Archiwum Filozofii Prawa i Filozofii Społecznej

Journal of the Polish Section of IVR (ISSN:2082-3304)

IVRwww.ivr.org.pl

Search Results for: legal science

Interdisciplinarity and the external integration of jurisprudence in the light of postmodern critique

Mgr Jakub Łakomy

University of Wrocław


English abstract: The aim of the paper is to reconstruct the critique of the concept of “external integration of jurisprudence”, which has been widely discussed in polish jurisprudence in the past decades. I base my critique on an analysis of the concept put forward in Polish literature by Jerzy Wróblewski and Kazimierz Opałek. I also consider the postmodern critique of the views on interdisciplinarity held by classical jurisprudence.

The first part of the article consists of: a) general remarks on some doubts and ambiguites concerning understanding of “postmodernism” and common misunderstandings of this term and b) some remarks on the relations between law and postmodernism. In the second part of the article, I provide a sketch reconstruction of the basic traits of postmodernism, especially those characteristics, which determine the postmodern attitude towards interdisciplinarity.

In the third, main part of my article I show how the positivist, modern concept of “external integration of jurisprudence” is incompatibile with postmodern views on science, research, knowledge, epistemology and disciplinarity. I provide an in-depth critique of the presumptions and presuppositions underlying this concept. Finally, I ask: “Quo vadis, interdisciplinarity’’? What about the future of interdisciplinary research in the field of law, when the postmodern methodological storm has swept away the old instruments? Here I introduce the concept of “postdisciplinarity”.

Keywords: interdisciplinarity, postmodernism, disciplinarity, postdisciplinarity, poststructuralism, methodology, legal positivism

Language: Polish

Published: Number 1(2)/2011, pp. 29-45.

Download file: Download

Number of downloads: 526

References:

