, Volume 24, Issue 2, pp 211-226,
Open Access This content is freely available online to anyone, anywhere at any time.
Date: 14 Nov 2009

Arguing About Goals: The Diminishing Scope of Legal Reasoning

Abstract

This article investigates the implications of goal-legislation for legal argumentation. In goal-regulation the legislator formulates the aims to be reached, leaving it to the norm-addressee to draft the necessary rules. On the basis of six types of hard cases, it is argued that in such a system there is hardly room for constructing a ratio legis. Legal interpretation is largely reduced to concretisation. This implies that legal argumentation tends to become highly dependent on expert (non-legal) knowledge.