| Preface |
|
ix | |
| Permissions |
|
x | |
|
Table of common law cases and practice directions |
|
|
xi | |
|
Table of common law legislation |
|
|
xvi | |
| General introduction |
|
1 | (11) |
|
1 What was the contribution of the medieval civilians? |
|
|
12 | (21) |
|
|
|
12 | (2) |
|
|
|
14 | (3) |
|
1.3 Methods of the glossators |
|
|
17 | (4) |
|
1.4 Post-Glossators (Commentators) |
|
|
21 | (3) |
|
1.5 Theory and methods of the Post-Glossators |
|
|
24 | (3) |
|
1.6 Ius commune and the development of method |
|
|
27 | (6) |
|
2 What was the contribution of the Roman lawyers? |
|
|
33 | (24) |
|
|
|
33 | (3) |
|
2.2 Institutes: persons, things and actions |
|
|
36 | (2) |
|
2.3 Casuistry and categorisation |
|
|
38 | (3) |
|
2.4 Philosophical and theory contexts |
|
|
41 | (1) |
|
2.5 Attitude and specific techniques |
|
|
42 | (5) |
|
2.6 Logic and rationalisation |
|
|
47 | (2) |
|
|
|
49 | (2) |
|
|
|
51 | (1) |
|
2.9 Assessing the contribution of the Roman jurists |
|
|
52 | (5) |
|
3 What was the contribution of the later civilians and the common lawyers? |
|
|
57 | (30) |
|
3.1 Humanist re-orientation |
|
|
57 | (3) |
|
3.2 Civilian rationalists |
|
|
60 | (5) |
|
3.3 Nominalism and rights |
|
|
65 | (2) |
|
3.4 Codification and reasoning |
|
|
67 | (3) |
|
3.5 Codification and legal science |
|
|
70 | (3) |
|
|
|
73 | (1) |
|
|
|
74 | (5) |
|
3.8 Reacting to civilian formalism |
|
|
79 | (3) |
|
|
|
82 | (2) |
|
3.10 Legal argumentation and the civilians |
|
|
84 | (2) |
|
|
|
86 | (1) |
|
4 What is the institutional legacy? |
|
|
87 | (30) |
|
|
|
87 | (2) |
|
|
|
89 | (6) |
|
|
|
95 | (4) |
|
|
|
99 | (6) |
|
|
|
105 | (4) |
|
|
|
109 | (2) |
|
|
|
111 | (3) |
|
4.8 Legal models: some concluding remarks |
|
|
114 | (3) |
|
5 What is the legal literature legacy? |
|
|
117 | (26) |
|
5.1 Teaching and practice of law |
|
|
117 | (3) |
|
|
|
120 | (2) |
|
|
|
122 | (4) |
|
5.4 Taxonomy and reasoning |
|
|
126 | (2) |
|
|
|
128 | (3) |
|
5.6 Mapping and reasoning |
|
|
131 | (1) |
|
5.7 Representing knowledge |
|
|
132 | (2) |
|
|
|
134 | (2) |
|
5.9 Scientific and legal taxonomy |
|
|
136 | (2) |
|
5.10 Empirical categories |
|
|
138 | (2) |
|
5.11 Rationalisation and reasoning |
|
|
140 | (3) |
|
6 How do legal reasoners treat facts? |
|
|
143 | (25) |
|
6.1 Introduction: law and fact |
|
|
143 | (2) |
|
6.2 Institutional model and facts |
|
|
145 | (2) |
|
|
|
147 | (4) |
|
|
|
151 | (4) |
|
|
|
155 | (3) |
|
6.6 Causing damage and causing a risk |
|
|
158 | (2) |
|
6.7 Ex iure factum oritur (virtual facts) |
|
|
160 | (3) |
|
|
|
163 | (3) |
|
|
|
166 | (2) |
|
7 Is legal reasoning like medical reasoning? |
|
|
168 | (29) |
|
7.1 Introduction: patients and clients |
|
|
168 | (2) |
|
7.2 Legal and medical reasoning: generalities |
|
|
170 | (1) |
|
7.3 Diagnosing a legal problem |
|
|
171 | (3) |
|
|
|
174 | (2) |
|
7.5 Knowledge models and reasoning about facts |
|
|
176 | (3) |
|
|
|
179 | (2) |
|
|
|
181 | (3) |
|
7.8 Coherence versus policy: dialectical and functional reasoning |
|
|
184 | (4) |
|
7.9 Explanation, understanding and confrontation |
|
|
188 | (2) |
|
7.10 Explanation and manipulation |
|
|
190 | (7) |
|
8 Is legal reasoning like reasoning in film studies? |
|
|
197 | (32) |
|
|
|
197 | (5) |
|
8.2 Form and content (personification theory) |
|
|
202 | (5) |
|
|
|
207 | (2) |
|
8.4 Childish (and elitist) introspection |
|
|
209 | (2) |
|
8.5 Representation and dimensions |
|
|
211 | (2) |
|
8.6 Depicting reality: representation theory |
|
|
213 | (3) |
|
|
|
216 | (2) |
|
|
|
218 | (4) |
|
8.9 From theory to interpretation |
|
|
222 | (3) |
|
8.10 Theory versus interpretative frameworks |
|
|
225 | (3) |
|
8.11 Towards fiction theory? |
|
|
228 | (1) |
|
9 Is legal reasoning based on fictions? |
|
|
229 | (29) |
|
9.1 Introduction: fiction theory |
|
|
229 | (2) |
|
9.2 Epistemological attitude |
|
|
231 | (2) |
|
9.3 Legal reasoning and concepts |
|
|
233 | (3) |
|
|
|
236 | (2) |
|
|
|
238 | (1) |
|
9.6 Inferential legal reasoning |
|
|
238 | (3) |
|
|
|
241 | (2) |
|
|
|
243 | (3) |
|
9.9 Interpretation and fiction |
|
|
246 | (2) |
|
9.10 Taxonomy and fiction |
|
|
248 | (3) |
|
9.11 Fiction and knowledge representation |
|
|
251 | (4) |
|
9.12 Conclusion: legal reasoning and reality |
|
|
255 | (3) |
|
10 Can legal reasoning be rethought? |
|
|
258 | (27) |
|
10.1 Introduction: demystifying legal reasoning |
|
|
258 | (2) |
|
10.2 Rule model and system |
|
|
260 | (3) |
|
|
|
263 | (4) |
|
10.4 Analogy and the rule model |
|
|
267 | (3) |
|
|
|
270 | (3) |
|
10.6 Reasoning about facts: schemes of intelligibility |
|
|
273 | (3) |
|
10.7 Lessons from social science schemes |
|
|
276 | (1) |
|
10.8 Demystification and the rule model of law |
|
|
277 | (2) |
|
|
|
279 | (6) |
|
11 Rethinking legal reasoning: should jurists take interests more seriously? |
|
|
285 | (22) |
|
|
|
285 | (1) |
|
11.2 Rights and interests |
|
|
286 | (3) |
|
11.3 Defining an interest |
|
|
289 | (2) |
|
11.4 Advantages attaching to the notion of an interest |
|
|
291 | (3) |
|
11.5 Interests attaching to the persona |
|
|
294 | (4) |
|
11.6 Interests attaching to the res |
|
|
298 | (3) |
|
11.7 Interests attaching to the actio |
|
|
301 | (5) |
|
11.8 Interests and the institutional plan |
|
|
306 | (1) |
|
12 Should jurists take interests more seriously (continued)? |
|
|
307 | (22) |
|
|
|
307 | (3) |
|
12.2 Liberty, expectations and interests |
|
|
310 | (2) |
|
12.3 Damages, debt and interests |
|
|
312 | (3) |
|
12.4 Penalties and interests |
|
|
315 | (2) |
|
|
|
317 | (4) |
|
12.6 Mediating role of an interest |
|
|
321 | (2) |
|
12.7 Diluting tendencies of interests |
|
|
323 | (2) |
|
12.8 Rights versus interests |
|
|
325 | (2) |
|
12.9 Taking interests seriously |
|
|
327 | (2) |
| Concluding remarks |
|
329 | (4) |
| Bibliography |
|
333 | (14) |
| Index |
|
347 | |
Biežāk uzdotie jautājumi par e-grāmatām