Repository | Book | Chapter

The ten frames of legal analysis discerned from an isomorphic theory of law to radical contextualism are meant as an elaboration of Jerzy Wróblewski's three ideologies of judicial decision-making (i.e. the bound, legal and rational, and free ideologies) and Kaarle Makkonen's three situations of legal decision-making (i.e. the isomorphic, semantically ambiguous, and unregulated situations). The mutual relations that prevail between the ten frames of legal analysis and the three ideologies or situations of legal decision-making by Wróblewski and Makkonen, respectively, are concisely contrasted. Wróblewski's legal and rational ideology is further analysed in light of its constituent parts, viz. the prevalent legislative ideology, collective judicial ideology, and a societal conception of law and justice. So far, the analysis has focused on the synchronic models of legal argumentation, with emphasis on the chosen criterion, or a set of converging criteria, on how to construct and read the law in a reasoned manner. Sequential models of legal reasoning, on the other hand, conceive legal reasoning in a diachronic manner, or a chronological process from one type of argument to another. Two sequential models are considered: Neil MacCormick theory of the "three C's in legal reasoning", i.e. from text-oriented logical consistency to principled coherence in law and, finally, to the act of evaluating the external consequences of law in society; and the argumentation model suggested by the research group Bielefelder Kreis with reference to the role of the linguistic, systemic, teleological-axiological, and transcategorical arguments in legal reasoning.

DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-1872-2_12

Full citation: