The Argument from Psychological Typology for a Mild Separation Between the Context of Discovery and the Context of Justification

Chapter
Part of the Law and Philosophy Library book series (LAPS, volume 102)

Abstract

The problem of separation between the context of discovery and the context of justification of legal decisions is one of the basic themes in legal argumentation theory. Whereas the context of discovery focuses on the process of reaching a legal decision, which concludes a decision-making process, the context of justification is concerned with justification of the legal decision through the application of relevant legal arguments. The majority of legal theorists interested in legal argumentation theory support the position that the mentioned two contextes are rigidly separated, in the framework of which the process of discovery is mainly studied by psychologists while the process of justification is the only area that should be relevant for legal argumentation theory. I oppose such a rigid separation between the two contextes and view it as a position that is too idealist. Instead, I support a more realistic position of their moderate separation, whereby I recognise the importance of the discovery context while still insisting on the major relevance of the justification context.

Keywords

Legal Norm Judicial Decision Legal Argumentation Legal Decision Psychological Type 
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. Alexy, R. 1989. A theory of legal argumentation. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, B. 1996. Discovery in legal decision-making. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, B. 2010. Context of discovery, context of decision and context of justification in the law. IVR encyclopaedia of jurisprudence. http://ivr-enc.info/index.php?title=Main_Page. Accessed 26 Mar 2010.
  4. Aylesworth, G. 2005. Postmodernism. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/. Accessed 5 Feb 2010.
  5. Barak, A. 2005. Purposive interpretation in law. Princeton/Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Briggs Myers, I., and P.B. Myers. 1980. Gifts differing. Mountain View: Davis-Black Publishing.Google Scholar
  7. Cerar, M. 2001. (I)racionalnost modernega prava [The (Ir)rationality of modern law]. Ljubljana: Bonex založba.Google Scholar
  8. Daicoff, S.S. 2004. Lawyer, know thyself. Washington, DC.: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  9. Feteris, E. 1999. Fundamentals of legal argumentation. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Frank, J. 1930. Law and the modern mind. New York: Brentano’s, Inc.Google Scholar
  11. Furlan, B. 2002. Problem realnosti prava [The problem of law's reality]. Ljubljana: Pravna fakulteta in Cankarjeva založba.Google Scholar
  12. Habermas, J. 1987. The philosophical discourse of modernity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Horkheimer, M. 1974. Eclipse of reason. New York: Continuum International Publishing Company Ltd.Google Scholar
  14. Jung, C.G. 1921. Psychologische typen. Duesseldorf: Patmost Verlag GmbH & Walter Verlag.Google Scholar
  15. Kaufmann, A. 1992. Rechtsphilosophie in der Nach-Neuzeit. Heidelberg: Decker und Müller Verlag.Google Scholar
  16. Lyotard, J.-F. 1984. The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  17. MacCormick, N. 1978. Legal reasoning and legal theory. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  18. MacCormick, N. 2005. Rhetoric and the rule of law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. MacCormick, N. 2008. Practical reason in law and morality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Maritain, J. 1951. Man and the state. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  21. Mautner, T. (ed.). 2000. The penguin dictionary of philosophy. London/New York/Victoria/ Toronto/New Delhi/Auckland/Johannesburg: Penguin.Google Scholar
  22. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th Ed.). 1993. Springfield/Massachusetts: Merriam-Webster, Inc.Google Scholar
  23. Minda, G. 1995. Postmodern legal movements. New York: The New York University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Pavčnik, M., and L.E. Wolcher. 2000. A dialogue on legal theory between a European Legal Philosopher and his American friend. Texas International Journal 35: 335–386.Google Scholar
  25. Prakash Sinha, S. 1993. Jurisprudence, legal philosophy. St. Paul: West.Google Scholar
  26. Reinhold, R. 2010. Personality pathways. Exploring personality types & its applications. http://www.personalitypathways.com/type_inventory.html. Accessed 5 Jan 2010.
  27. Unger, R.M. 1986. Passion. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  28. Wallace, R.J. 2000. Practical reason. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/practical-reason. Accessed 14 Jan 2010.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.European Faculty of LawNova GoricaSlovenia

Personalised recommendations