A Theory of Juristic Argumentation
English world rights (Oxford UP), Spanish world rights (C.E.P.C.), Chinese simplex rights (Commercial Press), Chinese complex rights (Wu-Nan), Brazilian Portuguese rights (Forense), Poland (Trybunal Konstytucyjny), Turkey (Türk-Alman Üniversitesi), Greece (Sakkoulas Publications)
Previously published in the respective language / territory; rights available again: Italy (Giuffre), Korea (Korea UP), Lithuania (Center of Legal Information), Croatia (Breza)
Consensus today for the most part exists only in the negative; namely, that juristic decisions are not only controlled by law, precedent, doctrine and conventional methodology, but also in all reasonably problematic cases by...
The subject of this study concerns the central problem of juristic methodology. It is possible to formulate in the question whether jurisprudence is equipped with a commonly accepted canon that makes possible a rationally and inter-subjectively verifiable scrutiny.
Consensus today for the most part exists only in the negative; namely, that juristic decisions are not only controlled by law, precedent, doctrine and conventional methodology, but also in all reasonably problematic cases by »non-juridical« or moral judgments.
Persons
OTHER PUBLICATIONS
Theory of Fundamental Rights
English world rights (Oxford UP), Spanish world rights (C.E.P.C.), Chinese simplex rights (China Legal), Brazilian Portuguese rights (Juspodivm/Malheiros), Italy (Il Mulino), Korea (Korean Research Foundation), Japan (Minerva Shobo), Poland (Sejm)