Coherence - Universitetet i Bergen · • Coherence provides alternatives of interpretation –...
Transcript of Coherence - Universitetet i Bergen · • Coherence provides alternatives of interpretation –...
Coherence
As driving force, working program and basis for findings
1. a) The idea of the lecture• Making you conscious on coherence as a
means of cognition• To show that coherence is embedded in the
tradition: An unarticulated guideline to nearlyall law thinking !!!!!!
• Operationalizing a selection of thoughtsinspired by the realm of legal philosophy
• To show how the insights may be convertedinto practical working operation producingresults in your thesis.
1 b) Thesis - writing ”a log” • Legal dogmatics is to some extent «writing a log»• The discipline consists of a description of premises
and inferences, positive and negative findings. • Also self produced, new thoughts that do not
bring about a new interpretation may on principlebecome a part of the text. («the log»
• The reader and the community of researchers takean interest also in eliminated tracks, the ”blind alleys” Alexy 272
• The disposition mirrors the title, • But first…
27.10.2017
UNIVERSITETET I BERGEN
SIDE 3
2. The concept ofcoherence
27.10.2017
UNIVERSITETET I BERGEN
SIDE 4
2.a) The concept of coherence• General ethymological meaning: «connection»• Adjective: «coherent» = Logical, consistent, orderly• Note: «cohesive» = ”binding together” • Relation to ”consistency”: «compactness,
tightness»– Commmon negative exclusion: Non-
contradictory.• Coherence requires something more – a positive
addition. What?• The term coherence is a concept within legal
science («Rechtwissenschaft»)
Alexy/Peczenik; «definition»• The degree of perfection of a supportive structure
depends on the degree to which the following criteria of coherence are fulfilled: (1) the greatest possible number of supported statements belonging to the theory in question; (2) the greatest possible length of chains of reasons belonging to it; (3) the greatest possible number of strongly supported statements belonging to the theory; (4) the greatest possible number of connections between various supportive chains belonging to the theory; …….
27.10.2017
UNIVERSITETET I BERGEN
SIDE 6
2 b) Coherence and the rule of law• Similar cases are to be solved similarily
– The application of law is not ro be haphazard/coincidental– The ideals of the positivist civil codes; BGB,
• Legal method; interpretation, analogy, consistency, the system of the law
• The law must be changed in accordance with societaldevelopments, included technological developments.– Ideas of legal philosophy, system theories (Doublet
1995)– Legal method allows for such inputs by policy
considerations; and putting weight on legitimacy in population
2 c) Legal philosophy on coherence• A realm of jurisprudential works (Aarnio, Rawls,
Raz, Alexy, Peczenik, MacCormick, Dworkin, Amaya)
• Rarely operatonalised, however Dworkin, ”Law as integrity”, ”fit and justification”, ”thechain novel” is close to the «practical legal dogmatics”.
• Coherence in legal method?– Downplayed in the Nordic countries
2 d) COHERENCE METAPHORS
«A Raft»
3. Coherence as driving force
The idea of coherence motivates• The vision of a coherent ”net” enables us to see inconsistencies
and needs of reparation– Attachment 1: Monsen, Berikelseskrav 2007 p.25
• Coherence provides alternatives of interpretation– Att. 2. Thorson, Formueskade 2011 p. 20-21)
• Updating the law: «Is the state of law still the same after the newinput represented by…»
• Deduction based on coherence: «The new constitutional provisionmay weaken the presedence from … This means that ….»
• Intuition-based: «Something is wrong…»• Curiosity-based: ”How can source A fit in with source B, and how
can this be reconciliated with source C”
27.10.2017
UNIVERSITETET I BERGEN
SIDE 11
4. Coherence as a working programme
27.10.2017
UNIVERSITETET I BERGEN
SIDE 12
Doctrinal lietrature
We need a programme for tidying up!
• 1. A Legal assertation/rule expressed in positive text (or elsewhere) • 2. Abstraction to the purpose behind the positive text• 3. Selection of relevant general principles• 4. Consider in light of profound societal values (verdier)• 5. Consider in light of any new element in surrounding legal sources• 6. Nominate possible explanations on basis of the sum of said
perspectives (”inference to the best explanation, abductivereasoning” (Amaya, and others))– Coherence-based intuition; What ”fits”? (Dworkin). Which
candidates satisfy constrains? (Amaya)• The tool for rationalisation: Comparison; identifying similarities and
differences• 7. Ideally: Choosing the best explanation/interpretation• But in order to write thesis; the log is in itself the goal
27.10.2017
UNIVERSITETET I BERGEN
SIDE 14
4. a) Working programme
Example (simple, in order to demonstrate)
• Rule: Dogs are not allowed in the park• Purpose: Protecting sensitive birds in the park• Principle: Freedom of physical moving• Value: The well-being of animals and people• Presenting possible explanations …
(inference to the best explanation, IBE)
27.10.2017
UNIVERSITETET I BERGEN
SIDE 15
27.10.2017
UNIVERSITETET I BERGEN
SIDE 16
Finding explanations
FastViciousQuiet Fast
QuietHarmless
NoisyHarmlessslow
Exercises of comparison• Dogs• Noisy• Violent• Harmless• Big (may be)• Medium fast • Furry (irrelevant)
• Cats• Quiet• Violent• Vicious • Small• Fast• Furry (irrelevant)
27.10.2017
UNIVERSITETET I BERGEN
SIDE 17
Inference: Cats allowed/not allowed in the park
Exercises of comparison• Dogs• Noisy• Violent• Big (may be)• Medium fast • Furry (irrelevant)
• Rabbit• Quiet• Harmless• Small• Fast• Furry (irrrelevant)
27.10.2017
UNIVERSITETET I BERGEN
SIDE 18
Inference: Rabbits allowed/not allowed in the park
4 b) Comparison in pursuit of coherence• Starting point in the core of the rule - the”ideal type”• Nominating candidates for the factual scope of the rule• Comparing relevant similarities and differences between ideal type
and candidate• Judging whether or not the candidate is sufficiently similar to be
covered by the rule.• What s the relevant perspective for comparison?
• The purpose, function and context of the rule is decisive– At this point normative prosesses which is impossible to
articulate i a general form (Amaya, Alexy)• The pattern/structure of reasoning is general
– Ex: Falkanger, God tro 1999 p. 371 ff.• Writing the log of the process is valuable in itself
27.10.2017
UNIVERSITETET I BERGEN
SIDE 19
4 c) Coherence-Making Mechanisms
• By addition of a source-based element– By interpretation:«the real ratio of the Supreme Court was …»
• By subtracting a sorurce-based element– By ways of interpretation:«The preparatory works is based onpresuppositions no longer valid. Therefore … »
• By reinterpretation strategy– Re-interpreting a body of case law
27.10.2017
UNIVERSITETET I BERGEN
SIDE 20
4. d) Tools for writing• Paraphrasing:
• «Paraphrase consists in translating the given interpreted expression into some otherexpression» (Brozek)
• Examplifications:• Only the negative examplifications are useful in
order to narrow down the meaning bundle of a given text.(Brozek)
– But … also positive examplifications may be valuable to the dogmatic text – to your log
27.10.2017
UNIVERSITETET I BERGEN
SIDE 21
27.10.2017
UNIVERSITETET I BERGEN
SIDE 22
Marcello Guarini«Case Classification, Similarities, Spacesof Reasons, and Coherences»
4 e) The future – Artificial Intelligence?
5. Coherence as a basis for findings
27.10.2017
UNIVERSITETET I BERGEN
SIDE 23
5. Coherence and findings• Is writing the log a finding in itself?• Yes (!) Alexy 272• Construction of coherence - valuable
• Adjusting the system (the whole) in light of analyses of (new) source elements (parts)
– Consequences to other areas of law?
• Detecting incoherence - valuable– A task for the legislative powers
27.10.2017
UNIVERSITETET I BERGEN
SIDE 24