  1. Balkin J.M., Levinson S.V., Law and the Humanities: An Uneasy Relationship, “Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities” 2006/18.
  2. Bator A., Debaty prawnicze. Rozmowa bez konsensusu, w: Błachut M. (red.), Z zagadnień teorii i filozofii prawa. Ponowoczesność, Wrocław 2007.
  3. Biernat T., Zirk-Sadowski M. (red.), Politics of law and legal policy between modern and post-modern jurisprudence, Warszawa 2008.
  4. Błachut M. (red.), Z zagadnień teorii i filozofii prawa. Ponowoczesność, Wrocław 2007.
  5. Butler C., Postmodernism. A Very Short Introduction, Nowy Jork 2002.
  6. Chmielewski A., Niewspółmierność, nieprzekładalność, konflikt. Relatywizm we współczesnej filozofii analitycznej, Wrocław 1997.
  7. Fish S., Doing What Comes Naturally. Change, Rhetoric, and the Practice of Theory in Literary and Legal Studies, Durham-Londyn 1989.
  8. Fish S., Professional Correctness: Literary Studies and Political Change, Harvard 1999.
  9. Fish S., There’s No Such Thing As Free Speech: And It’s a Good Thing, Too, Nowy Jork 1994.
  10. Grobler A., Metodologia nauk, Kraków 2008.
  11. Izdebski H., Elementy teorii i filozofii prawa, Warszawa 2008.
  12. Kozak A., Postponowoczesna koncepcja prawa, w: Błachut M. (red.), Z zagadnień teorii i filozofii prawa. Ponowoczesność, Wrocław 2007.
  13. Kuhn T., Struktura rewolucji naukowych, Warszawa 2001.
  14. Litowitz D.E., Postmodern Philosophy and Law, University Press of Kansas, 1997
  15. Lyotard J.-F., Postmodernizm dla dzieci, Warszawa 1998.
  16. Łakomy J., Pojęcie integracji zewnętrznej nauk prawnych, w: Sadowski M., Szymaniec P. (red.), Wrocławskie studia erazmiańskie. Zeszyty studenckie. Prace prawnicze, administratywistyczne i historyczne, Wrocław 2009.
  17. Łakomy J., Spór naturalizm versus antynaturalizm w naukach prawnych a zagadnienie integracji zewnętrznej nauk prawnych, w: Sadowski M., Szymaniec P. (red.), Wrocławskie studia erazmiańskie. Prace z zakresu myśli polityczno-prawnej oraz elektronicznej administracji, Wrocław 2010.
  18. Małecki W., Neopragmatism and the question of the interdisciplinarity: The case of Stanley Fish, “Human Affairs” 2009/19.
  19. Minda G., Postmodern Legal Movements. Law and Jurisprudence at Century’s End, Nowy Jork 1995.
  20. Morawski L., Co może dać nauce prawa postmodernizm?, Toruń 2001.
  21. Motycka A., Rozum i intuicja w nauce, Warszawa 2005.
  22. Nagel T., Widok znikąd, Warszawa 1997.
  23. Nycz R. (red.), Postmodernizm. Antologia przekładów, Kraków 1996.
  24. Opałek K., Interdyscyplinarne związki prawoznawstwa, „Studia Filozoficzne” 1985/2–3.
  25. Opałek K., Problemy „wewnętrznej” i „zewnętrznej” integracji nauk prawnych, „Krakowskie Studia Prawnicze” 1968/1–2.
  26. Opałek K., Swoistość prawoznawstwa a problem integracji, „Państwo i Prawo” 1966/4–5.
  27. Opałek K., Wróblewski J., Prawo. Metodologia, filozofia, teoria prawa, Warszawa 1991.
  28. Opałek K., Wróblewski J., Zagadnienia teorii prawa, Warszawa 1969.
  29. Patterson D. (red.), Postmodernism and Law, Aldershot 1994.
  30. Pyclik K., Postmodernistyczne/poststrukturalistyczne założenia wolności sumienia i wyznania, „Przegląd Prawa i Administracji” 2003/LIV.
  31. Rorty R., Konsekwencje pragmatyzmu, Warszawa 1998.
  32. Rorty R., Obiektywność, relatywizm i prawda, Warszawa 1999.
  33. Rorty R., Przygodność, ironia i solidarność, Warszawa 2009.
  34. Sadowski M., Szymaniec P. (red.), Wrocławskie studia erazmiańskie. Prace z zakresu myśli polityczno-prawnej oraz elektronicznej administracji, Wrocław 2010.
  35. Sadowski M., Szymaniec P. (red.), Wrocławskie studia erazmiańskie. Zeszyty studenckie. Prace prawnicze, administratywistyczne i historyczne, Wrocław 2009.
  36. Schlag P., The Aesthetics of American Law, „Harvard Law Review” 2002/115.
  37. Stelmach J., Ponowoczesna filozofia prawa, w: Stelmach J. (red.), Studia z filozofii prawa 2, Kraków 2003.
  38. Stelmach J. (red.), Studia z filozofii prawa 2, Kraków 2003.
  39. Sulikowski A., O ponowoczesnej teorii prawa, w: A. Sulikowski (red.), Z zagadnień teorii i filozofii prawa. W poszukiwaniu podstaw prawa, Wrocław 2006.
  40. Sulikowski A. (red.), Z zagadnień teorii i filozofii prawa. W poszukiwaniu podstaw prawa, Wrocław 2006.
  41. Szahaj A., Ironia i miłość. Neopragmatyzm Richarda Rorty’ego w kontekście sporu o postmodernizm, Wrocław 2002.
  42. Szahaj A., Zniewalająca moc kultury. Artykuły i szkice z filozofii kultury, poznania i polityki, Toruń 2004.
  43. Tarnas R., The Passion of the Western Mind. Understanding the Ideas That Have Shaped Our World View, Nowy Jork 1993.
  44. Zirk-Sadowski M., Postmodernistyczna jurysprudencja?, w: Błachut M. (red.), Z zagadnień teorii i filozofii prawa. Ponowoczesność, Wrocław 2007.

Law, economics, human behavior. Discussion about application of behavioral economics to analysis of law

Mgr Magdalena Małecka

Polish Academy of Sciences


English abstract: Law & economics scholars have claimed, from the very beginning of the movement, that their ambition has been to make studies of law more scientific. The neoclassical approach in economic analysis of law is based on the assumption that rationality of people acting in legal contexts can be characterized in the same ways as rationality of homines economici. However, emergence of behavioral economics and attempts to apply it to analysis of law by some law & economics scholars resulted in critical revising the achievements of neoclassical approach. The so called behavioral law & economics criticizes the neoclassical approach on the basis of experiments, which test hypotheses derived from neoclassical theories. Outcomes of those experiments allow to draw conclusion that in many (legal) contexts people don’t behave in accordance with predictions based on neoclassical models. Behavioral law & economics scholars argue that neoclassical theories are grounded on so highly unrealistic assumptions that in many situations they cannot offer predictions of human behavior. I distinguish three main issues that are discussed: philosophical, methodological and normative ones. I formulate critical comments on the raised arguments and final general remarks concerning possibility of making legal studies more scientific, as well as application of economics to studies on law.

Keywords: behavioural law & economics, scientific study of law, legal theory, normative and methodological debate

Language: Polish

Published: Number 1(2)/2011, pp. 15-28.

Download file: Download

Number of downloads: 513

References:

  1. Arlen J., Comment: The future of behavioral economic analysis of law, “Vanderbilt Law Review” 1998/51.
  2. Bar-Gill O., The behavioral economics of consumer contracts, “Minnesota Law Review” 2007–2008/92.
  3. Blaug M., Metodologia ekonomii, Warszawa 1995.
  4. Faure M., van den Bergh R., Essays in law and economics, Antwerpen 1989.
  5. Friedman M., Essays in Positive Economics, Chicago 1953
  6. Friedman M., Essay on the Methodology of Positive Economics w: Friedman M., Essays in Positive Economics, Chicago 1953.
  7. Gigerenzer G., Adaptive thinking. Rationality in the real world, New York 2000.
  8. Guthrie Ch., Framing Frivolous Litigation: A Psychological Theory, “The University of Chicago Law Review” 2000/67.
  9. Issacharoff S., Can there be a behavioral law and economics?, “Vanderbilt Law Review” 1998/51.
  10. Jolls Ch., Sunstein C., Thaler R., A behavioral approach to law and economics, “Stanford Law Review” 1998/5.
  11. Jolls Ch., Sunstein C., Thaler R. , Theories and tropes: A reply to Posner and Kelman, “Stanford Law Review” 1997–1998/50.
  12. Kahneman D., Knetsch J.L., Thaler R., The Endowment Effects, Loss Aversion and Status Quo Bias, “Journal of Economic Perspectives” 1991/5.
  13. Langevoort D.C., Organized Illusions: A Behavioral Theory of Why Corporations Mislead Stock Market Investors (and Cause Other Social Harms), “University of Pennsylvania Law Review” 1997–1998/146.
  14. Meier S., Sprenger Ch., Impatience and Credit Behavior: Evidence from a Field Experiment, Fed. Reserve Bank of Boston, Working Paper No. 07–03, 2007.
  15. Nowak L., Wstęp do idealizacyjnej teorii nauki, Warszawa 1977.
  16. Posner R., Frontiers of Legal Theory, Cambridge (Mass.)-London 2001.
  17. Rabin M., Incorporating Fairness into Game Theory and Economics, “American Economic Review” 1993/83.
  18. Rachlinski J.J.,  A Positive Psychological Theory of Judging in Hindsight, “The University of Chicago Law Review” 1998/2.
  19. Simon H., Models of bounded rationality, MIT Press 1982.
  20. Tversky A., Kahneman D., Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk, „Econometrica” 1979/47.
  21. Ulen T., The growing pains of behavioral law and economics, “Vanderbilt Law Review” 1998/51.

Number 1(14)/2017 [PL]

Philosophy of language in legal philosophy


Introduction (mgr Izabela Skoczeń)

Articles:

Mgr Paweł Banaś
Against a local theory of meaning for the legal language – some general remarks

Dr Maciej Dybowski
Theory of law and the challenges of analytical pragmatism

Mgr Karolina Gmerek
Intertextuality in trial

Mgr Marek Jakubiec
Metaphors, law and artefacts, or a few remarks on legal concepts from the perspective of cognitive science

Mgr Bartosz Janik
In search of the hidden nature – natural kinds and legal language

Dr Michał Pełka
Metaphysical realism in the face of challenges from contextualism and nonfactualism – considerations against the background of Michael Moore’s natural law theory

Mgr Sławomir Piekarczyk
The sorites paradox and vagueness phenomena in the language of law

Mgr Maciej Próchnicki
On the structure of normative intuitions: universal moral grammar

Mgr Izabela Skoczeń
The strategic principle and the maxim of selectivity – a new insight on Gricean implicatures in the law

Prof. UŁ dr hab. Sylwia Wojtczak
Some remarks about the application of the cognitive linguistics’ tools for the differentiation between extensive interpretation and analogy

 

Some remarks about the application of the cognitive linguistics’ tools for the differentiation between extensive interpretation and analogy

Prof. UŁ dr hab. Sylwia Wojtczak

University of Łódź


English abstract: The paper is the proposal of the discussion upon the utility of the cognitive linguistics’ tools for legal application, especially within the field of legal interpretation and legal reasoning. Cognitive linguistics is the school of linguistics and cognitive science, developing from 1970s of the XX century, researching on language and mind and their intersection. The analysis of the instances originating in the Polish law in force, made by the means of different concepts of cognitive linguistics (prototypes, radial categories, idealized cognitive models, conceptual metaphors) is here the basis to formulate some postulates concerning the way of understanding and differentiation between extensive interpretation and analogy. The instances and postulates simultaneously let one distinguish those linguistic changes, which inevitably occur in time, and which should be recognised as the domain of linguistic interpretation.

Keywords: cognitive linguistics, interpretation, extensive interpretation, legal reasoning, analogy

Language: Polish

Received: 29.09.2016
Accepted: 31.10.2016

Published: Number 1(14)/2017, pp. 125-140.

Download file: Download

Number of downloads: 605

On the structure of normative intuitions: universal moral grammar

Mgr Maciej Próchnicki

Jagiellonian University


English abstract: The aim of the article is to critically characterize the new, interdisciplinary research program on morality: universal moral grammar, and to describe its meaning for jurisprudence. Its proponents, such as John Mikhail and Marc Hauser, refer to John Rawls’ linguistic analogy, i.e. comparison of morality to language and suggestion to study it similarly to Noam Chomsky’s generative linguistics paradigm.

According to moral grammarians morality, like language, settles on innate, universal cognitive capacities, common to all people. Some evidence supporting these claim, come from various scientific disciplines, such as developmental psychology, neuroscience, anthropology or logic, but they are criticised as weak and inconclusive.

The article tries to assess to what extent the linguistic analogy is accurate and useful, analyzing some of the most important N. Chomsky’s claims and their adaptations to the systems of social norms, such as morality and law. The first argument is so called poverty of the stimulus, assuming that the classic learning mechanisms cannot explain the phenomenon of acquisition of language and morals. Other elements of N. Chomsky’s theories adapted to analyze morality include characterizing morality as a system of principles and parameters, divisions between I-morality/E-morality and competence/performance, and also an assumption that the specialized mental module for it exists.

Research conducted in universal moral grammar program may have substantial influence on jurisprudence. Firstly, assumptions made by moral grammarians can be seen as a construction of a modern, naturalized theory of natural law, based on empirical study. Moreover, the goal of the program is to fully describe concepts such as guilt, act, obligation or damage, and as an effect to schematize it as an advanced deontic logic, and also to discover sources of intuitions regarding them not only through research on their biopsychological foundations, but also through legal anthropology and comparative legal studies.

Keywords ethics, legal philosophy, generative linguistics, moral psychology, philosophy of mind, cognitive science, Noam Chomsky

Language: Polish

Received: 02.10.2016
Accepted: 28.11.2016

Published: Numer 1(14)/2017, pp. 102-114.

Download file: Download

Number of downloads: 455

Editorial board

General Editor:

Prof. dr hab. Marek Zirk-Sadowski (University of Łódź)

Marek Zirk-Sadowski is a full professor in law and a philosopher at University of Lodz, Faculty of Law and Administration. He is interested in analytical legal theory and philosophy, legal hermeneutics and philosophy of European integration. He published i.a. Understanding Values in Legal Language (in Polish 1984), Law and Cultural Participation (in Polish, 1998) and Introduction to Legal Philosophy (in Polish, 2011). In 2016-2022 he was the President of the Supreme Administrative Court. ORCID: 0000-0003-1740-0863.

Deputy General Editors:

Prof. dr hab. Bartosz Wojciechowski (University of Łódź)

Bartosz Wojciechowski is a full professor in law at University of Lodz, Faculty of Law and Administration. He is interested in legal and moral philosophy, minority groups rights and economic theory of law. He published i.a. Judicial discretion. The legal-theoretical study (in Polish, 2004), Philosophical Approach to the Interculturality of Criminal Law (in English, 2010) and Narrative Identity as a Condition for Authentic Legal Subjectivity (in English, 2024). Since 2015 he is the judge of the Supreme Administrative Court in the Financial Chamber. ORCID: 0000-0002-4271-7056.

Dr Joanna Kamień (University of Gdańsk)

Joanna Kamień holds a doctorate in legal studies. She is Editor-in-Chief and Director of the University of Gdańsk Press. Her interests include: the philosophy of law, particularly the aesthetics of law, with a special focus on the role of law and literature in the education of jurists and in the understanding of the law; and relations between the theory and the philosophy of law. Her publications include: Prawo i literatura jako kierunek filozoficznoprawny (Law and literature as movement in legal philosophy) (2024). She is also co-editor of studies on the aesthetics of law: Aesthetics of Law: From Methodology to Manifestations, 2024, co-editor Kamil Zeidler, and Prawo i literatura. Parerga (Law and literature: Parerga), coedited with Jerzy Zajadło and Kamil Zeidler. ORCID: 0000-0003-2163-9754.

Managing Editor:

Dr Karolina Gmerek (University of Szczecin)

Karolina Gmerek, Ph.D. is an assistant professor in law at the University of Szczecin, Faculty of Law and Administration. She is interested in legal theory, especially concepts of legal interpretation and conventional acts in law, legal communication, legal education and methodology of interdisciplinary studies. She published i.a. Trial as a Social Communication Occurrence (in Polish, 2019) and Trial as a Social Communication Occurrence: Interactions Between Professional and Non-Professional Participants (in English, 2023). Since 2019 she is the Secretary of the Legal Language Commission of the Polish Language Council at the Presidium of the Polish Academy of Science. ORCID: 0000-0002-4724-7612.

Editor:

Dr Mateusz Pękala (Jesuit University Ignatianum in Kraków)

Mateusz Pękala, Ph.D. is an assistant professor in Jesuit University Ignatianum in Kraków, Institute of Political and Administrative Sciences. He is interested in sociology of law, especially theoretical concepts of law-making, alternative dispute resolution, public management and methods of empirical research on law. He published i.a. Decision-Making Purview of Legislators (2016), he was also co-editor and co-author of scientific monographs Mediation. Theory, norms, practice (2017) and The faces of mediation. Selected issues (2021). Since 2012 he is the mediator in civil cases. ORCID: 0000-0002-1389-2664.

Assistant Editors:

Mgr Agata Dąbrowska (University of Łódź)
Mgr Patryk Kupis (University of Szczecin)
Mgr Martyna Sowa (University of Szczecin)

SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE

Prof. dr hab. Kamil Zeidler (University of Gdańsk) – chairman of the Committee

International Scientific Committee:

Prof. dr Ana Dimishkovska (Cyryl Metody University in Skopje, Macedonia)
Prof. dr Peter Goodrich (Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University)
Prof. dr Martin Krygier (University of New South Wales, Australia)
Prof. dr Stefan Larsson (Lund University, Sweden)
Prof. dr Jose M. A. Linhares (University in Coimbra, Portugal)
Prof. dr Martin Skop (Masaryk University in Brno, Czech Republic)
Prof. dr Gülriz Uygur (Ankara University, Turkey)
Prof. dr Antal Visegrady (University in Pecs, Hungary)
Prof. dr Anne Wagner (Lille University, France)

Domestic Scientific Committee:

Prof. dr hab. Bartosz Brożek (Jagiellonian University)
Prof. dr hab. Andrzej Grabowski (Jagiellonian University)
Prof. dr hab. Marek Smolak (Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań)
Prof. dr hab. Sylwia Wojtczak (Lodz University)
Prof. dr hab. Kamil Zeidler (Gdańsk University)
Ks. dr hab. Tomasz Barankiewicz SVD, prof. KUL (The John Paul II Catholic University in Lublin)
Dr hab. Olgierd Bogucki, prof. US (Szczecin University)
Dr hab. Karol Dobrzeniecki, prof. UMK (Mikołaj Kopernik University in Toruń)
Dr hab. Bartosz Liżewski, prof. UMCS (Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin)
Dr hab. Martyna Łaszewska-Hellriegel, prof. UZ (University in Zielona Góra)
Dr hab. Jan Winczorek, prof. UW (Warsaw University)
Dr hab. Adam Zienkiewicz, prof. UWM (Warmia and Mazury University in Olsztyn)

Honorary members of the Scientific Committee:

Prof. dr hab. Andrzej Bator (Wrocław University)
Prof. dr hab. Jolanta Jabłońska-Bonca (Leon Koźmiński University in Warsaw)
Prof. dr hab. Zygmunt Tobor (University of Silesia in Katowice)
Prof. dr hab. Stanisław Kaźmierczyk (Wrocław University)
Prof. dr hab. Małgorzata Król (Lodz University)
Prof. dr hab. Leszek Leszczyński (Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin)
Prof. dr hab. Krzysztof Pałecki (Jagiellonian University)
Dr hab. Tomasz Stawecki, prof. UW (Warsaw University)
Prof. dr hab. Jerzy Stelmach (Jagiellonian University)
Prof. dr hab. Sławomira Wronkowska (Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań)
Prof. dr hab. Jerzy Zajadło (Gdańsk University)

 

 

 

 

 

Journal infrastructureISSN 2082-3304Open accessCC BY 4.0Crossref DOIDOAJ