Use this URL to cite or link to this record in EThOS: http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.330451
Title: The logic of adjudication : an analysis of the grounds for judicial assertion
Author: Levin, Joel
ISNI:       0000 0000 3646 924X
Awarding Body: University of Oxford
Current Institution: University of Oxford
Date of Award: 1981
Availability of Full Text:
Access from EThOS:
Full text unavailable from EThOS. Please try the link below.
Access from Institution:
Abstract:
In the process of adjudication, judges are required to assert propositions that answer the issues a particular case raises. To understand whether the judge is correct in his assertions, a theory is needed which would explain the grounds for asserting propositions within a judicial decision. This thesis presents such a theory: that of judicial pluralism. Pluralism claims that the basis for judicial assertion lies in individual conceptions of judicial role. One uses one's conception to construct a tiered prepositional schema^ whereby particular questions may be answered. The schema is conventional, in that one's conception of role is based on beliefs about what sources a particular society demands that a judge use in reaching a decision, rather than what sources he ought to use. However, an individual's beliefs and attitudes figure prominently, as the concept of role is one about which disagreement is likely to be great. Pluralism is contrasted with three other theories. It attacks the skeptical position that assertion is subjective and a matter of personal belief, in part because that position fails to notice the conventional aspect of judicial role. It attacks the positivist position that claims that a master rule yielding a normative model can be found in legal systems, in part because that position fails to notice the disparity in positions among judges and observers due to varying propositional schemata. It attacks the position of Professor Dworkin, who claims that a theory of adjudication can always ensure a two-ordered truth value for any judicial question, in part because his position assumes agreement on concepts when such agreement is wanting. Pluralism is used to address several issues concerning reasoning within the judicial decision. It is also applied to analyze problems within contracts and constitutional law, including a discussion of the political consequences such analysis suggests.
Supervisor: Not available Sponsor: Not available
Qualification Name: Thesis (Ph.D.) Qualification Level: Doctoral
EThOS ID: uk.bl.ethos.330451  DOI: Not available
Keywords: Law
Share: