Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorDYEVRE, Arthur
dc.date.accessioned2008-04-30T10:56:20Z
dc.date.available2008-04-30T10:56:20Z
dc.date.issued2008
dc.identifier.issn1830-7728
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1814/8510
dc.description.abstractEngaging with the literature on courts and judicial politics, this article argues that one should distinguish between three theoretical approaches to adjudication and, correspondingly, three families of theories of judging: socio-political, legal-positivist, and normative-prescriptive. Socio-political theories are concerned with the causes of judicial behaviour, whereas legal-positivist theories focus on the relations between the decisions of the courts and the other rules of the legal system. Normative-prescriptive theories of adjudication, on the other hand, are concerned with the moral evaluation of judicial behaviour and judicial institutions. Although interrelated in various ways, the three approaches should nonetheless be viewed as complementary rather than competing approaches to adjudication. Thus expounding what amounts to a meta-theory of adjudication, the article offers a general theoretical framework aimed at facilitating dialogue and cross-fertilisation among the disciplines that study courts and judges: political science, sociology, law, and political philosophy.en
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherEuropean University Institute
dc.relation.ispartofseriesEUI MWPen
dc.relation.ispartofseries2008/09en
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.subjectJudicial Politicisen
dc.subjectAdjudicationen
dc.subjectJudicial Lawmakingen
dc.subjectTheories of Lawen
dc.subjectJudgesen
dc.subjectLegalen
dc.subjectNew Institutionalismen
dc.titleMaking Sense of Judicial Lawmaking: a Theory of Theories of Adjudicationen
dc.typeWorking Paperen
eui.subscribe.skiptrue


Files associated with this item

Icon

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record