砸烂桌子:斯坦福法律评论》批判性法律研究研讨会,过去与现在

IF 1.3 Q1 LAW Laws Pub Date : 2024-03-26 DOI:10.3390/laws13020021
Paul Baumgardner
{"title":"砸烂桌子:斯坦福法律评论》批判性法律研究研讨会,过去与现在","authors":"Paul Baumgardner","doi":"10.3390/laws13020021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"When the critical legal studies (CLS) movement emerged in the United States, many in the legal community were shocked by the movement’s radical calls to remake legal education. But the movement also presented bold criticisms of quantitative legal scholarship and calculation in law that have proven remarkably prophetic. This article resuscitates the CLS movement’s concerns over “scientific law” in one of the movement’s most canonical works: the Critical Legal Studies Symposium issue of the Stanford Law Review in 1984. Along the way, this article explores the scope and limits of CLS admonitions regarding quantitative research and legal problem solving for the present day.","PeriodicalId":30534,"journal":{"name":"Laws","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Trashing the Tables: The Critical Legal Studies Symposium of the Stanford Law Review, Then and Now\",\"authors\":\"Paul Baumgardner\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/laws13020021\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"When the critical legal studies (CLS) movement emerged in the United States, many in the legal community were shocked by the movement’s radical calls to remake legal education. But the movement also presented bold criticisms of quantitative legal scholarship and calculation in law that have proven remarkably prophetic. This article resuscitates the CLS movement’s concerns over “scientific law” in one of the movement’s most canonical works: the Critical Legal Studies Symposium issue of the Stanford Law Review in 1984. Along the way, this article explores the scope and limits of CLS admonitions regarding quantitative research and legal problem solving for the present day.\",\"PeriodicalId\":30534,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Laws\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Laws\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/laws13020021\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Laws","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/laws13020021","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

当批判性法律研究(CLS)运动在美国兴起时,法律界的许多人都对该运动要求重塑法律教育的激进主张感到震惊。但是,这场运动也对定量法律学术研究和法律计算提出了大胆的批评,事实证明这些批评是非常有预见性的。本文在该运动最经典的作品之一--1984 年《斯坦福法律评论》的《批判性法律研究研讨会》--中重提了该运动对 "科学法律 "的担忧。在此过程中,本文探讨了CLS关于定量研究和法律问题解决的告诫在当今的适用范围和局限性。
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
Trashing the Tables: The Critical Legal Studies Symposium of the Stanford Law Review, Then and Now
When the critical legal studies (CLS) movement emerged in the United States, many in the legal community were shocked by the movement’s radical calls to remake legal education. But the movement also presented bold criticisms of quantitative legal scholarship and calculation in law that have proven remarkably prophetic. This article resuscitates the CLS movement’s concerns over “scientific law” in one of the movement’s most canonical works: the Critical Legal Studies Symposium issue of the Stanford Law Review in 1984. Along the way, this article explores the scope and limits of CLS admonitions regarding quantitative research and legal problem solving for the present day.
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
Laws
Laws LAW-
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
16.70%
发文量
77
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊最新文献
Energy Security, Energy Transition, and Foreign Investments: An Evolving Complex Relationship The Right to Data Portability as a Personal Right Beyond Auto-Brewery: Why Dysbiosis and the Legalome Matter to Forensic and Legal Psychology The OECD Dispute Resolution System in Tax Controversies Reconceptualizing Policing for Cybercrime: Perspectives from Singapore
×
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