法律研究与社会科学

C. McCrudden
{"title":"法律研究与社会科学","authors":"C. McCrudden","doi":"10.4324/9781315091891-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Four overlapping research agendas form the bulk of current academic legal scholarship in Britain. First, the understanding and internal coherence of legal concepts and legal reasoning, how legal concepts fit together, the consistency of the use of concepts in different areas of law, the extent to which general principles can be extracted from legal reasoning that can be used to predict or guide future legal decision-making. Second, the meaning and validity of law, the examination of what makes law different from, or similar to, other normative systems. Typically, this has involved questions such as: \"What is law?\" \"How far are issues of ethics or morality part of legal reasoning?\" \"How does a set of normative principles come to be thought of as 'legal'\"? \"How does law differ from other social institutions and practices?\" Third, the ethical and political acceptability of public policy delivered though legal instruments, the consideration of issues such as whether specific legal interventions are acceptable when assessed against external moral, ethical or political principles, or what should be the appropriate legal response where none exists at the moment. Policy prescription is thus often encountered in legal scholarship, sometimes addressed to the courts, sometimes to policy makers in government. Fourth, the effect of law. What effect, if any, does law have on human behaviour, attitudes, and actions? How does it have these effects? Are some institutional mechanisms for delivering legal outcomes more appropriate or effective than others? Each of these four sets of issues can be studied in a purely domestic legal context, such as England and Wales, or at the European level, internationally or comparatively, as a contemporary issue, or historically. Which, if any, of these questions engage a legal academic in \"social scientific\" research?","PeriodicalId":83159,"journal":{"name":"The Law quarterly review","volume":"122 1","pages":"632-650"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"75","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Legal Research and the Social Sciences\",\"authors\":\"C. McCrudden\",\"doi\":\"10.4324/9781315091891-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Four overlapping research agendas form the bulk of current academic legal scholarship in Britain. First, the understanding and internal coherence of legal concepts and legal reasoning, how legal concepts fit together, the consistency of the use of concepts in different areas of law, the extent to which general principles can be extracted from legal reasoning that can be used to predict or guide future legal decision-making. Second, the meaning and validity of law, the examination of what makes law different from, or similar to, other normative systems. Typically, this has involved questions such as: \\\"What is law?\\\" \\\"How far are issues of ethics or morality part of legal reasoning?\\\" \\\"How does a set of normative principles come to be thought of as 'legal'\\\"? \\\"How does law differ from other social institutions and practices?\\\" Third, the ethical and political acceptability of public policy delivered though legal instruments, the consideration of issues such as whether specific legal interventions are acceptable when assessed against external moral, ethical or political principles, or what should be the appropriate legal response where none exists at the moment. Policy prescription is thus often encountered in legal scholarship, sometimes addressed to the courts, sometimes to policy makers in government. Fourth, the effect of law. What effect, if any, does law have on human behaviour, attitudes, and actions? How does it have these effects? Are some institutional mechanisms for delivering legal outcomes more appropriate or effective than others? Each of these four sets of issues can be studied in a purely domestic legal context, such as England and Wales, or at the European level, internationally or comparatively, as a contemporary issue, or historically. Which, if any, of these questions engage a legal academic in \\\"social scientific\\\" research?\",\"PeriodicalId\":83159,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Law quarterly review\",\"volume\":\"122 1\",\"pages\":\"632-650\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2006-07-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"75\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Law quarterly review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315091891-6\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Law quarterly review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315091891-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 75

摘要

四个相互重叠的研究议程构成了英国当前法律学术研究的主体。首先,法律概念和法律推理的理解和内部一致性,法律概念如何融合在一起,不同法律领域中概念使用的一致性,从法律推理中提取一般原则的程度,可用于预测或指导未来的法律决策。第二,法律的意义和有效性,对法律与其他规范体系不同或相似之处的考察。通常,这涉及到诸如:“什么是法律?”"伦理或道德问题在多大程度上是法律推理的一部分"“一套规范性原则是如何被认为是‘合法的’?”“法律与其他社会制度和实践有何不同?”第三,通过法律文书提供的公共政策在伦理和政治上的可接受性,考虑一些问题,如在与外部道德、伦理或政治原则进行评估时,具体的法律干预是否可以接受,或者在目前不存在的情况下,适当的法律回应应该是什么。因此,在法律研究中经常遇到政策处方,有时是针对法院,有时是针对政府的政策制定者。四是法律效力。法律对人的行为、态度和行动有什么影响(如果有的话)?它是如何产生这些效果的?某些提供法律结果的体制机制是否比其他机制更合适或更有效?这四组问题中的每一组都可以在纯粹的国内法律背景下进行研究,例如英格兰和威尔士,或者在欧洲层面,国际或比较,作为当代问题,或历史问题。这些问题中,如果有的话,哪个问题需要法律学者进行“社会科学”研究?
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
Legal Research and the Social Sciences
Four overlapping research agendas form the bulk of current academic legal scholarship in Britain. First, the understanding and internal coherence of legal concepts and legal reasoning, how legal concepts fit together, the consistency of the use of concepts in different areas of law, the extent to which general principles can be extracted from legal reasoning that can be used to predict or guide future legal decision-making. Second, the meaning and validity of law, the examination of what makes law different from, or similar to, other normative systems. Typically, this has involved questions such as: "What is law?" "How far are issues of ethics or morality part of legal reasoning?" "How does a set of normative principles come to be thought of as 'legal'"? "How does law differ from other social institutions and practices?" Third, the ethical and political acceptability of public policy delivered though legal instruments, the consideration of issues such as whether specific legal interventions are acceptable when assessed against external moral, ethical or political principles, or what should be the appropriate legal response where none exists at the moment. Policy prescription is thus often encountered in legal scholarship, sometimes addressed to the courts, sometimes to policy makers in government. Fourth, the effect of law. What effect, if any, does law have on human behaviour, attitudes, and actions? How does it have these effects? Are some institutional mechanisms for delivering legal outcomes more appropriate or effective than others? Each of these four sets of issues can be studied in a purely domestic legal context, such as England and Wales, or at the European level, internationally or comparatively, as a contemporary issue, or historically. Which, if any, of these questions engage a legal academic in "social scientific" research?
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Dummy Asset Tracing Blackstone, Kahn-Freund, and the Contract of Employment The Many Faces of the Reasonable Person The Entire Agreement Clause: Conclusive or a Question of Weight? The 'Drastic' Remedy of Rectification for Unilateral Mistake
×
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