Introduction The concept of ‘A Paradox of Hart’s Fallible Finality’ is given by ‘Andrej Kristan’ of the ‘Department of Private Law’ in ‘University of Girona’. He attempts to redefine the concept of fallibility of final judicial decisions by Hart, i.e. the final judicial decisions may be incorrect from the legal point of view. The author intends to show that the usual understanding of ‘Fallible Finality’ gives rise to a contradiction (the paradox), i.e. that it is (sometimes) legally correct to do that which is not legally correct by not contradicting the practical (realistic) examples. He tries to explain this in 3 steps: 1. Firstly, he discusses the contradiction with Herbart Hart 2. Then he discusses 3 methods to resolve the paradox (none of which resolves the issue) 3. Then he discusses the misconception of Hart’s reasoning Finally, he concludes his speech by giving an alternate proposal that responds to all of Hart’s pre-occupations without having to deal with the consequences of his own view. Brief He starts his speech by giving a concept of what a paradox is; for this he gave an example of a story given by Russell, known as the barber paradox. In his story he supposed that a barber is the one who shaves all those and only those who don’t shave …show more content…
But if ones response is that the barber doesn’t shave himself; then again we will conclude that the barber shaves himself as he’s the one who shaves all those who don’t shave themselves. The lesson of the story is that you cannot satisfactorily define the barber as one who shaves all those, and those only, who do not shave themselves because that gives rise to a contradiction. Hence, the assumption is wrong. The author believes that Hart’s ‘Fallible Finality’ has somewhat similar
He concludes that the answer to this question is in the negative , and to the extent that the present decision represents a turning back to literalism, he disagrees with
Steven begins with the topic of futurology and how everything a futurologists presents is usually unachievable. Remember when the talk of the town was about the
Mamo v Surace (“Mamo”) examines fault and finality, in the context of an unavoidable accident. Definitional discussion emerges within the idea of “fault”, with the outcomes ultimately furthering the legal avenues of victims of blameless accidents, enabled by the separation of non-tortious negligence and “fault”. Notably, the dismissal of arguments raised at appeal furthers the notion that circumstantially, injustice must be endured for the sake of finality, to avoid greater an injustice inflicted upon the opposing counsel .
In order to understand the concept of Moore’s Paradox, we must first assess and understand the behavior of logical and performative contradictions. Credited for devising and examining this paradox, George Edward Moore, a British philosopher who taught at the University of Cambridge and studied ethics, epistemology, and metaphysics describes the paradox in its omissive and commissive forms in which we will discuss thoroughly. I will then express my standpoint on which solution is the most optimal choice for Moore’s Paradox in order to analyze and explain why I believe my solution is superior to other solutions. I will also discuss any issues that arise
...He goes into detail about what may happen to the elderly and also addresses other possible solutions that he believes are preposterous. He lists other possible solutions and thoroughly refutes them and wants no discussion of them. He refutes them by saying that many proposals have been given before but most, if not at all, were only suggestions that were not sincere and saw no follow through.
As i have mentioned before, David tries to shed light on his statement by using metaphors and examples which are crucial in the understanding
The case of Francovich had a significant impact on the European Union (EU) law. If a conflict arises between the EU law and the national law, the EU law highly prevails. The European Union law is a framework of treaties and legislation, which have a direct or indirect effect on the laws of the member states which are bound to the European Union. Primary and Secondary laws are the two sources of the EU law. This essay will firstly analyse the main institutions of the European Union and define various legal terms. It will then move on, to discuss the case of Francovich and the importance it had for state liability. Furthermore, it will refer to subsequent cases which are linked with state liability and had an impact on the EU Law. Lastly, my own views about State Liability will be presented.
He uses many assumptions and “what if” scenarios, but doesn’t give numbers or facts to back up any of those claims, which could have made his argument much stronger.
He says that it is harder for him to doubt something deliberate, and the idea that he can have opportunities that are up to him to decide that fate of an outcome. He goes on to say that we must be wiser with our principles and start adjusting our theories to our data and avoid tailoring our data to our theories.
The judicial statement of Roskill LJ observed in The Albazero [1977] AC774 held plenty of arguments in modern world today. To reach an extent of agree or disagree the judicial statement, it should be critically analysed from a legal perspective:
ABSTRACT: Both utilitarians and the deontologists are of the opinion that punishment is justifiable, but according to the utilitarian moral thinkers, punishment can be justified solely by its consequences, while the deontologists believe that punishment is justifiable purely on retributive ground. D. D. Raphael is found to reconcile both views. According to him, a punishment is justified when it is both useful and deserved. Maclagan, on the other hand, denies it to be justifiable in the sense that it is not right to punish an offender. I claim that punishment is not justifiable but not in the sense in which it is claimed by Maclagan. The aim of this paper is to prove the absurdity of the enquiry as to whether punishment can be justified. Difference results from differing interpretations of the term 'justification.' In its traditional meaning, justification can hardly be distinguished from evaluation. In this sense, to justify an act is to say that it is good or right. I differ from the traditional use and insist that no act or conduct can be justified. Infliction of punishment is a human conduct and as such it is absurd to ask for its justification. I hold the view that to justify is to give reason, and it is only a statement or an assertion behind which we can put forth reason. Infliction of pain is an act behind which the agent may have purpose or intention but not reason. So, it is not punishment, but rather statements concerning punishment that we can justify.
Introduction This submission will discuss the problems created by the Doctrine of Judicial Precedent and will attempt to find solutions to them. Whereas, English Law has formed over some 900 years it was not until the middle of the 19th Century that the modern Doctrine was ‘reaffirmed’. London Tramways Co. Ltd V London County Council (1898). Law is open to interpretation, all decisions made since the birth of the English Legal System, have had some form of impact whether it is beneficial or not The term ‘Judicial Precedent’ has at least two meanings, one of which is the process where Judges will follow the decisions of previously decided cases, the other is what is known as an ‘Original Precedent’ that is a case that creates and applies a new rule. Precedents are to be found in Law Reports and are divided up into ‘Binding’ and ‘Persuasive’.
Ronald Dworkin has become one of the most influential legal philosophers over the last century providing a ‘sophisticated alternative to legal positivism’. Dworkin is a non-orthodox natural law theorist, his account of law centres on his theory of adjudication. A key aspect of adjudication is the concept of Law as Integrity. However, some commentators suggest that Dworkin’s ideal does not reflect the reality of judicial interpretation. In this paper I will outline Dworkin’s ‘law as integrity’ and then highlight some of the criticisms that appear to generate doubt over his writings as a convincing model. I will conclude that whilst his main opponents offer some substantial critiques of Dworkin’s theory of ‘law as integrity’, Dworkin does establish a convincing theory that tries to bridge the gap on judicial discretion that other notable theorists, including H.L.A. Hart, fail to achieve.
1.The strict supremacy of statute over judicial decisions and a tradition of literalism in statutory interpretation, 2. Where no legislation exists, the courts are bound by the doctrine of precedent in accordance with a strict hierarchy of judicial authority, 3. In the absence of a relevant precedent, the judges will be guided by legal principle and reasoning by analogy, and 4. There is clear way of distinguishing the ratio of a case…
Firstly in this report, I will be giving the different definitions of rule of law by different philosophers; secondly, I will be applying the rule of law to the English Legal system and thirdly I will be explaining separation of powers with a focus on the impartial judiciary. Finally, I will be using cases to support every detailed point given.