Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T02:19:27.782Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why do judges talk the way they do?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 June 2009

Richard Nobles  and
David Schiff
Richard Nobles
Affiliation:
Department of Law, Queen Mary, University of London
David Schiff
Affiliation:
Department of Law, Queen Mary, University of London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Hartian tradition of jurisprudence utilises linguistic philosophy to examine legal communications, most particularly those made by judges, and seeks to reach conclusions about the commitment of legal actors towards legal systems, the part played by morality, and what aspects of law involve the exercise of discretion. But this approach fails to take account of the nature of communication within modern society. If one approaches these issues through the application of communication theory, applying Niklas Luhmann’s concept of redundancy, our understanding alters radically. Systems theory explains how and why the communication resources available to legal actors are both limited and system specific. Whilst one can accept that actors use communications to achieve particular legal operations, one cannot attribute the meaning of these communications to their intentions, motivations or commitments. This conclusion and reasons for it change our understanding of long-standing and unresolved jurisprudential debates about the nature of judicial discourse.

Type
Research Article
Information
International Journal of Law in Context , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , March 2009 , pp. 25 - 49
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Austin, John (1832/1995) The Province of Jurisprudence Determined. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bankowski, Zenon (1996) ‘How does it Feel to be on Your Own? The Person in the Sight of Autopoiesis’ in Nelken (1996), chapter 4.Google Scholar
Brunsson, Nils (2002) The Organization of Hypocrisy, 2nd edn. Oslo: Abstrakt forlag AS.Google Scholar
Coleman, Jules (ed.) (2001) Hart’s Postscript. Essays on the Postscript to the Concept of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cotterrell, Roger (2006) Law, Culture and Society: Legal Ideas in the Mirror of Social Theory. Dartmouth: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald (1986) Law’s Empire. London: Fontana.Google Scholar
Febbrajo, Alberto and Teubner, Gunther (1992) State, Law, Economy as Autopoietic Systems. Milan: Giuffre.Google Scholar
Finnis, John (1980) Natural Law and Natural Rights. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Galligan, Dennis (2006) Law in Modern Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenawalt, Kent (1975) ‘Discretion and Judicial Decision: The Elusive Quest for the Fetters that Bind Judges’, Columbia Law Review 75: 359–99.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. (1958) ‘Legal and Moral Obligation’ in Melden, A. I. (ed.), Essays in Moral Philosophy. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 82–107.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. (1994) The Concept of Law, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Himma, Kenneth (2001) ‘Law’s Claim of Legitimate Authority’ in Coleman (2001), chapter 8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Michael (2006) ‘What’s the Use of Luhmann’s Theory?’ in King and Thornhill (2006), chapter 2.Google Scholar
King, Michael and Thornhill, Chris (2003) Niklas Luhmann’s Theory of Politics and Law. Basingstoke: Palgrave/MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Michael and Thornhill, Chris (eds) (2006) Luhmann on Law and Politics. Critical Appraisals and Applications. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Kramer, Matthew H. (1999) In Defense of Legal Positivism. Law Without Trimmings. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kramer, Matthew H.Grant, ClaireColburn, Ben and Hatzistavrou, Antony (eds) (2008) The Legacy of H. L. A. Hart: Legal, Political and Moral Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David (2002) Convention: A Philosophical Study. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Loughlin, Martin and Walker, Neil (eds) (2007) The Paradox of Constitutionalism: Constituent Power and Constitutional Form. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Luhmann, Niklas (1982) The Differentiation of Society, trans. Holmes, S. and Larmore, C.. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luhmann, Niklas (1988) ‘The Third Question: The Creative Use of Paradoxes in Law and Legal History’ Journal of Law and Society 15: 153–65.Google Scholar
Luhmann, Niklas (1992) ‘The Coding of the Legal System’ in Febbrajo and Teubner (1991), 145–86.Google Scholar
Luhmann, Niklas (1993) Risk: A Sociological Theory, trans. Barrett, R.. New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Luhmann, Niklas (1995a) ‘Legal Argumentation: An Analysis of its Form’, The Modern Law Review 58: 285–98.Google Scholar
Luhmann, Niklas (1995b) Social Systems, trans. Bednarz, J. and Baecker, D.. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Luhmann, Niklas (2000a) Art as a Social System, trans. Knodt, E.. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Luhmann, Niklas (2000b) ‘Answering the Question: What is Modernity?’ (An Interview) in Rasch (2000), 195–221.Google Scholar
Luhmann, Niklas (2000c) The Reality of the Mass Media, trans. Cross, K.. Cambridge: Polity Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luhmann, Niklas (2002a) Theories of Distinction: Describing the Descriptions of Modernity, chapter 7, ‘What Is Communication’, trans. O’Neil, J. and Schreiber, E.. Stanford: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luhmann, Niklas (2002b) Theories of Distinction: Describing the Descriptions of Modernity, chapter 8, ‘How Can the Mind Participate in Communication?’, trans. Whobrey, W.. Stanford: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luhmann, Niklas (2004) Law as a Social System, trans. Ziegert, K.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Maccormick, Neil (1978) Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Maccormick, Neil (2008) H. L. A. Hart, 2nd edn. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Marmor, Andrei (2001) ‘Legal Conventionalism’ in Coleman (2001), chapter 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moeller, Hans-Georg (2006) Luhmann Explained: From Souls to Systems. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
Nelken, David (ed.) (1996) Law as Communication. Aldershot: Dartmouth.Google Scholar
Nobles, Richard and Schiff, David (2004) ‘A Story of Miscarriage: Law in the Media’, Journal of Law and Society 31: 221–44.Google Scholar
Nobles, Richard and Schiff, David (2006) A Sociology of Jurisprudence. Oxford: Hart Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nobles, Richard and Schiff, David (2007) ‘Review of Paradoxes and Inconsistencies in the Law’, Modern Law Review 70: 505–516.Google Scholar
Paterson, John (1996) ‘Who is Zenon Bankowski Talking to? The Person in the Sight of Autopoiesis’ in Nelken (1996), chapter 5.Google Scholar
Perez, Oren and Teubner, Gunther (eds) (2006) Paradoxes and Inconsistencies in the Law. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Perry, Stephen (2001) ‘Hart’s Methodological Positivism’ in Coleman (2001), chapter 9.Google Scholar
Philippopoulos-mihalopoulos, Andreas (2006) ‘Dealing (with) Paradoxes: On Law, Justice and Cheating’ in King and Thornhill (2006), chapter 10.Google Scholar
Postema, Gerald J. (2008) ‘Conformity, Custom, and Congruence: Rethinking the Efficacy of Law’ in Kramer et al. (2008), chapter 3.Google Scholar
Rasch, William (2000) Niklas Luhmann’s Modernity: The Paradoxes of Differentiation. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Raz, Joseph (1994) Ethics in the Public Domain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Simmonds, Nigel (1990) ‘Why Conventionalism does not Collapse into Pragmatism’, Cambridge Law Journal 49: 63–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, Brian (1986) ‘The Common Law and Legal Theory’ in Twining, W. (ed.) (1986), chapter 2.Google Scholar
Strawson, P. F. (1971) ‘Intention and Convention in Speech Acts’ in Logico-Linguistic Papers, chapter 8. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Teubner, Gunther (1993) Law as an Autopoietic System. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Twining, William (ed.) (1986) Legal Theory and Common Law. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Twining, William and Miers, David (1999) How to do Things with Rules, 4th edn. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar