Advertisement

Visualization Between Fictitious Law and Factual Behaviour: A Pragmatic-Institutional Analysis

  • Hanneke van Schooten
Chapter

Abstract

The concept of visualization, its function, and role in the relationship between fictitious legal rules and factual behaviour will be the focus of this chapter. Based on the view that legal rules express a message that needs to be thought of as real, processes of visualization will be analysed, in particular in the dialogical ­context of the legal rule as a sequence of linguistic signs, expressing an action-idea, on the one hand, and observable behaviour in accordance with the rule, on the other. The point in question is how we can ‘see’ and ‘know’ the rule’s content that is not available for direct observation. A legal rule, in the words of Alf Ross, is an ­indiscernible phenomenon, a ‘thought object,’ and an ‘action-idea’, compared to the factual and observable behaviour that is related to the rule. Questions arise whether processes of visualization are dominated by linear causality between rule and behaviour or whether reciprocal elements are involved. Are these processes individually determined or within groups? In the first part of this chapter, the Institutional Theory of Law as well as the Scandinavian Legal Realists and their concept of legal ­language as imaginary terminology together form the building blocks for the construction of an analytical framework. In the second part of this chapter, a case study will be described, focusing on the rules of war (meanly the 1945 UN Charter), on the one hand, and observable behaviour (actual warfare during ‘peacekeeping missions’), on the other. The relationship between the law of war and actual warfare is situated in the aftermath of 9/11. Finally, the framework will be used as an instrument to analyse the case study. Concluding remarks will be made in the last section.

Keywords

Security Council Legal Rule Public Prosecution International Peace Security Council Resolution 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bruner, J.S. 1974. Beyond the information given. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  2. Hart, H.L.A. 1983. Essays in jurisprudence and philosophy. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Hartshorne, Charles, and Paul Weiss (eds.). 1906. Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vol. I-VI. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Jackendoff, J. 1993. Patterns in the mind: Language and human nature. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  5. Jackson, B.S. 1994. Envisaging law. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 7(21): 311–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Jackson, B.S. 1999. Legislation in the semiotics of law, p. 6, in Hanneke van Schooten (ed.), Jurisprudential, Institutional and Sociological Perspectives, Liverpool: Deborah Charles Publications.Google Scholar
  7. MacCormick, Neil, and Ota Weinberger. 1986. An institutional theory of law, new approaches to legal positivism. Dordrecht /Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. MacIntyre, A. 1985. After virtue: A study in moral theory. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
  9. Mackinlay, J., and J. Chopra. 1992. Second generation multinational operations. Washington Quarterly 15: 113–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Mead, G.H. 1962. Mind, self and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  11. Olivecrona, K. 1971. Law as fact. London: Stevens and Sons.Google Scholar
  12. Piaget, J. 1971. Biology and knowledge. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Pintore, A. 2000. Law without truth. Liverpool: Deborah Charles Publications.Google Scholar
  14. Ratner, S. 1995. The new UN peacekeeping: Building peace in lands of conflict after the cold war. New York: St. Martin’s.Google Scholar
  15. Ross, Alf. 1957. Tû-Tû. Harvard Law Review 70(5): 812–825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ross, Alf. 1968. Directives and norms. London/New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul/Humanities Press.Google Scholar
  17. Ruiter, D.W.P. 1997. A basic classification of legal institutions. Ratio Juris 10(4): 357–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Searle, J.R. 1970. Speech acts; An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Searle, J.R. 1979. Expression and meaning; studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sommereyns, R. 1982. United Nations forces. Encyclopaedia of Public International Law 4(258): 262.Google Scholar
  21. Teubner, G. 1993. Law as autopoietic system. Oxford/Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Law FacultyTilburg UniversityJR AlmeloThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations