Advertisement

Disagreement and Proceduralism in the Perspective of Legisprudence

  • Woomin Shim
Chapter
Part of the Legisprudence Library book series (LEGIS, volume 1)

Abstract

It is generally insisted that the mission of legisprudence is to reduce disagreements in a society. However, disagreements are inevitable in law-making even when based on rationality. This can be explained in the context of proceduralism: Substance-based Proceduralism, Procedure-centered Proceduralism, and Disagreement-respecting Proceduralism. Most proceduralists, especially substance-based proceduralism and procedure-centered proceduralism, presume the conception of “pure procedure”. They try to find a way to reduce disagreements, but there ultimately occurs the exclusion of others. On the contrary, disagreement-respecting proceduralism denies the concept of the tangible pure procedure. This type of proceduralism acknowledges that there can always be disagreements which cannot be removed and also infinite regression in legislative argumentation. In this perspective, legisprudence should aim not to pursue the only rational law-making or remove disagreements, but to find a way of cohabitation among value disagreements. At this point, legisprudence holds the academic autonomy or distinction from other traditional legal dogmatics.

References

  1. Ackermann, Bruce. 1991. We the people: Foundation, vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, C.Edwin. 1980. Neutrality, process, and rationality: Flawed interpretations of equal protection. Texas Law Review 58(6): 1029–1096.Google Scholar
  3. Barry, Brian. 1979. Is democracy special? In Philosophy, politics and society (5th series), ed. Fishkin James and Laslett Peter. London: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  4. Bellamy, Richard. 2007. Political constitutionalism: A republican defence of the constitutionality of democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benhabib, Seyla. 1996. Toward a deliberative model of democratic legitimacy. In Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political, ed. Seyla Benhabib. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bohman, James. 1996. Public deliberation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bohman, James. 1998. The coming of age of deliberative democracy. Journal of Political Philosophy 6(4): 400–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cohen, Joshua. 1997. Deliberative and democratic legitimacy. In Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics, ed. James Bohman and William Rehg. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Dahl, Robert. 1989. Democracy and its critics. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Dworkin, Ronald. 1996. Freedom’s law: The moral reading of the American constitution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Freeman, James B. 1991. Dialectics and the macrostructure of argument: A theory of argument structure. Berlin: Foris Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Galstone, William A. 1999. Diversity, toleration, and deliberative democracy: Religious minorities and public schooling. In Deliberative politics, ed. Stephen Macedo. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis Thompson. 1996. Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Habermas, Jürgen. 1984. Wahrheitstheorien. In Vorstudien und Ergänzungen zur Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Frankfurt a.M: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  15. Habermas, Jürgen. 1998. Struggles for recognition in the democratic constitutional state. In The inclusion of the other: Studies in political theory, ed. Ciaran Cronin and Pablo De Greiff. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Habermas, Jürgen. 1990. Moral consensus and communicative action. Trans. Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambride, MA: MIT Press. (Original: Moralbewusstsein und kommunikatives Handeln. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 1983).Google Scholar
  17. Habermas, Jürgen. 1996. Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Trans. William Rehg. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. (Faktizität und Geltung: Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaats. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 1992).Google Scholar
  18. Jay, Martin. 1992. The debate over performative contradiction: Habermas versus the poststructuralists. In Philosophical interventions in the unfinished project of enlightenment, ed. Axel Honneth, Thomas McCarthy, Claus Offe, and Albrecht Wellmer. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Lamore, Charles E. 1987. Patterns of moral complexity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Macoubrie, Jane. 2003. Logical argument structures in decision-making. Argumentation 17(3): 291–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rawls, John. 1996. Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Rawls, John. 1999. A theory of justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Simon, William H. 1999. Three limitations of deliberative democracy: Identity politics, bad faith, and indeterminacy. In Deliberative politics, ed. Stephen Macedo. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Toulmin, Stephen E., Richard D. Rieke, and Allan Janik. 1984. An introduction to reasoning. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  25. Tribe, Lawrence H. 2000. American constitutional law. New York: West Group.Google Scholar
  26. Tushnet, Mark. 1980. Darkness on the edge of town: The contributions of John Hart Ely to constitutional theory. Yale Law Journal 89(6): 1037–1062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Waldron, Jeremy. 1999. Law and disagreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Walton, Douglas N. 1996. Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Erlbaum: Mahwah.Google Scholar
  29. Wintgens, Luc J. 2006. Legisprudence as a new theory of legislation. Ratio Juris 19(1): 1–25.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Assembly Research ServiceYeongdeungpo-gu SeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations