自下而上与自上而下的立法

IF 1.9 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW
J. Rachlinski
{"title":"自下而上与自上而下的立法","authors":"J. Rachlinski","doi":"10.7551/mitpress/3488.003.0011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Democratic legal systems make law in one of two ways: by abstracting general principles from the decisions made in individual cases (from the bottom up); or by declaring general principles through a centralized authority that are to be applied in individual cases (from the top down). These two processes are, respectively, adjudication and legislation. Each process presents the underlying legal issue from a different cognitive perspective, highlighting and hiding different aspects of a legal problem. The single-case perspective of adjudication can seem cognitively inferior to the broad perspectives that legislatures can incorporate into their decision-making processes, but adjudication also has its advantages. The adjudicative approach, however, has advantages that are less obvious. Notably, the adjudicative process is more likely to facilitate that adoption of simple, elegant rules for decision making. The assessment of which approach is superior is therefore indeterminate. Each has its strengths and weaknesses that make it more or less appropriate for different contexts.","PeriodicalId":51436,"journal":{"name":"University of Chicago Law Review","volume":"34 1","pages":"4"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2005-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"36","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bottom-up versus Top-down Lawmaking\",\"authors\":\"J. Rachlinski\",\"doi\":\"10.7551/mitpress/3488.003.0011\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Democratic legal systems make law in one of two ways: by abstracting general principles from the decisions made in individual cases (from the bottom up); or by declaring general principles through a centralized authority that are to be applied in individual cases (from the top down). These two processes are, respectively, adjudication and legislation. Each process presents the underlying legal issue from a different cognitive perspective, highlighting and hiding different aspects of a legal problem. The single-case perspective of adjudication can seem cognitively inferior to the broad perspectives that legislatures can incorporate into their decision-making processes, but adjudication also has its advantages. The adjudicative approach, however, has advantages that are less obvious. Notably, the adjudicative process is more likely to facilitate that adoption of simple, elegant rules for decision making. The assessment of which approach is superior is therefore indeterminate. Each has its strengths and weaknesses that make it more or less appropriate for different contexts.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51436,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"University of Chicago Law Review\",\"volume\":\"34 1\",\"pages\":\"4\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2005-09-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"36\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"University of Chicago Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3488.003.0011\",\"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":"University of Chicago Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3488.003.0011","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: 36

摘要

民主的法律体系以两种方式之一制定法律:从个别案件的决定中抽象出一般原则(自下而上);或者通过一个将在个别情况下应用的中央权威机构宣布一般原则(从上到下)。这两个过程分别是审判和立法。每个过程从不同的认知角度呈现潜在的法律问题,突出和隐藏法律问题的不同方面。单一案例裁决的视角在认知上似乎不如立法机构可以纳入其决策过程的广泛视角,但裁决也有其优势。然而,裁决方式有不太明显的优势。值得注意的是,裁决程序更有可能促进采用简单、优雅的决策规则。因此,对哪一种方法更好的评估是不确定的。每一种都有自己的优点和缺点,使其或多或少适用于不同的环境。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Bottom-up versus Top-down Lawmaking
Democratic legal systems make law in one of two ways: by abstracting general principles from the decisions made in individual cases (from the bottom up); or by declaring general principles through a centralized authority that are to be applied in individual cases (from the top down). These two processes are, respectively, adjudication and legislation. Each process presents the underlying legal issue from a different cognitive perspective, highlighting and hiding different aspects of a legal problem. The single-case perspective of adjudication can seem cognitively inferior to the broad perspectives that legislatures can incorporate into their decision-making processes, but adjudication also has its advantages. The adjudicative approach, however, has advantages that are less obvious. Notably, the adjudicative process is more likely to facilitate that adoption of simple, elegant rules for decision making. The assessment of which approach is superior is therefore indeterminate. Each has its strengths and weaknesses that make it more or less appropriate for different contexts.
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
2.40
自引率
5.00%
发文量
2
期刊介绍: The University of Chicago Law Review is a quarterly journal of legal scholarship. Often cited in Supreme Court and other court opinions, as well as in other scholarly works, it is among the most influential journals in the field. Students have full responsibility for editing and publishing the Law Review; they also contribute original scholarship of their own. The Law Review"s editorial board selects all pieces for publication and, with the assistance of staff members, performs substantive and technical edits on each of these pieces prior to publication.
×
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