Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Public Law and Private Law Issues

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Neurolaw

Abstract

In this chapter, the author outlines some of the issues that, from an exclusively subjective point of view, seem to be more relevant in the field of public law. The possible consequences “neurolaw” might have on a branch of law like this cannot be overlooked, because this branch is anyway decisive, not only for the fate of an individual, but also for the destiny of the human population in general at the local, national and global level. The scope of this chapter is to attract the reader’s attention on the assumptions at the basis of the changes that are presently taking place in the juridical tradition of the western world using neurolaw that can play a useful part in all these changes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Hofmann (1974) and Fracanzani (2000).

  2. 2.

    McCormick (2002).

  3. 3.

    This is a position that our Constitutional Court has vigorously supported in the last few years, in the same way the Court of Justice of the European Union and the various courts of appeal (Cassations, the Councils of State, Courts of Auditors, etc.) did. See Alexy (1978) and Dworkin (2000).

  4. 4.

    Galgano (2005), Sen (2010), and Stiglitz (2012).

  5. 5.

    Schmitt (1928), Fassò (2007), and Forsthoff et al. (2013).

  6. 6.

    Fiske (1871), Friedman (1975), Iacoboni (2008), Sacco (2007), Gallese et al. (2002a, b), and Stiglitz (2012).

  7. 7.

    Irti (2008) and Forsthoff et al. (2013).

  8. 8.

    Friedman (1975, 1999), Bauman (2000), and McLuhan and Powers (1989).

  9. 9.

    Also the Italian Court of Cassation has aligned with the above mentioned case in point, especially with the sentence n. 9147/2009, by a correct reconstruction of the obligation in terms of a legal transaction, i.e. as the consequence of the failure to comply with the covenant (the agreement to join the Treaties) and not as a tort (not specified in the contract).

  10. 10.

    Lasswell (1935) and Levy (2007).

  11. 11.

    Barnes (2007), Popitz (2004), Hillman (1995), and Quintas (1997).

  12. 12.

    Hofmann (1974) and Aron (1965).

  13. 13.

    Dell’Acqua (1983) and Jitta (2015).

  14. 14.

    Iacoboni (2008), Gallese et al. (2002a, b), and Rizzolatti (2008).

  15. 15.

    Friedman (1999) and Riesman et al. (1950).

  16. 16.

    It is known that the European Union appears to be very cautious in attributing powers to the European Community with regard to services of general interest. Not only Article 14 TFEU provides Member States with the broadest powers to organize, providing and commissioning services of general economic interest; but it also makes specific reference to Article 4 of the Treaty on the identity of the Member States constitutional and cultural, including national, regional and local. Furthermore, Protocol 26 contains relevant interpretative provisions and Article 1 underlines the “common values” while art. 2 tell that the provisions of the Treaties do not affect the competence of Member States to provide and organize non-economic services of general interest.

  17. 17.

    Forsthoff et al. (2013).

  18. 18.

    Luhmann (1981, 1984).

  19. 19.

    Habermas (1971).

  20. 20.

    Löwith (1999), Volpi (2004), Irti (2005, 2007), and Bertinetto and Binckelmann (2010).

  21. 21.

    Schütze (2015), Pizzorusso (2004), Pernice (1999, 2001), and Craig (2012).

  22. 22.

    Della Cananea (2009), Cassese (2009), Ferrarese (2007), and Schütze (2015).

  23. 23.

    Demorgon (2000).

  24. 24.

    Miller (1963), Quine (1960), and Chomsky (1968).

  25. 25.

    Luhmann (1984) and Mukherjee (1993).

  26. 26.

    Amendola (1999).

  27. 27.

    Connolly (2002) and Lakoff (2008).

  28. 28.

    Leoni (1942), Richmond et al. (2012), and Popitz (2004).

  29. 29.

    Zolo (1978) and Maeda (2006).

  30. 30.

    McLuhan and Powers (1989).

  31. 31.

    Habermas (1996).

  32. 32.

    Zolo (1978), Connolly (2002), Ferrarese (2007), and Friedman (1999).

  33. 33.

    Santoro-Passarelli (1954) and Pulszky (2010).

  34. 34.

    Dower and Williams (2002), and Cassese (2009).

  35. 35.

    Atkinson (2016).

  36. 36.

    Barber (2007) and Dworkin (2006).

  37. 37.

    Alpa (2002), Micklitz and Stuyck (2010), and Leczykiewicz and Weatherll (2016).

  38. 38.

    Riesman et al. (1950) and Friedman (1999).

  39. 39.

    Pagano and Leziroli (2005), Ross (2007), and Chang (2010).

  40. 40.

    Pascuzzi (2003), Martin (1997), and Dyson (1997).

  41. 41.

    Palazzolo (1946), Cicala (1959), and Jitta (2015).

  42. 42.

    Sperduti (1944), Miele (1944), and Guarino (1949).

  43. 43.

    Piga and Treumer (2012).

  44. 44.

    Greco (2003) and Wade and Forsyth (2014).

  45. 45.

    Bianchi et al. (2009), Lynch and Laursen (2009), Morse et al. (2009), Santosuosso (2009), Seung (2013), Spranger (2012), Uttal (2009), and Zeki and Goddenough (2004).

  46. 46.

    Morse (2004).

  47. 47.

    Varela (2006), Levy (2007), and Gallagher and Zahavi (2012).

  48. 48.

    D’Alessandro (2004) and Millon Delsol (2003).

  49. 49.

    Zolo (1978).

  50. 50.

    Pugliatti and Falzea (1996), Zeki and Goddenough (2004), and Uttal (2009).

  51. 51.

    Santoro-Passarelli (1954), Morse (2004), and Uttal (2009).

  52. 52.

    Nicolò (1962) and Twigg-Flesner (2010).

  53. 53.

    Lakoff (2008).

  54. 54.

    Irti (1979, 1999).

  55. 55.

    It is interesting to note how relevant the Jerome Frank criticism reported in a fascinating essay by Carla Faralli Legal certainty in the age of codification, the forerunner, if not prophetic, of the discoveries that cognitive disciplines would work many decades later. With reference to Frank made a distinction between two phases: the first, preceding the actual trial, including the very fact that has led to justice and retrieval of evidence; the second, however, concerns the process in its implementation, the behavior of the witnesses, the judges and the eventual jury. In most cases, according to Frank, the facts determinants in the process do not correspond to real events and this is carried out for various factors. First the story depends on the sensory, emotional and cultural witness. Moreover, as a witness makes his statement relates what he remembers what he has observed, seen or heard in the past “A witness is not a photographic film or a music recording: in his account may intervene various error factors. Apart the case where the witness says the false voluntarily, he may have mistakenly noted the event human perception is fallible, subjective, influenced by defects”.

    But even assuming that a witness has made no observation errors of fact, he can remember so wrong what he has observed correctly.

    “Many witnesses have an imaginative memory and trying to describe the fact that the memory is fading or trying to give a complete description, replace the fantasy to fact or build according to common sense the fact forgotten”. The judge is in turn “witness of a witness”, its faulty observation of witnesses, due to carelessness or other factors, his mistakes in reconnecting as perceived, influence his determination of the facts. Needless to add that neuroscience have not only confirmed, but expanded the truth of these statements.

  56. 56.

    Uttal (2009).

  57. 57.

    Bianchi et al. (2009) and Pierce et al. (2013).

  58. 58.

    Carnelutti (1951). Zeki and Goddenough (2004), Uttal (2009), and Spranger (2012).

  59. 59.

    Sixth conference (We are the Law), University of Edinburgh.

  60. 60.

    Gazzaniga (2005, 2009) and Gazzaniga et al. (2006).

References

  • Alexy R (1978) Theorie der juristischen Argumentation. Die Theorie des rationalen Diskurses als Theorie der juristischen Begründung, 1st edn. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt

    Google Scholar 

  • Alpa G (2002) Il diritto dei consumatori. Laterza, Roma-Bari

    Google Scholar 

  • Amendola AC (1999) Schmitt tra decisione e ordinamento concreto. ESI, Napoli

    Google Scholar 

  • Aron R (1965) Démocratie et totalitarisme

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson W (2016) Principles of political economy; or, the laws of the formation of national wealth: developed by means of the Christian Law of Government; being the … to the Hand-Loom Weavers’ Commission. Leopold Classic Library, Kiev

    Google Scholar 

  • Barber B (2007) Consumed: how markets corrupt children, infantilize adults, and swallow citizens whole. W.W. Norton, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnes B (2007) The toils of scepticism. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauman Z (2000) Liquid modernity. Polity Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertinetto A, Binckelmann C (2010) Nichts, Negation, Nihilismus. Die europäische Moderne als Erkenntnis und Erfahrung des Nichts. Peter Lang, Bern

    Google Scholar 

  • Bianchi A et al (2009) Manuale di neuroscienze forensi. Giuffrè, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  • Carnelutti F (1951) Matematica e diritto. Riv, trim. dir. Proc. 207

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassese S (2009) Il diritto globale. Giustizia e democrazia oltre lo Stato. Giuffrè, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang E (2010) Electoral systems and the balance of consumer-producer power (Cambridge studies in comparative politics). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky N (1968) Language and mind. Harcourt, Brace & World, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cicala FB (1959) Il rapporto giuridico. Giuffré, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  • Connolly WE (2002) Neuropolitics: thinking, culture, speed, 1st edn. University of Minnesota Press, Minnesota

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig P (2012) EU administrative law, 2nd edn. OUP, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • D’Alessandro D (2004) Sussidiarietà, solidarietà e azione amministrativa. Giuffrè, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  • Dell’Acqua C (1983) Atto politico ed esercizio dei poteri sovrani. Cedam, Padova

    Google Scholar 

  • Della Cananea G (2009) Al di là dei confini statuali. Principi generali di diritto pubblico globale. Il Mulino, Bologna

    Google Scholar 

  • Demorgon J (2000) Complexité des cultures et de l’interculturel. Anthropos, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Dower N, Williams J (2002) Global citizenship: a critical introduction. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin R (2000) Sovereign virtue: the theory and practice of equality. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin R (2006) Is democracy possible here? Principles for a new political debate. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyson E (1997) Release 2.0., 1st edn. Mondadori, Milan

    Google Scholar 

  • Fassò G (2007) Storia della filosofia del diritto. Laterza, Roma-Bari

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrarese MR (2007) L’ordinamento giuridico globale secondo Sabino Cassese. Politica del diritto

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiske J (1871) The progress from brute to man. N Am Rev

    Google Scholar 

  • Forsthoff E et al (2013) Begriff Und Wesen Des Sozialen Rechtsstaates. Die Auswartige Gewalt Der Bundesrepublik. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Fracanzani MM (2000) Il problema della rappresentanza nella dottrina dello Stato. Cedam, Padua

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman LM (1975) The legal system: a social science perspective. Russell Sage, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman LM (1999) The horizontal society. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Galgano F (2005) La globalizzazione nello specchio del diritto. Il Mulino, Bologna

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher S, Zahavi D (2012) The phenomenological mind. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallese V et al (2002a) The mirror matching system: a shared manifold for intersubjectivity. Behav Brain Sci 25:35–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallese V et al (2002) Hearing sounds, understanding actions: action representation in mirror neurons. Science

    Google Scholar 

  • Gazzaniga M (2005) The ethical brain. Dana Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Gazzaniga M (2009) Human: the science behind what makes us unique, 1st edn. Harper Perennial, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Gazzaniga M et al (2006) Methods in mind. The MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Greco G (2003) Accordi amministrativi tra provvedimento e contratto. Giappichelli, Turin

    Google Scholar 

  • Guarino G (1949) Potere giuridico e diritto soggettivo. Rass. Dir. Pubb. I

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas J (1971) Knowledge and human interests. Beacon, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas J (1996) Die Einbezehung des Anderen, Studien zur politischen Theorie. Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillman J (1995) Kinds of power: a guide to its intelligent uses. Currency/Doubleday, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann H (1974) Repräsentation. Studien zur Wort- und Begriffsgeschichte von der Antike bis ins 19. Jahrhundert. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Iacoboni M (2008) I neuroni specchio. Bollati Boringhieri, Turin

    Google Scholar 

  • Irti N (1979) L’età della decodificazione. Giuffré, Milan

    Google Scholar 

  • Irti N (1999) L’età della decodificazione venti anni dopo. Giuffré, Milan

    Google Scholar 

  • Irti N (2005) Nichilismo Giuridico. Laterza, Roma-Bari

    Google Scholar 

  • Irti N (2007) Il salvagente della forma. Laterza, Roma-Bari

    Google Scholar 

  • Irti N (2008) La tenaglia. In difesa dell’ideologia politica. Laterza, Roma-Bari

    Google Scholar 

  • Jitta J (2015) The renovation of international law, on the basis of a juridical community of mankind, systematically developed. Leopold Classic Library, Kiev

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff G (2008) The political mind: why you can’t understand 21st-century American politics with an 18th-century brain. Viking Adult, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasswell HD (1935) World politics and personal insecurity. Whittlesey House, McGraw Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Leczykiewicz D, Weatherll S (2016) The images of the consumer in EU law: legislation, free movement and competition law. Hart, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Leoni B (1942) Per una teoria dell’irrazionale nel diritto. Giappichelli, Turin

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy N (2007) Neuroethics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Löwith K (1999) Il nichilismo europeo. Laterza, Roma-Bari

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann N (1981) Politische Theorie im Wohlfahrtsstaat. Olzog, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann N (1984) Soziale Systeme: Grundriß einer allgemeinen Theorie. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynch Z, Laursen B (2009) The neuro revolution. How brain science is changing our world. St. Martin’s Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Maeda J (2006) The law of simplicity, simplicity: design, technology, business, life. The MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin JC (1997) The digital print: identification and preservation. Getty Publications, Los Angeles

    Google Scholar 

  • McCormick M (2002) Origins of the European economy. Communications and commerce. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McLuhan M, Powers BR (1989) The global village. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Micklitz HV, Stuyck J (2010) Cases, materials and text on consumer law. Hart, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Miele G (1944) Potere, diritto soggettivo e interesse. Riv. Dir. Comm. I

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller G (1963) Language and communication. McGraw Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Millon Delsol C (2003) Il principio di sussidiarietà. Giuffrè, Milan

    Google Scholar 

  • Morse SJ (2004) New neuroscience, old problems: legal implications of brain science. Cerebrum Fall 6(4):81–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Morse SJ et al (2009) Crime and culpability: a theory of criminal law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Mukherjee R (1993) Systemic sociology. Sage Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicolò R (1962) Istituzioni di diritto privato. Giuffrè, Milan

    Google Scholar 

  • Pagano G, Leziroli MP (2005) Musica e diritto. Dal fonografo al digitale. Franco Angeli, Milan

    Google Scholar 

  • Palazzolo V (1946) Teoria del rapporto giuridico. Riv. Dir. Comm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pascuzzi G (2003) Il diritto dell’era digitale. Il Mulino, Bologna

    Google Scholar 

  • Pernice I (1999) Multilevel constitutionalism and the Treaty of Amsterdam: European constitution revisited? Common Mark Law Rev

    Google Scholar 

  • Pernice I (2001) Europaisches und nationales Verfassungrecht. VVDStRL 60, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierce GN et al (2013) Advanced bioactive compounds countering the effects of radiological, chemical and biological agents: strategies to counter biological damage. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Piga G, Treumer S (2012) The applied law and economics of public procurement (The economics of legal relationships). Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Pizzorusso A (2004) Problemi metodologici in tema di studio delle fonti del diritto. In: Scritti in memoria di Livio Paladin. Jovene, Napoli

    Google Scholar 

  • Popitz H (2004) Phanomene der Macht: Autoritat-Herrschaft-Gewalt-Technik. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen Basel

    Google Scholar 

  • Pugliatti S, Falzea A (1996) I fatti giuridici. Giuffrè, Milan

    Google Scholar 

  • Pulszky A (2010) The theory of law and civil society. Gale, Making of Modern Law, Andover

    Google Scholar 

  • Quine W (1960) Word and object. The MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Quintas AM (1997) Obbligazione politica e governo legittimo. Giuffrè, Milan

    Google Scholar 

  • Richmond S et al (2012) I know what you’re thinking. Brain imaging and mental privacy. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Riesman D et al (1950) The lonely crowd: a study of the changing American character. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Rizzolatti G (2008) Mirrors in the brain: how our minds share actions, emotions, and experience. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross A (2007) The rest is noise: listening to the twentieth century. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Sacco R (2007) Antropologia giuridica. Il Mulino, Bologna

    Google Scholar 

  • Santoro-Passarelli F (1954) Dottrine generali del diritto civile. Jovene, Napoli

    Google Scholar 

  • Santosuosso A (2009) Le neuroscienze e il diritto. Ibis, Como-Pavia

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt C (1928) Constitutional theory. Duke University Press, Durham

    Google Scholar 

  • Schütze R (2015) European constitutional law, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen A (2010) The idea of justice. Penguin, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Seung S (2013) Connectome: how the brain’s wiring makes us who we are. Mariner Books, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Sperduti M (1944) Contributo alla teoria delle situazioni giuridiche soggettive. Giuffrè, Milan

    Google Scholar 

  • Spranger TM (ed) (2012) International neurolaw. A comparative analysis. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Stiglitz JE (2012) The price of inequality: how today’s divided society endangers our future. Norton and Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Twigg-Flesner C (2010) The Cambridge companion to European Union private law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Uttal WR (2009) Neuroscience in the courtroom. Lawyers & Judges Publishing Company, Inc., Tucson

    Google Scholar 

  • Varela FJ (2006) Neurofenomenology. A methotological remedy for the hard problem. Mondadori, Milan

    Google Scholar 

  • Volpi F (2004) Il Nichilismo. Laterza, Roma-Bari

    Google Scholar 

  • Wade W, Forsyth C (2014) Administrative law. OUP, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zeki S, Goddenough O (2004) Law and the brain. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Zolo D (1978) Complessità e democrazia. Giappichelli, Turin

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Law Department, University of Rome “Tor Vergata”, Rome, Italy

    Eugenio Picozza

Authors
  1. Eugenio Picozza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eugenio Picozza .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Rome, Rome, Italy

    Eugenio Picozza

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland and G. Giappichelli Editore

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Picozza, E. (2016). Public Law and Private Law Issues. In: Picozza, E. (eds) Neurolaw. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41441-6_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41441-6_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-41440-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-41441-6

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation