Taking Rights Less Seriously: A Structural Analysis of Judicial Discretion

Matthias Klatt
{"title":"Taking Rights Less Seriously: A Structural Analysis of Judicial Discretion","authors":"Matthias Klatt","doi":"10.1111/j.1467-9337.2007.00373.x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article investigates the concept and the construction of judicial discretion. The strengths and weaknesses of both Dworkin and Hart are analysed, and in view of these, it is argued that a full picture of judicial discretion is between the two extremes. Thus, a moderate theory of judicial discretion is maintained which is based on achievements by Robert Alexy (2002b). The article develops a balancing model of discretion and relates it to the theory of legal argumentation. The limits of discretion and the relation between structural (strong) and epistemic (weak) discretion are addressed in detail, both with illustrations from the jurisdiction of the German Federal Constitutional Court.","PeriodicalId":431450,"journal":{"name":"Jurisprudence & Legal Philosophy","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2007-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"13","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jurisprudence & Legal Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9337.2007.00373.x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

Abstract

This article investigates the concept and the construction of judicial discretion. The strengths and weaknesses of both Dworkin and Hart are analysed, and in view of these, it is argued that a full picture of judicial discretion is between the two extremes. Thus, a moderate theory of judicial discretion is maintained which is based on achievements by Robert Alexy (2002b). The article develops a balancing model of discretion and relates it to the theory of legal argumentation. The limits of discretion and the relation between structural (strong) and epistemic (weak) discretion are addressed in detail, both with illustrations from the jurisdiction of the German Federal Constitutional Court.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
轻视权利:司法自由裁量权的结构分析
本文探讨了司法自由裁量权的概念及其构建。本文分析了德沃金和哈特的优缺点,并据此认为,司法自由裁量权的全貌介于两个极端之间。因此,基于罗伯特·阿列克谢(Robert Alexy, 2002b)的成就,维持了一种适度的司法自由裁量权理论。本文建立了自由裁量权的平衡模型,并将其与法律论证理论联系起来。自由裁量权的限制以及结构性(强)和认识性(弱)自由裁量权之间的关系,均以德国联邦宪法法院的管辖权为例进行了详细论述。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Why Tolerate Religion? The Standards of Property England and the Rediscovery of Constitutional Faith The Indelible Science of Law The Principle Theory: How Many Theories and What is Their Merit?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1