Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

From the Deductive to the Argumentative Rationality of Law

  • Chapter
Law, Interpretation and Reality

Part of the book series: Law and Philosophy Library ((LAPS,volume 11))

  • 231 Accesses

Abstract

Albeit at the risk of a certain simplification, the assertion might be ventured that since the beginning of this century discussion about the interpretation of texts in general and of legal texts in particular has been characterized by a movement away from the paradigm of textual unity. In the following, the main development lines of a unified text appreciation will first be sketched out and then the philosophical-legal-theoretical forms of this disintegration and the beginnings of its assimilation in jurisprudence will be investigated. Finally, proceeding from concepts for the reorientation of system theory to models of “autopoietic” self-construction, outlines of a post-modern rationality of the relations among differential possibilities for the legal system will be presented.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Reference

  1. Cf. P. Ricœur, Du texte à l’action. Essais d’herméneutique 11, Paris, 1986, p. 78.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Cf. P.Riceeur, 1.e. (N.1), p. 78; M. Frank, Das individuelle Allgemeine, Frankfurt a.M., 1977, esp. p. 87 ff.; id., Die Unhintergehbarkeit von Individualität, Frankfurt a.M., 1986, esp. p. 118 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Cf. K. Konhardt, Die Einheit der Vernunft. Zum Verhältnis von theoretischer und praktischer Vernunft in der Philosophie Immanuel Kants, Königstein/Taunus, 1979, p. 44.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cf. A. Macintyre, After Virtue. A Study in Moral Theory, London, 1981, pp. 48, 200.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cf. J.F. Lyotard, “Grundlagenkrise”, Neue Hefte f Phil. 26 (1986), 1,12,24.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cf. F.D.E. Schleiermacher, Hermeneutik, ed. by H. Kimmerle, Heidelberg, 1969, p. 132 f.; P. Szondi, Einführung in die literarische Hermeneutik,Frankfurt, 1975, p. 166 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cf. J.F. Lyotard, “Histoire universelle et différences culturelles,” in Critique 1985, 559, 560; W. Welsch, Postmoderne und Postmetaphysik — Eine Konfrontation von Lyotard und Heidegger, in PhilJb 92 (1985), 116, 132s f.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Cf. J.F. Lyotard, Le savoir postmoderne, Paris, 1979; id., Le différend, Paris, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cf. F.C. v. Savigny, System des heutigen Römischen Rechts, Vol.1, Berlin, 1840, p. 14 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cf. C.F. v. Gerber, System des deutschen Privatrechts, Jena, 1843, p. V; M.G. Losano, “Der Begriff ‘System’ bei Gerber”, in Gedächtnisschrift f. Ilmar Tammelo, ed. by W. Krawietz/Th. Mayer-Maly/O. Weinberger, Berlin, 1984, pp. 647, 648.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Cf. P. Laband, Das Staatsrecht des Deutschen Reiches,5. Aufl., Tübingen, 1911, p. VI.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Cf. P. Costa, Il progetto giuridico, Turin, 1974, pp. 212, 236.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Cf. V. Descombes, “The Fabric of Subjectivity”, in H. Silverman/D. Ihde (eds.), Hermeneutics and Deconstruction, Albany, 1985, pp. 55, 64.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Cf. N. Negri, “Utilità e azione”, in L. Balbo et al., Complessità sociale e identità, Milano, 1983, p. 168; J.L. LeMoigne, “Plus les théories des organisations montent haut…”, in Rev. Eur. des Sci. Soc. 1987, pp. 147, 150.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Cf. H.G. Gadamer, “Text und Interpretation”, in Ph. Forget (ed.), Text und Interpretation, Munich, 1984, pp. 24, 25.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Cf. S. Benhabib, “Kritik des postmodernen Wissens. Eine Auseinandersetzung mit J.F. Lyotard, in A. Huyssen/K. Scherpe (eds.), Postmoderne. Zeichen eines kulturellen Wandels, Reinbek, 1986, pp. 103, 108.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Cf. P. Ricœur, “Logica ermeneutica?”, in aut aut No. 217/218, pp. 64, 66.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Cf. H.G. Gadamer, Kleine Schriften IV, Tübingen, 1977, p. 54 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Cf. J. Bouveresse, “Meaning and Understanding”, in H. Parret (ed.), Herméneutique et linguistique, Berlin/New York, 1981, pp. 112, 123; also Ricœur, 1.c. (N. 1), p. 84.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Cf. Ph. Heck, Das Problem der Rechtsgewinnung, Bad Homburg v.d.H., 1968; also W. Krawietz, Juristische Entscheidung und wissenschaftliche Erkenntnis, Wien/New York, 1978, p. 197.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Cf. H. Kelsen, Reine Rechtslehre, 2. Aufl., Wien, 1960.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Cf. F. Pardi, L’osservabilità dell’agire sociale, Milano, 1985, p. 13.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Cf. M. Weber, Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft, 5. Aufl., Tübingen, 1980, p. 196.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Cf. E. Severino, La filosofia contemporanea, Milano, 1986, p. 175.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Cf. A. Peczenik, Grundlagen der juristischen Argumentation, Wien/New York, 1983, p. 167; cf. also the critique in J.M. Brockman, “Die Rationalität des juristischen Diskurses”, in W. Krawietz/R. Alexy (eds.), Metatheorie der juristischen Argumentation, Berlin, 1983, pp. 89, 98.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Cf. A. Aamio/R. Alexy/A. Peczenik, “Grundlagen der juristischen Argumentation”, in Krawietz/Alexy (eds.) 1.c. (N. 39), pp. 9, 52, 78; concerning the concept of “form of life” see also Peczenik, 1.c. (N. 39), p. 208; A. Aamio, The Rational as Reasonable, Dordrecht, 1987, p. 216 f.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Cf. Broekman, l.c. (N. 39), p. 110; A. Aamio, “Argumentation Theory and Beyond”, in Rechtstheorie, 1983, pp. 385, 390; R. Alexy, Theorie der juristischen Argumentation, Frankfurt, 1978, pp. 32 ff., 263 ff., 349 ff.; idem, Theorie der Grundrechte, Frankfurt, 1986, p. 498 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Cf. J. Habermas, Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns, Vol. 1, Frankfurt, 1981, p. 385 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Cf. Aamio, 1.c. (N. 41), p. 216s.; Alexy, Theorie der juristischen Argumentation (N. 42), p. 74 ff.; and L. Wittgenstein himself in Philosophische Untersuchungen, 2nd ed., Frankfurt, 1980, No. 19, 23, 241, 325; idem Über Gewißheit, Frankfurt 1970, No. 102, 105.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Cf. Bouveresse, l.c. (N. 32), p. 130; Welsch, 1.c. (N. 8), p. 117; J.W. Murphy, “Une rhétorique qui déconstruit le sens commun: J. Derrida”, in Diogène no. 128 (1984), pp. 125, 128.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Cf. Ch. Perelman/Olbrechts-Tyteka, The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation, Notre Dame/USA, 1969; Murphy, l.c. (N. 51), p. 129.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Cf. Th. Viehweg, “Reine und rhetorische Rechtslehre”, in Rev. Inter. de Phil. du Droit, 1981, p. 547; cf. also Ch. Perelman, “On legal systems”, in J. of Social and Biological Structures, 1984, pp. 300, 304.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Cf. also U. Neumann, Juristische Argumentationslehre, Darmstadt, 1986, p. 55.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Cf. Th. M. Seibert, cf. also St. Toulmin, “Die Verleumdung der Rhetorik”, in Neue Hefte f. Phil. 26 (1986), pp. 55, 63.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Cf. P. Häberle, “Die offene Gesellschaft der Verfassungsinterpreten”, in Juristenzeitung, 1975, p. 297; cf. also F. Müller, Strukturierende Rechtslehre, Berlin, 1984, p. 169 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  36. For functional aspects cf. G.F. Schuppen, Funktionellrechtliche Gesichtspunkte der Verfassungsinterpretation, Königstein/Taunus, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Cf. W. Krawietz, “System und Rationalität in der juristischen Dogmatik”, in Rechtstheorie (Beiheft 2), 1981, pp. 299, 329, 355.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Cf. St. E. Fish, Is there a Text in this Class-room? The Authority of Interpretive Communities, Cambridge/Mass., 1982, who regards the (literary) text as nothing but a product of institutionalized convention. This kind of “institutional determinism” (G. Ferretti, “Il testo secondo Stanley Fish”, in alfabeta 101 (1987), p. 12), which is also inherent in legal theories of argumentation, neglects the process of intertextuality, as did traditional concepts of interpretation as reconstruction of the author’s intention.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Cf. M. Kriele, Theorie der Rechtsgewinnung, 2nd ed., Berlin, 1976, esp. p. 258 ff.; Alexy, Theorie der juristischen Argumentation (N. 42), p. 339; idem, Theorie der Grundrechte (N. 42), p. 504 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Cf. W. Welsch, “Nach welcher Moderne? Klärungsversuche im Feld von Architektur und Philosophie”, in P. Koslowski/R. Spaemann/R. Löw (eds.), Moderne oder Postmoderne?, Weinheim, 1986, pp. 237, 240; cf. also idem, Unsere postmoderne Moderne, Weinheim, 1987, esp. p. 296 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Cf. B. Schlink, “Bemerkungen zum Stand der Methodendiskussion in der Verfassungsrechtswissenschaft”, in Der Staat, 1980, p. 73.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Cf. K. O. Apel, “Spechakttheorie und transzendentale Sprachpragmatik”, in idem (ed.), Sprachpragmatik und Philosophie, Frankfurt, 1976, p. 10 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Cf. E.W. Böckenförde, “Die Eigenart des Staatsrechts und der Staatsrechtswissenschaft”, in Festschrift Scupin, ed. by N. Achterberg/W. Krawietz/D. Wyduckel, Berlin, 1983, pp. 317, 324.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Cf. F. Hase/K.H. Ladeur, Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit und politisches System,Frankfurt, New York, 1980; I. Ibsen, Das Bundesverfassungsgericht als Element gesellschaftlicher Selbstregulierung, Berlin, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Cf. P. Livet, “Simulation et représentation”, in A. Demailly/J.L. Le Moigne (eds.), Sciences de l’intelligence — sciences de l’artificiel, Lyon, 1986, pp. 274, 277.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Cf. G. Kortian, “Par-delà de l’identité moderne”, in Critique, 1987, pp. 337, 342, 344.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Cf. H. Straten, Wittgenstein and Derrida, Lincoln/London, 1986, p. 80; concerning legal reasoning cf. M.G. Losano, “La competenza interpretativa del diritto naturale”, in Fenomenologia e società, X (1987), pp. 70, 134.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Cf. G. Fauconnier, Mental Spaces. Aspects of Meaning Constructio in Natural Language, Cambridge /Mass./London, 1985, pp. 1 ff., 168; R.H. McKinney, “Toward a Resolution of the Modemist/Postmodemist Debate”, in Philosophy Today (Fall), 1984, pp. 234, 239.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Cf. as an example of Anglo-Saxon trends in legal argumentation theory R. Dworkin, “Law as Interpretation”, in Critical Inquiry, 1982, pp. 179, 195; idem, Law’s Empire, Cambridge/Mass., 1986, esp. p. 93 ff.; but Dworkin’s — as well as the abovementioned German authors’ — concepts of “coherence” and “integrity” still refer to a predetermined identitarian model of legal reasoning centred on the institution of the judge.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Cf. I. Prigogine, “Exploring Complexity”, in Eur. J. of Operational Res., 1987, pp. 97, 98; G.J. B. Probst, Selbstorganisation. Ordnungsprozesse in sozialen Systemen, Berlin, Hamburg, 1987, p. 61.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Cf. P. Thagard, “Parallel Computation and the Mind-Body-Problem”, Cognitive Science, 1986, pp. 301, 309.

    Google Scholar 

  52. M. Minsky, “The Society of Mind”, in Whole Earth Review, Summer, 1986, pp. 4, 10.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Cf. G. Genette, Narrative Discourse, Ithaca/N.Y., 1983; A. Wellmer, Ethik und Dialog, Frankfurt, 1986, p. 171 f.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Karl-Heinz Ladeur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. European University Institute, Florence, Italy

    Patrick Nerhot

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1990 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ladeur, KH. (1990). From the Deductive to the Argumentative Rationality of Law. In: Nerhot, P. (eds) Law, Interpretation and Reality. Law and Philosophy Library, vol 11. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7875-2_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7875-2_10

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-481-4061-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-015-7875-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation