Time, history and legal interpretation

S. Rodin
{"title":"Time, history and legal interpretation","authors":"S. Rodin","doi":"10.1177/1023263X211039980","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"At first glance, the CJEU does not appear to make much use of history in its daily work. History is debated neither in the courtroom or chambers, and even less so in the cabinets or corridors. When searched in Eur-lex, word ‘history’ yields 245 hits altogether in judgments of the CJEU (Court and Tribunal combined), mostly in the context of common language such as ‘history of safe food use’, ‘long-standing psychological history’, ‘history of illness’, etc. Even the usual suspect ‘legislative history’ appears in no more than 70 judgments, approximately six per year since 2017. Looking beyond the text, history has a broader meaning. Cambridge Online Dictionary defines history as ‘(the study of or a record of) past events considered together, especially events of a particular period, country, or subject’. While the Court certainly does not study history as such, its case law, collected and accessible, provides for a record of past events that come to be considered together from time to time when the Court decides on cases. In this broader sense, when relying on its case law ( jurisprudence constante, as it is often called), the Court does consider the record of past events. The history under its consideration is a history of facts and law as interpreted and applied by the Court. I will first suggest that law, just like history, requires a concept of linear time, which is generally taken for granted. I will proceed by explaining how temporal dimension matters for legal interpretation and propose that, while the concept of law itself requires temporal linearity, legal interpretation can be time-independent. History is a way in which we construct reality. It is often represented as an arrow of time which irreversibly flows from earlier to later. This is dictated by entropy, and from there on, by causality. Entropy, that is, the second law of thermodynamics, teaches us that all possible natural processes are irreversible. Similarly, causality generates an appearance of one phenomenon necessarily flowing from another, creating what Robert R. Merton called a functional necessity.","PeriodicalId":39672,"journal":{"name":"Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law","volume":"28 1","pages":"433 - 436"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X211039980","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

At first glance, the CJEU does not appear to make much use of history in its daily work. History is debated neither in the courtroom or chambers, and even less so in the cabinets or corridors. When searched in Eur-lex, word ‘history’ yields 245 hits altogether in judgments of the CJEU (Court and Tribunal combined), mostly in the context of common language such as ‘history of safe food use’, ‘long-standing psychological history’, ‘history of illness’, etc. Even the usual suspect ‘legislative history’ appears in no more than 70 judgments, approximately six per year since 2017. Looking beyond the text, history has a broader meaning. Cambridge Online Dictionary defines history as ‘(the study of or a record of) past events considered together, especially events of a particular period, country, or subject’. While the Court certainly does not study history as such, its case law, collected and accessible, provides for a record of past events that come to be considered together from time to time when the Court decides on cases. In this broader sense, when relying on its case law ( jurisprudence constante, as it is often called), the Court does consider the record of past events. The history under its consideration is a history of facts and law as interpreted and applied by the Court. I will first suggest that law, just like history, requires a concept of linear time, which is generally taken for granted. I will proceed by explaining how temporal dimension matters for legal interpretation and propose that, while the concept of law itself requires temporal linearity, legal interpretation can be time-independent. History is a way in which we construct reality. It is often represented as an arrow of time which irreversibly flows from earlier to later. This is dictated by entropy, and from there on, by causality. Entropy, that is, the second law of thermodynamics, teaches us that all possible natural processes are irreversible. Similarly, causality generates an appearance of one phenomenon necessarily flowing from another, creating what Robert R. Merton called a functional necessity.
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
时间,历史和法律解释
乍一看,欧洲人权委员会在日常工作中似乎并没有过多地利用历史。历史辩论既不是在法庭上,也不是在内庭上,更不是在内阁或走廊上。在欧洲法院(法院和审裁处合并)的判词中,“历史”一词在欧洲法院的判决中总共有245个搜索结果,主要是在通用语言的背景下,如“安全食品使用史”、“长期心理史”、“病史”等。即使是通常可疑的“立法史”出现在不超过70个判决中,自2017年以来大约每年6个。超越文本,历史具有更广泛的意义。剑桥在线词典将历史定义为“对过去事件的研究或记录,尤指某一特定时期、国家或主题的事件”。虽然最高法院当然不研究历史本身,但其收集和可查阅的判例法提供了对过去事件的记录,在最高法院对案件作出裁决时,这些事件有时会被一并考虑。在这个更广泛的意义上,当依靠判例法(通常被称为判例法)时,最高法院确实会考虑过去事件的记录。其审议的历史是由法院解释和适用的事实和法律的历史。我首先提出,法律,就像历史一样,需要线性时间的概念,这通常被认为是理所当然的。我将继续解释时间维度对法律解释的重要性,并提出,虽然法律概念本身需要时间线性,但法律解释可以是时间独立的。历史是我们构建现实的一种方式。它经常被描绘成时间之箭,不可逆转地从早到晚。这是由熵决定的,从那以后,由因果关系决定。熵,即热力学第二定律,告诉我们所有可能的自然过程都是不可逆的。同样,因果关系产生了一种现象必然从另一种现象流出的表象,创造了罗伯特·r·默顿(Robert R. Merton)所说的功能必然性。
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
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
27
期刊最新文献
Non-contractual liability of the EU: Need for a ‘diligent’ administrator test The European Arrest Warrant and the protection of the best interests of the child: The Court's last word on the limits of mutual recognition and the evolving obligations of national judicial authorities OP v. Commune d’Ans: When equality, intersectionality and state neutrality collide DPA independence and ‘indirect’ access – illusory in Belgium, France and Germany? Chilling effect: Turning the poison into an antidote for fundamental rights in Europe
×
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