Neurolaw pp 21-40 | Cite as

Neuro Law: Validity and Limits of a Neuroscientific Approach to Problems Relating to Law and Justice

Chapter

Abstract

In a not too far past, the so-called cognitive neuroscience started to spread its influence also over issues regarding law and justice, arousing a general interest. As a consequence, a new expression, neurolaw has been coined. The author used to point out that an imprecise generalization should not be applied to the ontological problems of law and justice and that they instead should be kept separated. Starting from the basis of Descartes’ thought, the author underlies how this construction was challenged about a century ago by the psychoanalysis, which demonstrated that human actions are strongly conditioned by the unconscious impulses.

The essay continues to throw some light on the paths leading to both the comprehension and the use of single disciplines, first, the different branches of law.

Thus, the author shows how difficult it is today to deal with the subject of the interpretation which—together with the efficiency of the juridical system—is still now the core of the legal world and in particular in the fields of the philosophy of law, in the general theory and in the so-called juridical dogmatic.

Keywords

Economic Crisis Europe Defend Dispatch Stake 

References

  1. Attali J (2001) Bruits, Essai sur l’économie politique de la musique. Fayard, ParisGoogle Scholar
  2. Bechtel W (2008) Mental mechanism. Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Bickle J (ed) (2009) The Oxford handbook of philosophy and neuroscience. Oxford University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Caretti V, La Barbera D (2005) The pathologic dependence (clinic and psychopathology). Raffaello Cortina, MilanGoogle Scholar
  5. Churchland P (1989) “Neurophilosophy”, toward a unified science of the mind-brain. A Bradford book. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Churchland P (2002) Brain wise. Studies in neurophilosophy. A Bradford book. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. Costa P, Zolo D (2002) The state of law, history, theory, critics. Feltrinelli, MilanGoogle Scholar
  8. Cozolino L (2010) The neuroscience of human relationships: attachment and developing social brain, 2nd edn. WW Norton & Co., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Craver C (2007) Explaining the brain. Clarendon, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dawkins R (2006) The God delusion. Houghton Mifflin, BostonGoogle Scholar
  11. Dennett D (2006) Breaking the spell: religion as a natural phenomenon. Penguin Group, USAGoogle Scholar
  12. Donà F (2006) Philosophy of music. Bompiani, MilanGoogle Scholar
  13. Dunoff J, Trachtman J (2009) Ruling the world? Constitutionalism, international law, and global governance. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dworkin R (2000) Sovereign virtue: the theory and practice of equality. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, CAGoogle Scholar
  15. Eco U (1976) A theory of semiotics. Indiana University Press, BloomingtonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eco U (1979) The role of the reader. Indiana University Press, BloomingtonGoogle Scholar
  17. Esser J (1972) Vorverständnis und Methodenwahl im Rechtsfindung. Athenäum Fischer, Frankfurt am MainGoogle Scholar
  18. Fassò G (1966–1970) La legge della ragione. Storia della filosofia del diritto, vol 1. Laterza, Roma-BariGoogle Scholar
  19. Finnis J (1991) Moral absolutes: tradition, revision and truth. Catholic University of America Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  20. Freeman M, Goodenough O (2009) Law, mind and brain. Ashgate, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Gabbard GO (2007) Psychodynamic psychiatry, 4th edn. Raffaello Cortina, MilanGoogle Scholar
  22. Garland B et al (2004) Neuroscience and the law. Dana Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Gazzaniga M (2009) Human: the science behind what makes us unique. Harper Perennial, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Gazzaniga M et al (2006) Methods in mind. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  25. Goodenough O, Prehn K (2004) A neuroscientific approach to normative judgment in law and justice. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 359(1451):1709–1726. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2004.1552 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Habermas J (1961) Student und Politik. Eine soziologische Untersuchung zum politischen Bewubtsein Frankfurter Studenten. Luchterhand, NeuwiedGoogle Scholar
  27. Horkheimer E et al (1936) Studien uiber Autorität und Familie. Felix Alcan, ParisGoogle Scholar
  28. Irti N (1965) La legge della ragione. Giuffrè, MilanGoogle Scholar
  29. Irti N (2006) Il nichilismo giuridico. Laterza, BariGoogle Scholar
  30. Irti N (2008) La tenaglia. In difesa della ideologia politica. Laterza, Roma-BariGoogle Scholar
  31. Jones EE (1990) Interpersonal perception. WH Freeman and CO, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Kelsen H (1920) Das Problem der Souveränität und die Theorie des Völkerrechts. University of Michigan Library, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  33. Linehan MM (2014) Cognitive behavioral treatment of the borderline disorder (the dialectic model). The Guilford Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. Lowen A (1975) Bioenergetics, coward. McCarin & Georgen Inc, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Luhmann N (1969) Legitimation durch Verfahren. Luchterhand, Neuwied/BerlinGoogle Scholar
  36. Luhmann N (1971) Politische Planung: Aufsätze zur Soziologie von Politik und Verwaltung, Opladen. Westdeutscher Verlag, OplandCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Luhmann N (1972) Rechtssoziologie, 2 volumes. Rowohlt, ReinbekGoogle Scholar
  38. Luhmann N (1981a) Ausdifferenzierung des Rechts: Beiträge zur Rechtssoziologie und Rechtstheorie. Suhrkamp, FrankfurtGoogle Scholar
  39. Luhmann N (1981b) Soziologische Aufklärung 3: Soziales System, Gesellschaft, Organisation. Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen. English edition: Luhman N (1982) The Differentiation of Society. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. McIlvain C (2011) Constitutionalism: ancient and modern. LLCGoogle Scholar
  41. Miglio G (1972) Le Categorie del politico. Il Mulino, BolognaGoogle Scholar
  42. Minda G (1996) Postomodern legal movements. NYU Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. Opocher E (1948) Il problema della giustizia nel materialismo storico. Bocca, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  44. Posner M (2003) Imaging a science of mind. Trend Cognit SciGoogle Scholar
  45. Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  46. Reich W (2009) Mass psychology of the fascism PBE. TorinoGoogle Scholar
  47. Rizzolatti G (2008) Mirrors in the brain: how our minds share actions, emotions, and experience. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  48. Sacco R (2007) Antropologia giuridica. Il Mulino, BolognaGoogle Scholar
  49. Seung S (2013) Connectome: how the brain’s wiring makes us who we are. Mariner BooksGoogle Scholar
  50. Spranger TM (2012) International neurolaw. A comparative analysis. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Uttal W (2009) Neuroscience in the courtroom. Lawyers & Judges Publishing Company IncGoogle Scholar
  52. Volpe F (2000) The 19th century constitutionalism. Laterza, Rome-BariGoogle Scholar
  53. Zagrebelsky G (2007) Imparare democrazia. Einaudi editore, TorinoGoogle Scholar
  54. Zeki S, Goodenough O (2004) Law and the brain. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  55. Zolo D (1987) Complessità e democrazia. Giappichelli, TorinoGoogle Scholar
  56. Zolo D (2010) Nuovi Diritti e Globalizzazione. Enciclopedia del XXI secolo, vol II, Norme e Ideeò. Istituto della Enciclopedia Giuridica:23 ff. RomaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland and G. Giappichelli Editore 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Law DepartmentUniversity of Rome “Tor Vergata”RomeItaly

Personalised recommendations