Transcript Legal doctrine - WordPress.com

1st Slides of Legal Study
FIRST CHAPTER
Version 12/07/2016
METHODOLOGY IN
LEGAL DOCTRINE
Grahat Nagara
‘the disciples of law is the disciples of
humanity itself’
2016
References
•
Advanced Research Methods in the Built Environment, Andrew Knight
and Les Ruddock (ed.), (2008).
•
Epistemology an Method in law: An Insight From Systems Theory, Interrelationship, Unity, Coherence and Integration of Norm, Hayyan Ul Haq
(2014).
•
Law and Learning: Report to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Council of Canada by the Consultative Group on Research and Education in
Law, Arthurs, H.W. (1983).
•
Methodologies of Legal Research: Which Kind of Method for What Kind of
Discipline?, Mark Van Hoecke (ed.), (2011).
•
Methods of Legal Reasoning, Jerzy Stelmach and Bartosz Brozek,
(2006).
How to use the slides
•
Red words means my own interpretation of the texts or comment.
•
Green are statements that not the main reference opinion, but opinion of
other source of reference or legal scholar. Which may not reflect the opinion
of the main reference.
•
Check comments for the source of reference and other side notes.
•
Maybe used in any purpose with quotation and respectfully also the
reference used in the presentation.
•
Reader are encouraged to directly read also literature referenced in this
presentation, as my interpretation on the reading material may be incorrect
or oversimplifying.
•
Presentation will be updated, please check latest version.
Law as science
Law as science
19th century
Science
Legal (Science)
Universal validity
Georaphically
limited validity
Empirical data
Non empirical
Law as science // criticism on legal doctrine
Criticism on legal doctrine
Rejection
•
•
•
Kirchman. Not only criticized the condition
of jurisprudence but even put into doubt the
usefulness of legal knowledge, which he
labeled valueless and parasitic.
Hutcheson. With claimed that judge decide
concrete case using intuition and
imagination. Therefore no objectively
reconstructible method of legal reasoning.
Critical Legal Studies. Noted that
teaching and investigating traditional
methods of law are useless. Which law ‘is
politics’, therefore no such thing as method of
law. Leads to deconstruction of traditional
methodology.
General Critic
•
Too descriptive
•
Autopoietic
•
Lack of contextual of the law itself
•
Lack of clear methodology
•
Limited small scientific communities
•
Specialisation and geographical
limitation
•
Deal with books without having
investigate its usefulness and
understanding function
Law as science // criticism on legal doctrine // lawyer reaction
Lawyer reactions to development of
(empirical) science
First world war
Defense
•
•
•
Defensing autonomousity of law by pointing
out practicality, necessity, importance of law
in society.
Anthropology of law
Law and economic
20th century
Legal sociology
20th century
Legal psychology
20th century
Develop narrow empiricist view on ‘science’
(heteronomy).
Legal doctrine considered science if it turns
into empirical social science.
Characteristic of science and legal
science/doctrine
Requirements
Science
Legal science
Shared aspired
knowledge
Pursuit of knowledge
Not necessarily
Maintenance of legal
pursuit of knowledge
system
Shared reason to
adopt the knowledge
Systematise this
knowledge
Systematise law, but not explanatory, yet
justifcatory in nature
Science is a social
phenomenon
Legal doctrine or legal science?
Legal science
•
Include non legal discipline that study law
from independent theoritical framework –
with concept not primarily borrowed from
from legal system.
•
These disciplines may also be practiceoriented, such as economy or sociology,
aiming at either enhancing effectiveness or
efficiency, but they do not restrict
themselves to enquiries concerning the best
legal arrangements.
•
Unlike legal doctrine, the features of legal
science are not bound up with the features of
the legal system.
Legal doctrine
•
Legal disciplines that study law with
primarily legal concept.
•
Practice oriented with enquiry of best
legal arrangements.
•
Bound up with feature of the legal
system.
Law as science // criticism on legal doctrine // lawyer reaction // methodological autonomy vs heteronomy
Methodological autonomy versus
heteronomy in legal doctrine
Autonomy
Heteronomy
Develop inner criteria of
what constitute science
Has feature of real science
but under assumption of
using method of other
scientific disciplines.
Independent methodology
from other science
Legal doctrine as science.
Does not necessarily
applied in straightforward,
but adapted in the purpose
of the legal doctrine
research.
Legal doctrine preserved
as science.
Develop narrow empiricist view on
‘science’ (heteronomy)
Analytical philosophy of law
•
Incorporate mathemathical, logical,
and linguistical into jurisprudence.
•
Differed into 2 (two) types:
 Logical (horse-shoe analysis),
develop deontic logic, using logic to
construct normativity ‘forbidden’,
‘obligatory’, ‘allowed’. Proponents
including G.H. von Wright, O.
Becker, J. Kalinowski, and A. Ross.
 Linguistic (soft-shoe analysis). Aim
was to describe as precisely as
possible how analyzed concepts
function in ordinary language.
Proponents including HLA. Hart.
Legal realism
•
Jurisprudence can only be stated as
science when it uses methods in
natural science at least empirically
oriented disciplines.
•
Legal theory must be descriptive in
character.
•
Developed more in school of free law,
scandinavian realism, and american
realism.
Develop narrow empiricist view on
‘science’ (heteronomy)
School of free law
•
•
•
Legal interpretation should take into
account also three other sources of
valid law: customs, authority and free
investigation of a judge.
Independent court decisions are,
ultimately, the results of the judge’s
will, the needs of society and balanced
private interests.
The school of free law then designed
to oppose legal positivism.
American Realism
•
Applied the methods of empirical sociology,
and also of psychology and economics.
•
Questioning positivist formalism, American
realists claimed to turn to practice and to
investigate “real law,” especially the
behavior of judges.
•
Holmes in his “manifesto” paper The Path
of the Law, argued in order to explain what
law is, necessary to adopt the perspective of
the hypothetical “bad man”, who is not
interested in the problem of justifying legal
decisions or the rationality of law; rather,
with predicting how the judge will act in
given circumstances.
Develop narrow empiricist view on
‘science’ (heteronomy)
Sociological jurisprudence
•
•
According to Roscoe Pound law should
realize and protect six social interests:
common security, social institutions
(like family, religion and political
rights), sense of morality, social
goods, economic, cultural and political
progress and protection of an
individual’s life.
In order to realize those goals a new
sociological jurisprudence, Pound
argues must be developed.
Scandinavian realism
•
Regards law as an empirical fact.
•
Searched for the “essence” of legal
phenomena in the psychological reactions of
individuals.
•
Concepts as “law” or “obligation” are
regarded by Scandinavian realism as
psychological facts.
•
Concepts such as “law”, “obligation” and
“validity” are purely metaphysical without a
reference to empirical facts. They make
sense only if we associate them with
concrete emotions or psychological reactions
caused by the use of such notions.
Develop narrow empiricist view on ‘science’
(heteronomy) – with aim adapting methodology
developed in non legal disciplines
Economic analysis of law
•
Posner tried to show that the
processes of creating and interpreting
law comply with some economic rules.
•
The law is, or at least should be,
economically effective, i.e., its aim is
to minimize social costs and promote
the increase of social welfare.
•
A rational decision is a decision that
is economically justified, and, hence,
leads to the maximization of the
welfare of the given society.
System theory
•
In the 1980s attempts were made to
formulate a theory of autopoietic systems
in the social sciences, including legal
theory.
•
Luhmann and Teubner, claimed that
autopoiesis, i.e., the ability to selfregulate, is a characteristic of some social
systems in developed societies.
•
Its function is not, as is usually claimed, to
regulate social life and to solve social
conflicts, but to secure and promote the
normative expectations of a society.
Develop narrow empiricist view on ‘science’
(heteronomy) – with aim adapting methodology
developed in non legal disciplines
Argumentation theory
•
Contemporary argumentation theory
are based on various philosophical
traditions, from ancient logic,
rhetoric, dialectics, hermeneutics and
eristic to contemporary conceptions of
analytical ethics, constructivist theory
and the practical and theoretical
discourse of Habermas.
•
Argumentation theories are based on
methodological conceptions developed
in other scientific disciplines
(philosophy, logic, linguistics).
Legal hermeneutic
•
Legal hermeneutic absorp the
methodology from general
hermeneutic: 1) “methodological” as
created by Schleiermacher and
Dilthey, 2) “phenomenological” as
developed by Heidegger and
Gadamer.
Defensing autonomy of law
Roman Jurisprudence
•
The thesis on autonomy of law in
methodology was advocated by Roman
jurisprudence.
•
Roman jurist developed fundamentals
of general legal disciplines:
methodology and theory of
interpretation eg. Definitio, regula,
interpretatio, or rationes decidendi.
•
Hundreds of topoi are still used both
for legal practices and theoritical
purposes.
Historical school
•
Historical school along with legal
positivism expressed clearly on full
methodological autonomy of legal
doctrines.
•
Detachment of legal philosophy from
general philosophy as introduced by Kant
(Metaphysical Elements of Legal Theory)
and Hegel (Principles of Philosophy of
Law).
•
Savigny however reject both a priori
deductive method and formal dogmatic,
which then proposed empirical research
on law as social fact.
Defensing autonomy of law
Legal positivism
•
legal norms are created and not
“discovered”, as the proponents of
natural law maintain
•
there exists no necessary connection
between law and morality or between
the law as it is and as it should be
•
creation of law is an expression of the
will of the sovereign
•
•
law consists exclusively of norms or
rules
research of legal concepts has to be
distinguished from historical,
sociological, or psychological research
•
the legal system should be considered
a “closed logical system”, in which
every decision can be inferred from
predetermined norms or rules using
logical tools.
•
lawyers should obey the law without
any exception, i.e., all legal decisions
should be made on the basis of legal
norms (rules)
Defense on empirical
misunderstanding
•
Empirical outlook does not guarantee
objectivity, neutrality or the absence of
normativity.
•
Empirical term does not say anything about the
kind of external theoritical framework that
should be used.
•
In order to arrive at a coherent picture of law
one should not focus on an idealised and
necessarily truncated picture of law as based on
the model of corrective justice and perfect rights
alone
The three stance of methodology in
legal doctrine
Hutcheson’s based on intuition.
While CLS does not necessarily
propose law as non
methodological science – instead
pluralism.
There is no unique universally
acceptable methodology of legal
reasoning.
‘Heteronomicity’ is specific,
peculiar to the certain procedures
on creation and interpretation of
law.
Application of legal reasoning is
conducted without hierarchy,
determined by individual case.
Lawyer reason without
identifiable methodology
Lawyer reason with
autonomy methodology
Lawyers use methodology
adopted from other science
Kelsen view. Based on
ontological assumption,
which cannot serve as
common acceptable
defense.
Pure adaptation
Adaptation with
modification
[1] For the purpose of this material I will use the term of ‘legal doctrine’ for both legal
science which considered developing heteronomy aspect of law and legal doctrine which
defence autonomous aspect of law.
[2] While various sciences and doctrines of law (p.10-16) refer to division of methodology, this
sciences or in some other terms used as jurisprudence also differed by their view on the
nature of law (p.21). This however will not be discussed in-depth on this slides.
Commentaries.
Legal research styles
APPLIED
Law Reform Research
(socio-legal research/ law
in context)
Expository Research
(Conventional treatises
and articles)
INTERDISCIPLINARY
DOCTRINAL
Legal Theory Research
(Jurisprudence, legal
philosophy, etc)
Fundamental Research
(Sociology of law, critical
legal studies, law and
economics, etc)
PURE
Theoritical and practical area of legal
research
Pratical purpose
Theoritical purpose
Advising decision in
accordance to law
Understanding legal
reality
Prescriptive
Descriptive and
explanatory
Providing validity and
content of norm
Offer theoritical reasoning
Area of of legal research and its legal
reasoning from Stelmach and Brozek
Argumentative
Legal positivism
Practical
Interpreting and
creating law
Legal realism
Legal-dogmatic
Analysis on areas of
law
Analytic philosophy
Theoritical
Legal theory and
philosophy of law
Hermeneutic
discipline
Three views on the nature of law
Purely procedural law
Law as social fact
Normative view of the law
Questions about the
contents of the law have no
true answers
Law consists merely of a
set of acceptable argument
forms
Dependent a social group
about the contents of the
law and think about what
others think about it
What ought to be enforced
Only one outcome viable
No collaborative sense
pursuit of knowledge
Explains why the
law as fact, despite opinion
of individual
No law beyond social
reality, or that lawyer
disagree (while they
always do)
Branch of morality
Enforceability not based on
social practices
The positive law is only
‘real’ law to the extent that
it contributes to the
recognisability of law and
to legal certainty.
Van Hoecke disciplines in legal
doctrine
Hermeneutic
Van Hoecke propose at least there
are 7 (seven) disciplines that can be
used for lawyers as angle to present
the legal doctrine.
•
The disciplines has their own analysis
methodology of legal research in term
of hypothesis and theory building.
Argumentative
Logical
Explanatory
Normative
Empirical
Axiomatic
•
Stelmach and Brozek legal reasoning
in legal doctrine
Hermeneutic
Argumentative
Logical
Analysis
•
Stelmach and Brozek propose at
least 4 (four) of legal doctrine
disciplines can be used as legal
reasoning method for all areas of legal
research.
•
The methods of legal reasoning does
not necessarily exhaust entire
spectrum of legal doctrine.
•
Unlike Van Hoecke however,
Stelmach and Brozek specifically
expressed that the 4 disciplines is the
reasoning that can be used on legal
doctrine research, not only the nature
of legal doctrine itself.
Hermeneutic disciplines of legal
doctrine
Methodology
•
Interpreting texts
•
Arguing choice about diverging
interpretation.
•
Similar to study of literature and
history.
•
Minimised when try to differ between
legal scholarship and legal practices.
Legal practices considered more
hermeneutical.
Object
•
Text and document are main research
object and interpretation.
Argumentative disciplines of legal
doctrine
Methodology
Object
•
Argumentative emphasized to support
interpretation and solution.
•
Texts and document supported by the
argument.
•
Broader context available from out of
interpreted texts.
•
•
Prescription answered by accepted
views.
Texts and document loosely related
with argument, eg. unwritten law,
filling the gaps of law, putting aside of
text in favour for important value or
principle.
•
Interpretation is the goal and
argumentation is the means.
•
Not aimed at finding contents of law,
is aimed at convincing one’s
auditorium of a particular legal
position.
Empirical disciplines of legal doctrine
Methodology
•
Empirical verification takes places by
checking statements in legal doctrine
against judicial practices.
•
Similar to American Realisme
proposed by Oliver Wendell Holmes.
•
Legal doctrine is not mainly an
empirical discipline.
Object
•
Published judicial decisions.
•
Influence of the rules on the member
of society.
Explanatory disciplines of legal
doctrine
Methodology
•
Explain the reasoning of legal rule
validity on given society.
•
Explained which rule are derived by
existence of higher legal norm or
underlying values or larger network
legal rules or principles.
•
Explain rule determined behaviour,
interaction with other actors.
Sociological techniques instead of
legal doctrine.
•
Legal doctrine is not mainly an
explanatory discipline.
Object
•
Explanation based on historical,
sociological, psychological, economical
and the like.
 Reduces legal doctrine to one or
more social science.
•
Explanation based on an internal
logic.
 Reduces the activity of legal
doctrine itself.
 Nothing is explained, but
postulating principles to legitimate
the rule derives from them.
Explanatory and understanding
discipline
Erklaren (explanation)
Verstehn (understanding)
•
Systematisation and generalisation
are important also in legal doctrinal
understanding.
•
The notion downplay systematic and
generalisation (abstraction) character
of scientific knowledge.
•
As both validity and judicial content
are understood by deriving from
general legal norms.
•
Versthende discipline such as history
do not allow for generalisation.
•
Larger part of legal doctrine is to
understand concrete state affair
(determining validity or content of
judicial cases).
•
Legal doctrinal understanding on
judicial decision in term general legal
norms rather similar to natural
scientific understanding of concrete
state affairs in term of general laws of
nature.
Behavioural economic on legal
research
Behavioural economic
Assumption
Purpose
Improving explanatory and
predictive of economics
Full rationality
Explore implication for the
law
By providing
psychologically more
realistic assumption on
human judgment
Based on empirical
findings
Total self control
Exclusive self interest
Axiomatic disciplines of legal
doctrine
Methodology
•
Legal doctrine was an applied exact
science, with also some empirical
dimension.
•
Law as an algebra of legal concept.
•
Started in 19th century, revived on
20th century but did not prove to be
successful.
Logical disciplines of legal doctrine
Methodology
•
Moderate view of axiomatic
disciplines, legal doctrine should be
exclusively logical in view of
systematising the law.
•
Logic is important but, interpretation
of the content of law even more
important.
•
Contents of legal data too indefinite to
be purely logical.
