Abstract
Legal dogmatics in Continental European law (scientia iuris, Rechtswissenschaft) consists of professional legal writings whose task is to systematize and interpret valid law. Legal dogmatics pursues knowledge of the existing law, yet in many cases it leads to a change of the law. Among general theories of legal dogmatics, one may mention the theories of negligence, intent, adequate causation and ownership. The theories produce principles and they also produce defeasible rules. By means of production of general and defeasible theories, legal dogmatics aims at obtaining a system of law that is both internally coherent and harmonized with its background in morality and (political) philosophy. Legal dogmatics is necessary in the context of constitutional constraints on the majority rule. Only if the courts act on the basis of Reason they can be a legitimate counterpart of the majority rule. And Reason cannot be exhausted by particular decision making. It also needs a more abstract deliberation, given by expert jurists. However, legal dogmatics has been a target of several kinds of criticism: empirical, morally-political, epistemological, logical, and ontological. The position taken in this article is to answer such criticism by mutually adjusting philosophy and the practices of the law.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
REFERENCES
Aarnio, A., Reason and Authority. A Treatise on the Dynamic Paradigm of Legal Dogmatics. Aldershot e.a.: Ashgate/ Dartmouth, 1997.
Alexy, R., Theorie der Grundrechte. Baden-Baden: Nomos (Frankfurt/M. 1986: Suhrkamp), 1985.
Alexy, R., Basic Rights and Democracy in Jürgen Habermas's Procedural Paradigm of the Law. Ratio Juris 7 (1994).
Alexy, R., On the Structure of Legal Principles. Ratio Juris (2000).
Alexy, R. and Peczenik, A., The concept of coherence and its significance for discursive rationality, Ratio Juris 3(1) (1990).
Andersson, H., Skyddsändamål och adekvans. Uppsala: Justus, 1993.
Castañeda, H.-N., On Philosophical Method. Indianapolis: Nous Publications, 1980.
Cohen, J., Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy, in R.E. Goodin and P. Pettit (eds), Contemporary Political Philosophy, Reprinted in 1997. Blackwell Philosophy Anthologies, 1989.
Dahlman, C., Good Coherence and Bad Coherence. Associations (2000).
Dworkin, ??., Taking Rights Seriously. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1977.
Eckhoff, T., Rettskildelaere. 3 uppl. Oslo: Tano, 1993.
Ekelöf, P.O., Teleological Construction of Statutes, Scandinavian Studies in Law 2 (1958).
Gutmann, A. and Thompson, D., Why deliberative democracy is different? Social Philosophy & Policy 17(1) (2000).
Habermas, J., Faktizität und Geltung. Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaats. Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp. Cit. from 4 ed. Darmstadt 1994: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1992.
Hage, J.C., Reasoning with Rules. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1997.
Hage, J.C. and A. Peczenik, Law, Morality and Defeasibility, Ratio Juris (2000).
Hare, R.M., Moral Thinking. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981.
Kagan, S., The Limits of Morality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.
Larenz, K., Methodenlehre der Rechtswissenschaft. 5 ed. Berlin Heidelberg New York Tokyo: Springer-Verlag, 1983.
Lehrberg, B., Förutsättningsläran. Uppsala, 1989.
Lehrer, K., Coherence and the Truth Connection: A reply to my critics. I: Bender (red.) The Current State of the Coherence Theory. Dordrecht/ Boston/ London: Kluwer, 1989.
Lehrer, K., Theory of Knowledge. London: Routledge, 1990.
Lehrer, K., Self-Trust. A Study of Reason, Knowledge, and Autonomy. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997.
Lindahl, L., An algebraic analysis of normative systems, Ratio Juris (2000).
Malt, G.-F., To glemte linjer i tradisjonell rettsfinningslaere. Tidsskrift for Rettsvitenskap.
Nicander, Hans. 1995/96. Lojalitetsplikt före, under och efter avtalsförhållanden, Juridisk Tidskrift (1992).
Peczenik, A., Causes and Damages. Lund: Juridiska föreningen, 1979.
Peczenik, A., On Law and Reason. Dordrecht / Boston / London: Kluwer, 1989.
Peczenik, A., Vad är rätt. Stockholm: Norstedts, 1995.
Peczenik, A., Jumps and Logic in the Law, in H. Prakken and G. Sartor (eds), Logical Models of Legal Argumentation. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1997, pp. 141–174.
Peczenik, A., 1) A Coherence Theory of Juristic Knowledge. 2) Second Thought on Coherence and Juristic Knowledge, in A. Aarnio, R. Alexy, A. Peczenik, W. Rabinowicz and J. Wolenski (eds), Coherence Theory of Law. Lund: Juristförlaget, 1998.
Peczenik, A., Värdenihilismen och den konstruktiva juridiken, Juridisk Tidsskrift (1999).
Pollock, J.L., Contemporary Theories of Knowledge. Rowman & Littlefield, 1986.
Posner, R., Utilitarianism, Economics, and Legal Theory, 8 Journal of Legal Studies 103 (1979).
Posner, R., The Ethical and Political Basis of the Efficiency Norm in Common Law Adjudication, 8 Hofstra Law Review 487, (1980).
Posner, R., The Problems of Jurisprudence. Harvard University Press, 1990.
Prakken, H. and Sartor, G., Logical Models of Legal Argumentation. Dordrecht e.a.: Kluwer, 1997.
Rabinowicz, W., Peczenik's Passionate Reason. I, in A. Aarnio, R. Alexy, A. Peczenik, W. Rabinowicz and J. Wolenski (eds), Coherence Theory of Law. Lund: Juristförlaget, 1998.
Raz, J., Practical Reason and Norms. London: Hutchinson, 1975.
Raz, J., The Authority of Law; Essays on Law and Morality. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979.
Raz, J., Ethics in the Public Domain. Essays in the Morality of Law and Politics. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994.
Reidhav, D., Utilitas et Pactum et Industria. Lund: Mimeographed, 1998.
Rodhe, K., Gränsbestämning och äganderättstvist. Lund, 1944.
Rodhe, K., Allmän privaträtt-avtalsrätt-obligationsrätt, SvJT (1971).
Ross, A., On Law and Justice. London: Stevens, 1958.
Savigny, F.C., System des heutigen römischen Rechts. Berlin: Band 1, 1840.
Savigny, F.C., Vorlesungen über juristische Methodologie 1802–1842. Herausgegeben und eingeleitet von Aldo Mazzacane. Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 1993.
Schauer, F., Playing by the rules. A Philosophical Examination of Rule-Based Decision Making in Law and in Life. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991.
Simmonds, N.E., in M.H. Kramer, N.E. Simmonds and H. Steiner (eds), A Debate over Rights. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991.
Spector, H.M., Self-Ownership and Efficiency, in Justice, Morality and Society. A Tribute to Aleksander Peczenik. Lund: Juristförlaget, 1997.
Wedberg, A., Some Problems in the Logical Analysis of Legal Science. Theoria (1951.)
Wolenski, J., Coherence and Knowledge. I, in A. Aarnio, R. Alexy, A. Peczenik, W. Rabinowicz and J. Wolenski (eds), Coherence Theory of Law. Lund: Juristförlaget, 1998.
Wróblewski, J., The Judicial Application of Law.Dordrecht-Boston-London: Kluwer, 1992.
Zitting, S., An Attempt to Analyse the Owner's Legal Position, Scandinavian Studies in Law 3, 1959.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Peczenik, A. Scientia Iuris - An Unsolved Philosophical Problem. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 3, 273–302 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009948025411
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009948025411