Introduction and Method

Introduction into the Book and Method
  • H. D. S. van der Kaaij
Part of the Law and Philosophy Library book series (LAPS, volume 129)


It is generally accepted that within Western legal systems there needs to be a possibility to perform an act which has the purpose of changing the set of legal facts. Not only can an act have that purpose, but also, because it has that purpose, the act can change the set of legal facts. Some examples of this type of act are: the possibility for an agent to intentionally enter into a contract, to make a statutory law, to transfer ownership of his property, to grant a licence, or to start a limited liability company. It is this group of acts that are the focus of this work.


  1. Anscombe GEM (1958) On brute facts. Analysis 18(3):69–72Google Scholar
  2. Austin JL (2009) How to do things with words. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Charnock R (2009) Overruling as a speech act: performativity and normative discourse. J Pragmat 41:401–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Constantinesco L-J (1972) Rechtsvergleichung, Band II, Die Rechtsvergleichende Methode. Carl Heymanns Verlag KG, KölnGoogle Scholar
  5. Crosby JF (1983) Adolf Reinach’s discovery of the social acts. Aletheia 3:143–189Google Scholar
  6. Daniels N (2013) Reflective equilibrium. In: Zalta EN (ed) The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2013 edition). URL = <> (last checked 11-03-2016)
  7. de Groot G-R, Schneider H (1994) Das Werturteil in der Rechtsvergleichung. Die Suche nach dem besseren Recht. In: Boele-Woelki K et al (eds) Comparability and evaluation. Essays on comparative law, private international law and international commercial arbitration, in honour of Dimitra Kokkini-Iatridou. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 53–86Google Scholar
  8. Dennett DC (1987) The intentional stance. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  9. Dworkin R (1986) Law’s Empire. Fontana, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Epstein B (2015) The Ant Trap, rebuilding the foundations of the social sciences. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Epstein B (2018) Social ontology. In: Zalta EN (ed) The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Summer 2018 edition). URL = <> (last checked 17-08-2018)
  12. Fleuren JWA (2015) Hoe komen juridische begrippen en regels aan hun betekenis? Het belang van de taalfilosofie van de latere Wittgenstein voor de rechtsgeleerdheid. Ars Aequi:568–584Google Scholar
  13. Flume W (1979) Allgemeiner Teil des Bürgerlichen Rechts, das Rechtsgeschäft, II - das Rechtsgeschäft. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  14. Frändberg Å (2009) An essay on legal concept formation. In: Hage JC, van der Pfordten D (eds) Concepts in law. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 1–16Google Scholar
  15. Gilbert M (1992) On social facts. Princeton University Press, Princeton. (reprint, first ed. 1989)Google Scholar
  16. Hage JC (1998) Institutionele rechtstheorieën. Rechtsfilosofie en Rechtstheorie 27(2):127–143Google Scholar
  17. Hage JC (2004) Vermogensrechten en hun objecten. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Burgerlijk Recht 67:355–362Google Scholar
  18. Hage JC (2007) De wondere wereld van het recht (oratie Maastricht). Universiteit Maastricht, MaastrichtGoogle Scholar
  19. Hage JC (2011) A model of juridical acts, part 1 and part 2. Artif Intell Law 19:23–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hage JC (2013) Conceptual tools for legislators. Part 2: pathways through the world of law. Theory Pract Legis 2:277–304Google Scholar
  21. Halpin A (1996) The concept of a legal power. Oxf J Leg Stud 16:129–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hart HLA (1983) Essays in jurisprudence and philosophy. Clarendon Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hart HLA (2012) The concept of law. Oxford University Press, Oxford. (reprint of the original from 1961)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hogg M (2011) Promises and contract law, comparative perspectives. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hohfeld WN (1913) Some fundamental legal conceptions as applied in juridical reasoning. Yale Law J 23(1):16–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jansen N (2006) Comparative law and comparative knowledge. In: Reimann M, Zimmermann R (eds) The Oxford handbook of comparative law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 305–338Google Scholar
  27. Kelsen H (2009) Pure theory of law. The Lawbook Exchange, Clark. (Reine Rechtslehre, 2nd ed. 1960, translated by M. Knight)Google Scholar
  28. Konijnenbelt W, van Male R (2014) van Wijk/Konijnebelt & van Male, Hoofdstukken van het bestuursrecht. Kluwer, DeventerGoogle Scholar
