Law, Truth, and Reason: A Treatise on Legal Argumentation

307 Pages·2011·2.44 MB·English

by  Raimo Siltala (auth.)

LAW,TRUTH,ANDREASON
Law and Philosophy Library
VOLUME97
SeriesEditors:
FRANCISCOJ.LAPORTA,DepartmentofLaw,
AutonomousUniversityofMadrid,Spain
FREDERICKSCHAUER,SchoolofLaw,UniversityofVirginia,U.S.A.
TORBENSPAAK,UppsalaUniversity,Sweden
FormerSeriesEditors:
AULISAARNIO,MICHAELD.BAYLES†,CONRADD.JOHNSON†,
ALANMABE,ALEKSANDERPECZENIK†
EditorialAdvisoryBoard:
AULISAARNIO,SecretaryGeneraloftheTampereClub,Finland
HUMBERTOÁVILA,FederalUniversityofSouthBrazil,Brazil
ZENONBANKOWSKI,CentreforLawandSociety,UniversityofEdinburgh,
UnitedKingdom
PAOLOCOMANDUCCI,UniversityofGenoa,Italy
HUGHCORDER,UniversityofCapeTown,SouthAfrica
DAVIDDYZENHAUS,UniversityofToronto,Canada
ERNESTOGARZÓNVALDÉS,InstitutfürPolitikwissenschaft,Johannes
GutenbergUniversitat,Mainz,Germany
RICCARDOGUASTINI,UniversityofGenoa,Italy
JOHNKLEINIG,DepartmentofLaw,PoliceScienceandCriminalJustice
Administration,JohnJayCollegeofCriminalJustice,CityUniversityofNewYork,
U.S.A.
PATRICIAMINDUS,UniversitàDegliStudidiTorino,Italy
YASUTOMOMORIGIWA,NagoyaUniversity,Japan
GIOVANNIBATTISTARATTI,“JuandelaCierva”FellowinLaw,Facultyof
Law,UniversityofGirona,Spain
WOJCIECHSADURSKI,EuropeanUniversityInstitute,DepartmentofLaw,
Florence,Italy
HORACIOSPECTOR,UniversidadTorcuatoDiTella,Argentina
ROBERTS.SUMMERS,SchoolofLaw,CornellUniversity,U.S.A.
MICHELTROPER,Membredel’InstitutUniversitairedeFrance,France
CARLWELLMAN,DepartmentofPhilosophy,WashingtonUniversity,U.S.A.
Forfurthervolumes:
http://www.springer.com/series/6210
LAW, TRUTH,
AND REASON
A Treatise on Legal Argumentation
Raimo Siltala
UniversityofTurku,Finland
123
RaimoSiltala
ProfessorinJurisprudence
FacultyofLaw
Caloniankuja3
20014UniversityofTurku
raimo.siltala@utu.fi
ISSN1572-4395
ISBN978-94-007-1871-5 e-ISBN978-94-007-1872-2
DOI10.1007/978-94-007-1872-2
SpringerDordrechtHeidelbergLondonNewYork
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2011931967
©SpringerScience+BusinessMediaB.V.2011
Nopartofthisworkmaybereproduced,storedinaretrievalsystem,ortransmittedinanyformorby
anymeans,electronic,mechanical,photocopying,microfilming,recordingorotherwise,withoutwritten
permissionfromthePublisher,withtheexceptionofanymaterialsuppliedspecificallyforthepurpose
ofbeingenteredandexecutedonacomputersystem,forexclusiveusebythepurchaserofthework.
Printedonacid-freepaper
SpringerispartofSpringerScience+BusinessMedia(www.springer.com)
Acknowledgments
I wish to thank the Faculty of Law atthe University of Turku for itsopen-minded
academicatmosphereandforprovidingmethefundingandallthefacilitiesIneeded
in writing this book. Also, I wish to thank the Faculty of Law at the University
of Helsinki for kindly letting me use one of their workrooms during the research
processwhilestayinginHelsinki.
IwishtothankprofessorAulisAarnioandthelateprofessorNeilMacCormick
for initiating me to the path of philosophy and jurisprudence already some years
ago.
I wish to thank my friends and colleagues at the joint reading circle and
researcher seminar that started in 2005 with an analysis of Neil MacCormick’s
impressiveworksonjurisprudence.Theprojecthasbeenactiveeversince.Together,
wehavereadsomeofthemostprominentworksonjurisprudenceandlegalphilos-
ophytoday,andweevenhadtheprivilegeofhearingeachoftheauthorsinperson
at the concluding seminar held in Finland: Neil MacCormick (in 2006), Ronald
Dworkin (in 2008), and Robert Alexy (in 2010). Now, we are reading John R.
Searle’sphilosophicalworks,hopingtohavehimasourguestofhonorin2012.Of
my many friends in the group, I would like to name the ‘Four Musketeers’ here,
i.e. Mikko Huuskonen, Matti Kunnas, Max Oker-Blom, and Ari Wirén, without
forgettingtheothers.
I wish to thank the Series Editors at Springer for approving my manuscript in
theesteemedLawandPhilosophyLibrary.IthinkIamveryfortunateinthis,since
one of my main sources of inspiration here, i.e. Jerzy Wróblewski’s The Judicial
ApplicationofLaw,waspublishedintheverysameseriesin1992,thenhostedby
KluwerAcademicPublishers.IwishtothankNeilOlivierandDianaNijenhuijzenat
Springerfortheirprolificmasteringofthelegalandadministrativeissuesinvolved.
Moreover, I wish to thank Anandhi Bashyam and her team in India for their very
skilful editorial and technical work in the process of transforming the manuscript
intoabookonlegalreasoning.
Finally, I wish to thank my companion Tuija for her lasting love and passion
for a man who all too often vanishes into the unknown of legal philosophy and
jurisprudence;ourtwodaughtersVenlaandAnnaforremindingmethatthereislife
outsidetheuniversity,aswell;andmyparentsLauraandTatufortheirunconditional
love,encouragement,andsupportinallmylife.
v
ThisisBlankPageIntegra vi
Contents
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 TheThreeIdeologiesofJudicialDecision-Makingby
JerzyWróblewski. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 TheThreeSituationsofLegalDecision-Makingby
KaarleMakkonen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.3 The Subject Matter of the Treatise: Legal
Argumentation,orHowtoConstructandReadtheLaw
inaReasonedManner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.4 TheConceptofaFrameofLegalAnalysis . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.5 TheTheoriesofTruthandLegalAnalysis . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1.6 The Semantics of Law: Rudolf Carnap’s Method
ofExtensionandIntension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2 AnIsomorphicTheoryofLaw:ARelationofStructural
SimilarityBetweentheTwoFact-ConstellationsCompared . . . . 29
2.1 KaarleMakkonenonLegalIsomorphism . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.2 The Picture Theory of Language in Ludwig
Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, as
ReadinLightofErikStenius’Wittgenstein’sTractatus.
ACriticalExpositionoftheMainLinesofThought . . . . . . . 31
2.2.1 The Internal Categorial Structure and the
ExternalConfigurationStructureofReality . . . . . . 31
2.2.2 ALegalFact-SituationasanAnalysedFact-Situation . 36
2.3 TheTwoRequirementsPlacedonLegalIsomorphism . . . . . 41
2.4 The Transition From an Isomorphic Situation to a
SituationofSemanticAmbiguity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
2.5 LegalIsomorphismandInstitutionalFacts . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
2.6 TheSemanticTheoryofTruthbyAlfredTarski . . . . . . . . . 47
2.7 ACriticalEvaluationoftheIsomorphicTheoryofLaw . . . . . 48
3 CoherenceTheoryofLaw:SharedCongruenceAmong
Arguments Drawn from the Institutional and Societal
SourcesofLaw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3.1 TruthAsCoherenceAmongtheSentencesofaScientific
Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
vii
viii Contents
3.2 InSearchfortheConceptofCoherence . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
3.2.1 A Quantitative Approach: “The
More/Longer/Greater (...), the More
CoherenttheTheory” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
3.2.2 A Qualitative Approach: “That the Law is
StructuredbyaCoherentSetofPrinciples
AboutJusticeandFairnessandProceduralDue
Process...” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
3.3 The Duhem-Quine Thesis: The Inherently Holistic
andUnderdeterminedCharacterofaScientificTheory,
andItsImplicationsforLegalAnalysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
3.4 TowardsPartialCoherenceinLaw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
3.5 TheConceptofCoherenceRedefined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
