The indeterminacy of the rule of law:What shapes the ideas by which judges rule?

May, Chris (2016) The indeterminacy of the rule of law:What shapes the ideas by which judges rule? Global Discourse, 6 (1-2). pp. 292-299. ISSN 2326-9995

Full text not available from this repository.

Abstract

In this review of JasonWhitehead’s new book Judging judges, I explore the four broad types of judicial grounds judges tend to adopt (in American courts, at least) when adjudicating cases, and the impact this might have on our understanding of the rule of law: formalism, good faith, cynicism, and rogue views. After briefly introducing the issue of adjudication and the rule of law, I conclude that Whitehead’s interview grounded typology may be of great utility than merely the North American context of his empirical work might initially suggest. As such I argue that to understand the manner in which adjudication can support the rule of law, and how it might undermine it, we need to look at how judges are motivated to act, not merely examine their judgements, or the normal survey evidence.

Item Type:
Journal Article
Journal or Publication Title:
Global Discourse
Uncontrolled Keywords:
/dk/atira/pure/subjectarea/asjc/3300/3320
Subjects:
ID Code:
129377
Deposited By:
Deposited On:
06 Dec 2018 08:50
Refereed?:
Yes
Published?:
Published
Last Modified:
01 Jan 2020 11:41