  29. Kurzon D (1986) It is hereby performed… explorations in legal speech acts. John Benjamins Publishing Company, AmsterdamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lamme V (2010) De vrije wil bestaat niet. Bert Bakker, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  31. Libet B (1999) Do we have free will? J Conscious Stud 6:47–57Google Scholar
  32. Lokin JHA (2004) De vergeefse poging tot de wettelijke erkenning van de acte juridique. Groninger Opmerkingen en Mededelingen:63–83Google Scholar
  33. MacCormick N, Weinberger O (1986) An institutional theory of law, new approaches to legal positivism. D. Reidel Publishing Company, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  34. Matczak M (2013) Why legal rules are not speech acts and what follows from that. Available at SSRN: URL = <> (last checked 11-03-2016)
  35. Morse SJ (2008) Determinism and the death of folk psychology: two challenges to responsibility from neuroscience. Minn J Law Sci Technol 9(1):1–36Google Scholar
  36. Nieuwenhuis JH (1979) Drie beginselen van contractenrecht (diss. Leiden). Kluwer, DeventerGoogle Scholar
  37. Oderkerk AE (1999) De Preliminaire Fase van het Rechtsvergelijkend Onderzoek (diss. Amsterdam UvA). Ars Aequi Libri, NijmegenGoogle Scholar
  38. Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  39. Reinach A (1983) The a priori foundations of civil law (trans. J. Crosby). Aletheia 3:1–142. (the English translation of his German work from 1913 was published in this magazine)Google Scholar
  40. Rijgersberg R, van der Kaaij HDS (2013) A plea for rigorous conceptual analysis as central method in transnational law design - offer and acceptance as juridical acts in the draft common frame of reference as case in point. Recht en Methode in onderzoek en onderwijs 1:48–60Google Scholar
  41. Ruiter DWP (1992) ‘Besluit’ in de algemene wet bestuursrecht. Bestuurswetenschappen 3:185–195Google Scholar
  42. Ruiter DWP (1993) Institutional legal facts, legal powers and their effects. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schane S (2012) Contract formation as a speech act. In: Tiersma PM, Solan LM (eds) The Oxford handbook of language and law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 100–113Google Scholar
  44. Schmidt JP (2012) Juridical act. In: Basedow J et al (eds) The Max Planck encyclopedia of European private law, vol II. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1016–1020Google Scholar
  45. Scholten P, Scholten GJ (1974) Mr. C. Assers Handleiding tot de beoefening van het Nederlands burgerlijk recht. Algemeen deel. W.E.J. Tjeenk Willink, ZwolleGoogle Scholar
  46. Searle JR (1969) Speech acts, an essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Searle JR (1996) The construction of social reality. Penguin Books, London. (reprint, first ed. 1995)Google Scholar
  48. Searle JR (2010) Making the social world. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Smith SA (2014) Remedies for breach of contract: one principle or two? In: Klass G, Letsas G, Saprai P (eds) Philosophical foundations of contract law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 341–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Swaab D (2010) Wij zijn ons Brein. Uitgeverij Contact, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  51. Tiersma P (1986) The language of offer and acceptance: speech acts and the question of intent. Calif Law Rev 74:189–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Trosborg A (1991) An analysis of legal speech acts in English contract law. Hermes, J Linguist 6:65–90Google Scholar
  53. Tuomela R (2002) The philosophy of social practices. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. van Dunné JM (1971) Normatieve uitleg van rechtshandelingen, een onderzoek naar de grondslagen van het geldende verbintenissenrecht (diss. Leiden). Kluwer, DeventerGoogle Scholar
  55. van Hoecke M (2004) Deep level comparative law. In: van Hoecke M (ed) Epistemology and methodology of comparative law. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 165–196Google Scholar
  56. van Laer CJP (1997) Het nut van comparatieve begrippen (diss. Maastricht). Intersentia, MaastrichtGoogle Scholar
  57. Verplaetse J (2011) Zonder vrije wil. Uitgeverij Nieuwezijds, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  58. Visconti J (ed) (2009) Special issue: speech acts in legal language. J Pragmat 41:393–648Google Scholar
  59. Von Bar C, Clive E, Schulte-Nölke H (2009) Principles, definitions and model rules of European private law. Draft common frame of reference. Sellier, MunichGoogle Scholar
  60. von Savigny FC (1840) System des heutigen Römischen Rechts, bandes III. Veit und Comp, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wegner DM (2002) The illusion of conscious will. MIT Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. D. S. van der Kaaij
    • 1
  1. 1.University of MaastrichtMaastrichtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations