教会法的语言游戏:法律与宗教之间的战略模糊性

IF 0.4 Q3 LAW Oxford Journal of Law and Religion Pub Date : 2024-03-20 DOI:10.1093/ojlr/rwae004
Judith Hahn
{"title":"教会法的语言游戏:法律与宗教之间的战略模糊性","authors":"Judith Hahn","doi":"10.1093/ojlr/rwae004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The continental tradition of modern positive law, with its attempt to formulate clear legal rules, tends to be suspicious of ambiguity and struggles with the productive power of the untranslatable. Opaque kernels that inevitably remain in laws seem risky and call for disambiguation—through legislation, the courts, or administration. Yet despite this struggle against ambiguity, laws, as texts made of language, not only remain essentially ambiguous, but often require ambiguity when regulating for plural groups. In global legal orders, such as Roman Catholic canon law, we can observe that ambiguity is used strategically to allow for the inclusion of plural legal cultures. Adding to this, canon law fosters its opaqueness by meandering between secular and religious language games, thus playing with the semantic surplus of religion for the sake of cultivating ambiguity. This ambiguity management is itself ambiguous. It is inclusive, allowing plural communities to exist under the roof of Catholicism, but it is also open to the authorities’ arbitrary decisions undermining legal certainty as a core value of modern law.","PeriodicalId":44058,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Journal of Law and Religion","volume":"163 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Language Games of Canon Law: Strategic Ambiguity Between Law and Religion\",\"authors\":\"Judith Hahn\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ojlr/rwae004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The continental tradition of modern positive law, with its attempt to formulate clear legal rules, tends to be suspicious of ambiguity and struggles with the productive power of the untranslatable. Opaque kernels that inevitably remain in laws seem risky and call for disambiguation—through legislation, the courts, or administration. Yet despite this struggle against ambiguity, laws, as texts made of language, not only remain essentially ambiguous, but often require ambiguity when regulating for plural groups. In global legal orders, such as Roman Catholic canon law, we can observe that ambiguity is used strategically to allow for the inclusion of plural legal cultures. Adding to this, canon law fosters its opaqueness by meandering between secular and religious language games, thus playing with the semantic surplus of religion for the sake of cultivating ambiguity. This ambiguity management is itself ambiguous. It is inclusive, allowing plural communities to exist under the roof of Catholicism, but it is also open to the authorities’ arbitrary decisions undermining legal certainty as a core value of modern law.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44058,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Oxford Journal of Law and Religion\",\"volume\":\"163 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Oxford Journal of Law and Religion\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ojlr/rwae004\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford Journal of Law and Religion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ojlr/rwae004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

现代实在法的大陆传统试图制定明确的法律规则,它往往对模棱两可的内容持怀疑态度,并与不可翻译的内容的生产力作斗争。法律中不可避免地残留着不明确的内核,这些内核似乎具有风险,需要通过立法、法院或行政来消除歧义。然而,尽管法律在与模糊性作斗争,但法律作为由语言构成的文本,不仅在本质上仍然是模糊的,而且在对多元群体进行规范时往往需要模糊性。在全球法律秩序中,如罗马天主教教会法中,我们可以观察到模糊性被战略性地用于容纳多元法律文化。此外,教会法还在世俗和宗教语言游戏之间徘徊,从而利用宗教的语义盈余来培养模糊性,从而增强了其不透明性。这种模糊管理本身就是模糊的。它具有包容性,允许多元社区在天主教的屋檐下存在,但它也为当局的任意决定敞开大门,破坏了作为现代法律核心价值的法律确定性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The Language Games of Canon Law: Strategic Ambiguity Between Law and Religion
The continental tradition of modern positive law, with its attempt to formulate clear legal rules, tends to be suspicious of ambiguity and struggles with the productive power of the untranslatable. Opaque kernels that inevitably remain in laws seem risky and call for disambiguation—through legislation, the courts, or administration. Yet despite this struggle against ambiguity, laws, as texts made of language, not only remain essentially ambiguous, but often require ambiguity when regulating for plural groups. In global legal orders, such as Roman Catholic canon law, we can observe that ambiguity is used strategically to allow for the inclusion of plural legal cultures. Adding to this, canon law fosters its opaqueness by meandering between secular and religious language games, thus playing with the semantic surplus of religion for the sake of cultivating ambiguity. This ambiguity management is itself ambiguous. It is inclusive, allowing plural communities to exist under the roof of Catholicism, but it is also open to the authorities’ arbitrary decisions undermining legal certainty as a core value of modern law.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
16.70%
发文量
9
期刊介绍: Recent years have witnessed a resurgence of religion in public life and a concomitant array of legal responses. This has led in turn to the proliferation of research and writing on the interaction of law and religion cutting across many disciplines. The Oxford Journal of Law and Religion (OJLR) will have a range of articles drawn from various sectors of the law and religion field, including: social, legal and political issues involving the relationship between law and religion in society; comparative law perspectives on the relationship between religion and state institutions; developments regarding human and constitutional rights to freedom of religion or belief; considerations of the relationship between religious and secular legal systems; and other salient areas where law and religion interact (e.g., theology, legal and political theory, legal history, philosophy, etc.). The OJLR reflects the widening scope of study concerning law and religion not only by publishing leading pieces of legal scholarship but also by complementing them with the work of historians, theologians and social scientists that is germane to a better understanding of the issues of central concern. We aim to redefine the interdependence of law, humanities, and social sciences within the widening parameters of the study of law and religion, whilst seeking to make the distinctive area of law and religion more comprehensible from both a legal and a religious perspective. We plan to capture systematically and consistently the complex dynamics of law and religion from different legal as well as religious research perspectives worldwide. The OJLR seeks leading contributions from various subdomains in the field and plans to become a world-leading journal that will help shape, build and strengthen the field as a whole.
期刊最新文献
From Transmitting Authority to Quiet Adaptation: Social Change and the Translation of Islamic Knowledge in Norway Playing with the Canon: Ḥanafī Legal Riddles of the Mamluk Period Fragmentation in the European and Inter-American Human Rights Courts Regarding the Scope of Religious Autonomy: An Analysis of the Use of Sources and Methodologies New Threats to Sacred Sites and Religious Property A Tale of Two Ṭarīqas: The Iraqi and Khurasani Shāfiʿī Communities in the Fourth/Tenth and Fifth/Eleventh Centuries
×
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