重文本、上下文和目的的现代法律解释方法不应提及立法意图。他认为这是“一个毫无帮助的虚构或面具,应该完全避免”。我表明,这一论点是错误的,内部不一致,在实践中可能会破坏基于基本宪法原则的合理解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Lord Burrows on Legislative Intention, Statutory Purpose, and the ‘Always Speaking’ Principle
In his 2017 Hamlyn Lectures, Professor (now Lord) Burrows set out his opinions about statutory interpretation. Given his recent appointment to the UK Supreme Court, these opinions now have more practical importance than those of most academic theorists. One of his main theses is that the modern approach to statutory interpretation, which focuses on text, context and purpose, should not include any reference to legislative intention. He dismisses this as ‘an unhelpful fiction or mask that should be avoided altogether’. I show that this thesis is mistaken, internally inconsistent, and might in practice undermine sound interpretation based on fundamental constitutional principles.
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
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
期刊介绍: The principal objectives of the Review are to provide a vehicle for the consideration of the legislative process, the use of legislation as an instrument of public policy and of the drafting and interpretation of legislation. The Review, which was first established in 1980, is the only journal of its kind within the Commonwealth. It is of particular value to lawyers in both private practice and in public service, and to academics, both lawyers and political scientists, who write and teach within the field of legislation.
×
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