This book addresses three major questions about law and legal systems: (1) What are the defining and organizing forms of legal institutions, legal rules, interpretive methodologies, and other legal phenomena? (2) How does frontal and systematic focus on these forms advance understanding of such phenomena? (3) What credit should the functions of forms have when such phenomena serve policy and related purposes, rule of law values, and fundamental political values such as democracy, liberty, and justice? This is the first book (...) that seeks to offer general answers to these questions and thus gives form in the law its due. The answers not only provide articulate conversancy with the subject but also reveal insights into the nature of law itself, the oldest and foremost problem in legal theory and allied subjects. (shrink)

The author presents a relatively formal theory of the rule of law which includes three basic components: conceptual, institutional and axiological. He then emphasizes the differences between a formal and a substantive theory of the rule of law and highlights the advantages and limits of the former. Finally, the author indicates the importance of this type of theory, namely the values it implies such as predictability, justified reliance, autonomous choice, minimization of disputes and legitimacy.**.

Truth is a fundamental objective of adjudicative processes; ideally, substantive as distinct from formal legal truth. But problems of evidence, for example, may frustrate finding of substantive truth; other values may lead to exclusions of probative evidence, e.g., for the sake of fairness. Jury nullification and jury equity. Limits of time, and definitiveness of decision, require allocation of burden of proof. Degree of truth-formality is variable within a system and across systems.

... four most important American legal theorists of the last hundred years. Of the others, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Roscoe Pound, and Karl N. Llewellyn, ...

Truth is a fundamental objective of adjudicative processes; ideally, ‘substantive’ as distinct from ‘formal legal’ truth. But problems of evidence, for example, may frustrate finding of substantive truth; other values may lead to exclusions of probative evidence, e.g., for the sake of fairness. ‘Jury nullification’ and ‘jury equity’. Limits of time, and definitiveness of decision, require allocation of burden of proof. Degree of truth-formality is variable within a system and across systems.

Introduction Ihe name of George Lewis first became known to me when I began to listen to traditional jazz bands, primarily Ken Colyer's, in England in the ...

. The author aims at defining the borderlines of the concept “rule of law.” This has been often inflated to encompass several dimensions of an ideal legal order. The author on the contrary believes that the “rule of law” ought to be a “thin” ideal. As a matter of fact, when the “rule of law” signifies almost any dimension of an ideal legal order, it comes to stand for nothing essential in particular. Deflation is then advocated for the rehabilitation of (...) the normative content of the “rule of law.” This means that the “rule of law” should be defined as a concept covering only some well delimited dimensions of an ideal legal order. (shrink)

The author aims at defining the borderlines of the concept “rule of law.” This has been often inflated to encompass several dimensions of an ideal legal order. The author on the contrary believes that the “rule of law” ought to be a “thin” ideal. As a matter of fact, when the “rule of law” signifies almost any dimension of an ideal legal order, it comes to stand for nothing essential in particular. Deflation is then advocated for the rehabilitation of the (...) normative content of the “rule of law.” This means that the “rule of law” should be defined as a concept covering only some well delimited dimensions of an ideal legal order. (shrink)

.The author summarizes the essential elements of a general theory he is developing which he calls “The Formal Character of Law.” He explains that law's formal character is a potentially major branch of legal theory that is still relatively unexplored. In his view, it is possible to identify formal attributes in legal rules, other basic legal constructs such as interpretive method, the principles of stare decisis, legal reasons, and legislative and adjudicative processes, and a legal system viewed as a whole. (...) For example, a legal rule has, in varying degrees, such formal attributes as generality, definiteness, and simplicity. Such attributes are formal in the sense that they apply to or accommodate highly variable content and do not prescribe or proscribe content. Of course, legal phenomena have other characteristics besides their formality. The author's main technique for developing his theory is to address a common set of questions to the varied formal attributes of , , and above. Among other things, the answers to these questions further explicate how law is formal, demonstrate that law is not merely a means of serving problem‐specific policy but also serves formal values , treats the relations between form and content—specially how good form begets good content and bad form bad content, explores the design and implementation of appropriate formality—its “anatomy and physiology,” and analyses the “pathology” of legal form including not only the “formalistic” , but also the “sub‐stantivistic,” and shows how the overall theory is important both jurisprudentially and in practical ways. (shrink)

The author explains that there is scope for a general theory about the nature and place of form in the fundamentals of law. Form organizes the institutions, rules and other varieties of law, and the system as a whole. All such constructs have non‐formal elements, too, but form unifies each construct and provides its criteria of identity. Appropriate form makes a system of law possible. It also tends to beget good content in the law. It is indispensable to the basic (...) needs of a legal system, and when such an end is organizational, as with democracy, liberty, and the rule of law, form is end as well as means. (shrink)

The essays in this book treat important aspects of most of the major themes in contemporary philosophy of law and legal theory. All reveal the distinctive authenticity of the author's work, for he is not only a reputable legal theorist but an internationally known scholar of private law, and for many years chair of the Bielefelder Kreis, an international group of legal theorists who have jointly authored major works comparing methodologies of statutory interpretation and precedent.

Notes on Criticism in Legal Philosophy ROBERT S. SUMMERS I. INTRODUCTION Legal philosophers criticize and evaluate as well as originate and expound. ...

The four theses of this paper are: that an appropriate organizational form is used to design, define, and organize a functional unit of a legal system, that the functional units of a legal system, contrary to the emphasis in Hart and Kelsen, consist of far more than rules, and include institutions, interpretive and other methodologies, sanctions and remedies, and more, that frontal and systematic study of the forms of these units is a major avenue for advancing understanding of them as (...) duly organized wholes, and, that such study reveals that much credit is due these forms, along with complementary material or other components of the units, for values realized through law. (shrink)

Robert S. Summers is a distinguished legal theorist whose work has had significant influence in Europe as well as the United States. The study of form and substance in law, the theme of this collection, marks many of his most distinctive contributions to law and legal philosophy over four decades.