Pluralism and deformalisation as mechanisms in the achievement of more equitable and just outcomes – the move from „Classical Formalism“ to deformalisation
AbstractBy tracing the development and evolvement of certain legal theories over the centuries, as well as consequences emanating from such developments, this paper highlights how and why a shift from the model of „classical formalism“ towards more deformalised models has arisen. The paper also illustrates how deformalisation and „a corresponding loss of certainty“ could be harnessed in order to provide for greater „realism“ and externalities, whilst still attaining a respectable level of consistency. Developments and efforts aimed at exploring the applicability of classical formalism and deformalised models should be regarded as „an endeavour to establish a consistency of terms, as well as a probing into how far principles, notions, and rules for decision making can be generalised, and rectification when generalisations have gone too far.“ Unity, as well as „a common law of mankind“ are goals which are still capable of being achieved even where fragmentation, diversification and pluralisation of the law occur. Such processes of specialisation, where correspondingly countered by the appropriate level of generality as well as the ability to apply rules – such that they are consistently applied in similar situations, are capable of achieving more equitable, just and unifying goals as opposed to a model which merely strives for the achievement of legal certainty. Looking beyond the borders of legal theory may indeed provide the much needed redress in situations where generalisations exceed the required limits.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by University Library of Munich, Germany in its series MPRA Paper with number 32360.
Date of creation: 21 Jul 2011
Date of revision:
pluralism; ethics; fragmentation; formalisation; rules; legal certainty; legal theory; plausible constitutionalism; realism; regulation; accountability;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- K2 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law
- K33 - Law and Economics - - Other Substantive Areas of Law - - - International Law
- G18 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Government Policy and Regulation
- D8 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty
- G3 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
You can help add them by filling out this form.
reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.Access and download statisticsgeneral information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Ekkehart Schlicht).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.