Making What Present Again? A Critique of Argumentative Judicial Representation
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21572128 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Donald Bello Hutt (0000-0003-2979-6631, Universidad de Valladolid, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2021 |
| Volume | 34 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 259-281 |
| Publication date | 2021-08-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0841-8209 • E-ISSN: 2056-4260 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/cjlj.2021.6 |
| OpenAlex | W3174708958 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
Courts do many good things. Judges carefully consider individual claims and arguments, 1 and contrast them against the law in light of evidence. Their decisions are argued for, are public, and can be contested in form and content in different hierarchical stages. Additionally, and among other things, these practices are said to contribute to the will-formation of the public sphere and improve the quality of the legislative process. 2
Argumentative · Epistemology · Law and economics · Legislature · Political science · Politics · Public sphere · Sociology · Computer Science · International Arbitration and Investment Law · Judicial and Constitutional Studies · Law · Legal and Constitutional Studies · Philosophy
| Citations per year | 0.75 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2022 - 2022 (1) |
| Highly cited | No |