3.6 ACriticalEvaluationoftheCoherenceTheoryofLaw . . . . . 77
4 “Between the Evident and the Irrational”: The New
RhetoricandLegalArgumentationTheory . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
4.1 TheVarietiesofPragmatismandtheLaw . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
4.2 The Universal Audience as a Subjective Thought
ConstructoftheSpeakerbyChaïmPerelman . . . . . . . . . . 81
4.3 TheRealmofRhetoricandtheQuestforValue-Cognitivism . . 87
4.4 TheNewRhetoricandItsAlternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
5 PhilosophicalPragmatism:Law,JudgedinLightofIts
SocialEffects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
5.1 “What,InShort,istheTruth’sCashValueinExperiential
Terms?” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
5.2 TheLureofPragmatismandtheLaw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
5.3 “TheseDoctrinesFormaSystemforInducingPeople
toBehaveEfficiently...” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
5.4 “Why Efficiency?” and “Is Wealth a Value?” – A
CriticalEvaluationoftheEconomicAnalysisofLaw,
withBriefCommentsontheMarxistTheoryofLaw . . . . . . 108
6 Analytical Legal Positivism: Retracing the Original
IntentionsoftheLegislatorUnderLegalExegesis . . . . . . . . . . 113
6.1 ScientificPositivismDefined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
6.2 WhatIsAnalyticalPhilosophy? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
6.3 LegalPositivismDefined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
6.4 TheSagaofModernLegalPositivism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
6.4.1 AnalyticalLegalPositivism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
6.4.2 InstitutionalLegalPositivism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
6.4.3 ExclusiveandInclusiveLegalPositivism . . . . . . . . 132
6.5 TheUnresolvableDilemmaofKaarloTuori’sCritical
LegalPositivism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
Contents ix
6.6 OneStep(orTwo)BackinHistory:TheExegetical
School of Law (École de l’Exégèse) in France and
BelgiumintheNineteenthCentury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
6.7 ACriticalEvaluationofLegalExegesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
7 LegalRealism:TheLawinAction,NottheLawinBooks,
AstheSubjectMatterofLegalAnalysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
7.1 PhilosophicalRealismDefined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
7.2 LegalRealism,AmericanandScandinavian . . . . . . . . . . . 148
7.3 TheLegacyofAmericanLegalRealism . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
7.4 TheConceptofAJudicialIdeologybyAlfRoss,and
theRuleofRecognitionbyH.L.A.Hart . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
7.5 TheFormalValidityandEfficientEnforcementofLaw . . . . . 160
7.6 ACriticalEvaluationofAnalyticalLegalRealism . . . . . . . 162
8 LegalConventionalism:LawasanExpressionofCollective
Intentionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
8.1 BruteFactsandInstitutionalFacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
8.2 The Definitional Characteristics of Institutional
Facts by John R. Searle, with Special Concern
forSelf-Referentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
8.3 ConventionsasMutualExpectationsoftheMembers
ofaCommunity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
8.4 Nominalismvs.Realism:AreIntentionsAttributable
toaCollectiveAgentasaWholeortoItsIndividual
MembersOnly?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
8.5 TheInstitutionallyQualifiedCharacterofLegalConventions . . 179
8.6 Shared Legal Convictions as an Expression of the
Volksgeist,ortheSpiritoftheNation,byFriedrichCarl
vonSavigny. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
8.7 TheTransformationsofCustomaryLawinModernSociety . . 183
8.8 LegalConventionalismandLegalArgumentationTheory . . . . 185
9 “DieRechtssätzeinihremsystematischenZusammenhangzu
erkennen”–TheThrustofLegalFormalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
9.1 AGenealogyofLegalConceptsbyGeorgFriedrichPuchta. . . 187
9.2 AJurisprudence,BasedonLegalConceptsandTheir
SystemicRelations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
9.3 TheLangdellianOrthodoxy–ABriefAccountofLegal
FormalisminAmerica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
9.4 TheConstitutiveElementsofLegalFormalitybyRobert
S.Summers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
9.5 “DerZweckistderSchöpferdesganzenRechts”–A
CritiqueofLegalFormalismbyRudolfvonJheringand
LonL.Fuller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196