Titlebook: Reasoning with Rules; An Essay on Legal Re Jaap C. Hage Book 1997 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1997 Principles and Rules.logic

duodenum

书目名称Reasoning with Rules影响因子(影响力)




书目名称Reasoning with Rules影响因子(影响力)学科排名




书目名称Reasoning with Rules网络公开度




书目名称Reasoning with Rules网络公开度学科排名




书目名称Reasoning with Rules被引频次




书目名称Reasoning with Rules被引频次学科排名




书目名称Reasoning with Rules年度引用




书目名称Reasoning with Rules年度引用学科排名




书目名称Reasoning with Rules读者反馈




书目名称Reasoning with Rules读者反馈学科排名

degradation

Jaap C. Hageh mehrere in Frage kommende Theorien oder Theorieansätze zu berücksichtigen, die unterschiedliche potenzielle Einflussfaktoren thematisieren. In diesem Sinne besagt die Leitidee des theoretischen Pluralismus, dass im Interesse des Erkenntnisfortschritts nach konkurrierenden theoretischen Ansätzen ge

异常

Jaap C. Hageh mehrere in Frage kommende Theorien oder Theorieansätze zu berücksichtigen, die unterschiedliche potenzielle Einflussfaktoren thematisieren. In diesem Sinne besagt die Leitidee des theoretischen Pluralismus, dass im Interesse des Erkenntnisfortschritts nach konkurrierenden theoretischen Ansätzen ge

杂役

Introduction,ontent of the rule and the classification of the facts (cf. Aarnio 1987, p. 120). Given these decisions on the content of the rule and the classification of the facts, the legal consequences of the case follow ‘logically’.

certitude

1572-4395 rules are not statements which describe the world, butrather means by which humans impose structure on the world. Legalrules create legal consequences, they do not describe them. This hasconsequences for the logic of rule- and principle-applying arguments,the most important of which may be that such

贝雷帽

乏味

Book 1997etween rules, principles, and reasons. Moreover, it describes alogical theory which assigns a central place to the notion of reasonsfor and against a conclusion, and which is especially suited to dealwith rules and principles.

Nebulous

省略

悬挂

Reasoning with Rules,pter I, I tried to make it plausible that this semantic notion of validity is not very suitable if we are dealing with rules. The elaborate discussion in chapter II of reasons and their relation to principles, goals and rules, should have substantiated this claim.