000 01924 a2200325 4500
001 1351939378
005 20250317111608.0
008 250312042016GB eng
020 _a9781351939379
037 _bTaylor & Francis
_cGBP 51.99
_fBB
040 _a01
041 _aeng
072 7 _aLAB
_2thema
072 7 _aLNT
_2thema
072 7 _aJPA
_2thema
072 7 _aQDTS
_2thema
072 7 _aLAB
_2bic
072 7 _aLNT
_2bic
072 7 _aJPA
_2bic
072 7 _aHPS
_2bic
072 7 _aLAW052000
_2bisac
072 7 _aLAW000000
_2bisac
072 7 _a340.1
_2bisac
100 1 _aBrian Burge-Hendrix
245 1 0 _aEpistemic Uncertainty and Legal Theory
250 _a1
260 _aOxford
_bRoutledge
_c20161205
300 _a210 p
520 _bCrossing the usual boundaries of abstract legal theory, this book considers actual charter systems - legal systems with explicitly posited moral-political rights, such as those of Canada and the United States - as well as cases in constitutional adjudication. It shows the worth of careful reflection on methodological and meta-theoretical issues for a comprehensive account of a present-day legal system which is fast becoming the norm. The author explicitly connects the ongoing Methodology Debate within legal philosophy to constitutional adjudication and Canadian law. By drawing out the implications of the Methodology Debate and the challenge of giving a proper account of constitutional adjudication in a general theory of law, the study examines how a descriptive, morally and politically neutral legal theory can deal with epistemic uncertainty - uncertainty about the actual status of moral-political legal provisions and their jurisprudential function - in a thoroughgoing manner. It also demonstrates the merits of a minimalist version of Legal Positivism with regard to the practical importance of charters in charter systems and societies.
999 _c4697
_d4697