Normative disciplines of legal
doctrine
Methodology and object
Process
Describe and
Systematising
Takes normative
position
Makes choices
amongst values and
interest
Purpose
Looking for better
law
Deal with questions
of what law should
be
H-standards
Object
Require empirical
research, sociology,
economical.
Internal logic
Ends
Intersubjective
concensus.
Knowledge which
rules should be
enforced collectively
Internal logic normativity of Kelsen
Causal relation
Descriptive
disciplines
Imputation
Science
Normative
disciplines
Determining existence of obligation
/ breach through internal logic.
Internal logic means interpretation
in law and non influence of non
legal elements.
•
Minimise hermeneutic element in legal
research.
‘Norm is a meaning’ not ‘Norm has
a meaning.’
Problematic normative discipline
Unfalsiable problematic
Is realm (das
sollen)
Mind independent reality
shared with all people
Every factual
proposition binary
Ought to realm
(das sein)
Lack mind-independent
reality
No common ground
for agreement
Realms
•
There is no common ground which can function as a
foundation for agreement and where there is no ground
for agreement, so runs the argument, there is no room
for science.
Problematic normative discipline as
science
Logical problematic
Ought to
statement
Deductive
process
Premises of the justificatory argument must be
either true, if they are factual, or justified.
Ought to
statement
Cannot be factual nor true/false, therefore need to
be justified.
Ought to
statement
Justification requires an argument with at least
one normative premise, which also must be
justified.
Ad infinitum,
‘naturalistic
fallacy’
Jaap Hage and H-Standard on
method for normative legal science
Method for normative
doctrine
H-Standard
•
Acceptance of plurality of
independent values which need to be
balanced in concrete cases, and with
multiple standards that govern this
balancing.
•
The values and the ways in which
they are balanced are coherent in
the sense that these positions fit in a
coherent theory of ‘everything’.
•
The standard that would be adopted
for the determination of which rules
should be enforced collectively aims
at the promotion of long-term
happiness of sentient beings.
Traditional interpretive
Explanatory of
psychology, biology,
sociology and economy
Justification in normative disciplines
Legal action
Mental belief of accepting
should be performed
Belief
Mental belief of accepting
as truth
Justification
Position set
Justification in normative disciplines
Being justified
Truth
Deductively valid
argument
Deductived
argument
Transferred to
conclusion (what
is justified)
Transferred to
conclusion
•
First. ‘Being justified’ cannot simply be posed analogous to truth.
•
Second. Truth conclusion guaranteed by the truth of the premises.
Not influenced by addition information. Real life justification based
on premises that support the conclusion without guaranteeing its
truth. All reasons for or against acceptance must be balanced and
that means in turn that justification must be global.
Hans Albert on Justification
Problematic
Munchaussen trillemma
Three
possibilities of
justificatory
argument:
Some premises are should be dogmatically
accepted as true or justified
The need to justify the premises leads to an
infinite regress, because the arguments used to
justify the premises also use premises which need
to be justified, and so on.
The premises of a justificatory argument are
indirectly justified by the conclusion of the
justificatory argument; circular justification.
Jaap Hage Answer on Hans’s
Trillemma
•
Justification necessarily circular, on a
based that every position that a person
accept is based on the person position
set.
•
Justification cannot be based on reality,
as our contact with reality it through
what we believe about reality itself.
Hans Albert trillemma not
necessarily problematic at
all.
Coherentism
Advantage
•
Global nature of
justification
•
Theory of
coherence
Justification of a position consists in the
position being an element of a wider set
of positions which somehow ‘cohere’ with
each other.
Does not require a foundational set of
positions which are considered to be
justified without further reasons;
immune to criticism.
Disadvantage
•
Justification exist in a mutual realtion
means that its connection with ‘world
outside’ is lost.
•
Notion of coherence is hard to specify.
Types of coherence
Epistemic coherence
Normative coherence
Integrated coherence
Includes every position that
should be accepted in the light of
its content (the counterpart of
logical closure)
Does not include any position that
should be rejected according to its
own content (the counterpart of
consistency)
Coherence of isolation of reality and
defence
Critics on coherence
A set of positions may be coherent
while all positions contained in it
are false.
The elements in the set justify
each other, but there is no
guarantee that the content of the
set as a whole somehow reflects
reality.
Defence
Confuse justification with
reality.
One does not come up with a
coherent set of positions from
scratch.
Coherency test on justification
Rational
determinant
Existing set of
position
Provide corrected
exisiting set-- add or
remove set
•
A-rational
determinant
•
Position sets are
biased toward the
past.
A person being justified in
accepting something.
Cause spontaneous
change to the
contents of set
•
Can only take place
on the basis of
existing
Justification
relative held by
particular person.
Original set of
position
Spontaneous position and ‘the world
outside’
Pre-assumed
•
Some of position reflect external
world.
•
There are external world that reflect
spontaneous position.
•
External world exist on perceived
impression.
Agreement of belief by
different persons.
Agreement on position is
the outflow of our
cognitive apparatus.
Agreement of procedures
that lead the same
outcome.
Jaap Hage on justification in
normative disciplines
•
There is no principal difference between the justification of positions that
are deemed ‘factual’ and positions that are deemed ‘normative’.
•
The alleged ‘gap’ between ‘is’ and ‘ought’ does not a-priori exclude the
possibility of a normative science.
•
The very abstract method for science ‘Develop a coherent set of positions
which includes a position concerning the question you want to answer’ is the
same for all sciences, including normative ones.
Jaap Hage On Legal Reasoning /
Method for Legal Doctrines
Critics
The question in legal
doctrine should be differed:
1) contents of law, 2) what
the law should be
Some author consider law in
according the view on the
nature of law eg. as social
fact
Only reasonable when the
view of law as normative
discipline adopted
Assumption
Consequences
Pursuit of knowledge
Reasoning can be
normative
Consists of norms
that ought to be
enforced collectively
Coherent set is
required
Methodology
Reasoning has to be
able to answer the
H-Standards
Heteronomy,
either in pure
sense or adaptive
H-Standards provide
standard to
determine what is
the ought to
Legal research stages
Empirical data
usage
Wording and
checking research
hypothesis
Theory building
Empirical data collection and use
Data collection
Validity as
qualification
Normative
source
Authoritative
source
•
Binary choices.
Statutory
Case law
•
How to verify
validity?
Positivity?
Implementation?
Coherence?
HierarchY
Treatise
Non binding
precedent
Principles of law
Custormary law
Binding
precedent
Scholar legal
writings
Degree of authority
•
Degree based on
acceptance,
cocensus, relevance.
•
Delicate degree of
case law need to
understand
representativeness
in publication.
Research object in normative legal
doctrine
Positive law
•
Rule that easily known to people.
•
Rule that people will easily agree
about.
•
Rule that should be enforced by
collective means, if and to the extent
that it contributes to legal certainty.
•
Rule that legitmately democratic.
Wording and checking research
hypothesis
Problem finding
Spontaneous
problem finding
Prior observation
Selection of
empirical data
Legal problem
Guided by legal
theory and basic
assumptions
Non neutral
activities
Hypothesis does not
necessarily refer to
what the author had
in mind.
Defining research
questions
Linked to precise
meaning and scope
of legal concept,
rules, principles, or
constructions
No specific
limitation including
if the question is to
challenge the
paradigmatic view
of law
Theory building in
legal doctrine
Meta theory
Definition of law
Role of law in
society
‘Scientific theory’
Coherence (non
contradictory)
Views and concept
of reality
Deductible to
testable hypothesis
Legal doctrine
theory
existence (validity)
and interpretation
of legal concepts,
rules or principles
theory of valid legal
sources and their
hierarchy
methodology of law
argumentation
theory
legitimation theory
shared world view
(common basic
values and norms)
Strength
Capacity to cover a
domain as
large as possible
Capacity to generate
a large amount of
testable hypotheses
Stages in building
theories
Ordering reality
Concept formation
Abstraction, logical
coherence, simplicity
Underlying concepts
and view or interests
Systematising law
Combining
interpretation as
whole
“The messy work product of the judges and legislators requires a
good deal of tidying up, of synthesis, analysis, restatement, and
critique. These are intellectually demanding tasks, requiring vast
knowledge and the ability (not only brains and knowledge and
judgment, but also Sitzfleisch) to organize dispersed, fragmentary,
prolix, and rebarbative materials.
These are tasks that lack the theoretical breadth or ambition of
scholarship in more typically academic fields. Yet they are of
inestimable importance to the legal system and of greater social
value than much esoteric interdisciplinary legal scholarship”
Richard Posner (2007)