A Discussion of Critical Legal Studies' Claim of Legal Indeterminacy

Thèse de Bachelor , 2015 , 47 Pages , Note: 1.75

Droit - Philosophie, Sociologie et Histoire du Droit

This paper challenges the Critical Legal Studies (CLS) claims of legal indeterminacy. It shall use a legal formalist logic and language as its main assertion, further maintaining that the CLS claims is only grounded in ambiguity and confusion.

CLS is a legal theory that challenges and overturns accepted norms and standards in legal theory and practice. They maintained that law in the historical and contemporary society has an alleged impartiality, and it is used as a tool of privilege and power – law is politics. Consequently, CLS maintained that these results to indeterminacy of law.

Legal indeterminacy can be summed up as contrary to the common understanding that legal materials, statutes and case law, do not really answer legal disputes. Legal principles and doctrines, as CLS scholars claim, are said to be indeterminate, for it is riddle with gaps, conflicts, and anomalies that are widely present even in simple cases. Legal indeterminacy also rises because of the underlying political power – law is politics – that implicates law as merely a tool for oppression.

This thesis shows that CLS assertions with legal indeterminacy is only grounded on ambiguity. On one hand, using the main concept of legal formalist logic and language grounded with sub-arguments: inherent generality of legal language, reasoned elaboration, and neutral principles, it refutes the CLS claims of legal indeterminacy. On the other, the paper maintains that their main reason of legal indeterminacy, ‘law is politics’, is merely a statement of fact that currently happens in society is sentimental and weak through counterexamples.

Inhaltsverzeichnis (Table of Contents)

• Biographical Sketch
• Acknowledgement
• Abstract

Zielsetzung und Themenschwerpunkte (Objectives and Key Themes)

This paper aims to challenge the claims of legal indeterminacy put forth by Critical Legal Studies (CLS). It utilizes a legal formalist logic and language as its primary argument, asserting that the CLS claims are rooted in ambiguity and confusion. The paper explores the inherent limitations and contradictions within the CLS framework, ultimately demonstrating the inadequacy of their claims.

• Refutation of CLS claims of legal indeterminacy
• Examination of the inherent generality of legal language
• Analysis of reasoned elaboration in legal interpretation
• Exploration of the role of neutral principles in legal reasoning
• Evaluation of the "law is politics" argument

Zusammenfassung der Kapitel (Chapter Summaries)

This thesis presents a comprehensive critique of the CLS claims of legal indeterminacy. The author uses a legal formalist logic and language to demonstrate the flaws in CLS arguments. The paper delves into the inherent generality of legal language and how it is used in reasoned elaboration. It also explores the role of neutral principles in legal reasoning. Additionally, the thesis examines the "law is politics" argument, ultimately concluding that it is a mere statement of fact and not a valid justification for legal indeterminacy.

Schlüsselwörter (Keywords)

This paper focuses on the key concepts of law, jurisprudence, philosophy, CLS, critical legal studies, and indeterminacy. It delves into the theoretical foundations of legal interpretation and the inherent limitations of the CLS framework. The study examines the role of language, logic, and political influences in shaping legal discourse and legal outcomes.

• Cours: Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy
• Note: 1.75
• Auteur: Ian Benitez (Auteur)
• Année de publication: 2015
• Pages: 47
• N° de catalogue: V304400
• ISBN (ebook): 9783668032583
• ISBN (Livre): 9783668032590
• Langue: anglais
• mots-clé: law, jurisprudence, philosophy, CLS, critical legal studies, indeterminacy