法律方法能伸张正义吗?玛丽·简·莫斯曼的当代思考

IF 0.7 Q2 LAW Alternative Law Journal Pub Date : 2023-07-17 DOI:10.1177/1037969X231189058
Jay Nemec
{"title":"法律方法能伸张正义吗?玛丽·简·莫斯曼的当代思考","authors":"Jay Nemec","doi":"10.1177/1037969X231189058","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As Mary Jane Mossman has identified, and despite it containing ample room for judges to choose, legal method has customarily been used as a tool to preserve the status quo and exclude other perspectives. This Brief combines personal experiences in the law with contemporary cases to demonstrate why justice is still so rare. I argue that it is not possible for justice to be consistently achieved without changing the predominant legal method.","PeriodicalId":44595,"journal":{"name":"Alternative Law Journal","volume":"48 1","pages":"221 - 224"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Can the legal method produce justice? Contemporary reflections on Mary Jane Mossman\",\"authors\":\"Jay Nemec\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1037969X231189058\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"As Mary Jane Mossman has identified, and despite it containing ample room for judges to choose, legal method has customarily been used as a tool to preserve the status quo and exclude other perspectives. This Brief combines personal experiences in the law with contemporary cases to demonstrate why justice is still so rare. I argue that it is not possible for justice to be consistently achieved without changing the predominant legal method.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44595,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Alternative Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"48 1\",\"pages\":\"221 - 224\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Alternative Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1037969X231189058\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Alternative Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1037969X231189058","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

正如玛丽·简·莫斯曼(Mary Jane Mossman)所指出的那样,尽管法律方法为法官提供了充分的选择余地,但它通常被用作维持现状和排除其他观点的工具。本摘要结合个人在法律上的经历和当代的案例来说明为什么正义仍然如此罕见。我认为,如果不改变主要的法律方法,就不可能始终如一地实现正义。
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
Can the legal method produce justice? Contemporary reflections on Mary Jane Mossman
As Mary Jane Mossman has identified, and despite it containing ample room for judges to choose, legal method has customarily been used as a tool to preserve the status quo and exclude other perspectives. This Brief combines personal experiences in the law with contemporary cases to demonstrate why justice is still so rare. I argue that it is not possible for justice to be consistently achieved without changing the predominant legal method.
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
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
58
期刊最新文献
Coming, ready or not Beyond the Preamble: Legislating the right to self-determination in a NSW Human Rights Act Family inclusion in child protection: Law, courts and balancing risks Returning to rebellious roots: What rebellious lawyering can offer progressive law in Australia Forks in the road to equality: The path for same-sex attracted individuals in Australia and Nigeria
×
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