AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |
Back to Blog
Judicial decisions9/7/2023 While on the one hand the majority of contemporary literature either advocates for or presupposes a rigid distinction between discovery and justification, on the other hand this distinction is being challenged by those who defend that such a distinction is unachievable, undesirable, or both. The objective of this article is to analyse and clarify the conceptual framework that permeates the debate about the distinction between discovery and justification in legal decision-making. This six-fold classification enables us to move forward from debating whether discovery and justification can be rigidly separated, towards articulating how each element (reasons, acts, and processes) has a role to play in each of the contexts (discovery and justification), and how these elements and contexts are related. I propose a six-fold classification, through which we can identify reasons, acts, and processes that play a role both in the context of discovery and in the context of justification. The article argues that merely distinguishing between ‘discovery’ and ‘justification’ is not precise enough, and that we should make a distinction between different elements within each of these contexts. This article shows that this debate is being muddled because of differences and ambiguities in the way that different writers use the terms ‘discovery,’ ‘justification,’ and related terms. In jurisprudence, a debate exists about the possibility and desirability of a rigid distinction between discovery (how a judge actually reaches a decision) and justification (how a judge publicly justifies a decision).
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |