SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Hacettepe Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi / 2013 / Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 1

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF LAW AND OBJECTIVITY

Hukukun Ekonomik Analizi ve Nesnellik

Sezal Çınar ÖZKAN
Pages
85–98
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In addition that, Posner’s proposal is not conducive to a fair legal system

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:A ccording to Richard Posner, epistemology, ontology, hermeneutics, and traditionalism lacks competence to provide legal objectivity.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Posner claims that his “pragmatic manifesto” and the economic analysis of law can provide the legal objectivity.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In addition that, Posner’s proposal is not conducive to a fair legal system
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Hukuki nesnellik · pragmatizm · sonuçsalcılık

Abstract

A ccording to Richard Posner, epistemology, ontology, hermeneutics, and traditionalism lacks competence to provide legal objectivity. Posner claims that his “pragmatic manifesto” and the economic analysis of law can provide the legal objectivity. In this study investigated that if Posner’s claim might realized legal objectivity. Primarily, indicated that; due to anti-foundationalism and anti-formalism Posner’s legal pragmatism was in the danger of legal uncertainty. And then discussed that; according to Posner consequentialism and principle of wealth maximization inhibit legal uncertainty and provide to legal objectivity. The guidance with the criticisms of the economic analysis of law and the consequentialism realized that Posner’s proposal can not provide legal objectivity due to a lack of methodology. In addition that, Posner’s proposal is not conducive to a fair legal system

Özet

Richard Posnera göre epistemoloji, ontoloji, hermeneutik ve gelenekçilik hukuki nesnelliği sağlayabilme yeterliliğinden yoksundur. Posner, kendi pragmatist manifestosunun ve hukukun ekonomik analizinin nesnelliği sağlayabileceği düşüncesindedir. Bu çalışmada Posnerın görüşlerinin hukuki nesnelliği sağlayıp sağlayamayacağı incelenmiştir. Öncelikle Posnerın hukuki pragmatizmindeki antitemeldenciliği ve formalizm karşıtlığı sebebiyle hukuki belirsizlik tehlikesine işaret edilmiş, sonra ise Posnerın sonuçsalcılık ve refah maksimizasyonu ilkesiyle hukuki belirsizlikten çıkışı ve hukuki nesnelliği sağladığı iddiası izlenmiştir. Posnerın sonuçsalcılığına ve hukukun ekonomik analizine yönelik eleştiriler rehberliğinde gerçekleştirdiğimiz incelemede Posnerın önerisinin metodolojik olarak yetersiz olması nedeniyle hukuki nesnelliği sağlayamadığı sonucuna varılmıştır. Hukuki nesnelliği sağlayamamasının yanı sıra ayrıca görülmüştür ki, Posnerın önerisi adil bir hukuki sistem için de elverişli değildir.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÖZKAN, S. Ç. (2022). ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF LAW AND OBJECTIVITY. Hacettepe Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 1, 85–98. https://ajindex.com/articles/528856

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (18)

  1. ACORN, Annalise, E., “Valueing Virtue:Morality and Productivity in Posner’s Theory of WealthMaxsimization”, Valparaiso University Law Rev., 1993-1994, (s.167-205).
  2. BURTON, Steven J., “Jurisprudence of Skeptism”, Michigan Law Rev., 1988-1989, (s.710-723).
  3. HAUGH, Alan J., “Richard Posner’s Pragmatic Jurisprudence”, Irish Student Law Rev., 2001, (s.32-51).
  4. LAKE, Peter F., “Posner’s Pragmatic Jurisprudence”, Nebraska. Law. Rev., 1999, (s.545-645).
  5. LEVİT, Nancy, “Book Review Practically Unreasonable: A Critique of Practical Reason a Review of the Problems of Jurisprudence by Richard A. Posner”, Northwestern University Law Review, Northwestern University Press,
  6. USA, Vol. 85, No. 2, 1991, (s.494- 518). LUBAN, David, “What’s Pragmatic About Legal Pragmatism”, The Revial of Pragmatism-New Essays on Social Tought, Law and Culture, Editid by Moris Dickstein, Duke University Press, 1999, (s. s:275-304). LUBAN, 1999, s. 277. BURTON, Steven J., “Jurisprudence of Skeptism”, Michigan Law Rev., 1988-1989, s. 723. MİNOW, Martha, «Religion and the Burden of Prof: Posner’s Economics and Pragmatism», Harvard Law Rev.,2007, (s.1175-1186).
  7. JACOBSON, Arthur J./MCCORMICK, John P., “The Business of Democracy is Democracy”, John M.Olin&Economics Working Paper, The Law School the University of Chicago, No.261, 2D series, 2005, (s.1-22).
  8. POSNER, Richard, The Problems of Jurisprudence, Harvard University, USA, 1990.
  9. POSNER, Richard, Overcoming Law, Harvard College, London, 1995.
  10. POSNER, Richard, “Pragmatic Adjudication”, The Revial of Pragmatism - New Essays on Social Tought, Law and Culture, Editid by Moris Dickstein, Duke University Press, 1999, (s. 235-254).
  11. POSNER, Richard, The Problematics of Moral and Legal Theory, Harvard University, 2002.
  12. POSNER, Richard, Law, Pragmatism and Democracy, Harvard College, USA, 2003a.
  13. POSNER, Richard, Economic Analysis of Law., Aspen Publishers, New York, 2003b.
  14. POSNER, Richard, “What Has Pragmatism Offer to Law”, Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory, Edited by Dennis Michael Patterson, Blackwell Publishing, USA, 2003c, (s.180-191).
  15. POSNER, Richard, Frontiers of Legal Theory, Harvard University Press, USA, 2004.
  16. POSNER, Richard, How Judges Think, Harvard College, London, 2008.
  17. ROSENFELD, Michel, “Pragmatism, Pluralism and Legal Interpretation: Posner’s and Rorty’s Justice without Metaphysıcs Meets Hate Speech”, Cardoza Law Rev. Vol.18, 1996-1997, (s.97-151).
  18. RUBENFELD, Jed, “A Reply to Posner”, Stanford Law Rev., Vol.54, No:4, Apr., 2002, (s.753-762)