Doctoring Doctrine

Max Weaver

Doctoring Doctrine

Max Weaver

Law

Research output: Contribution to conference › Paper

Abstract

Because the common law faces conundrumic demands — to be both in touch with a changing society and predictable — the proper division of law-making labour between judges and legislature is controversial. It is unrealistic to: rely on neat divisions between principle (for judges) and consequentialist policy or pragmatism (for Parliament); or to consider analogical reasoning as blind to policy. Montgomery, used as a case study, invokes autonomy as a principle (not derived analogically from previous case law) to justify the informed consent doctrine.

Original language	English
Publication status	Published - 2 Sept 2020
Event	Society of Legal Scholars Conference 2020 - Duration: 9 Feb 2020 → …

Conference

Conference	Society of Legal Scholars Conference 2020
Period	9/02/20 → …

Keywords

Autonomy
Analogical reasoning
Principle
Pragmatism
Policy
Dignity

Cite this

@conference{7247c0da1857451ab8181eaa044f5fec,

title = "Doctoring Doctrine",

abstract = "Because the common law faces conundrumic demands — to be both in touch with a changing society and predictable — the proper division of law-making labour between judges and legislature is controversial. It is unrealistic to: rely on neat divisions between principle (for judges) and consequentialist policy or pragmatism (for Parliament); or to consider analogical reasoning as blind to policy. Montgomery, used as a case study, invokes autonomy as a principle (not derived analogically from previous case law) to justify the informed consent doctrine.",

keywords = "Autonomy, Analogical reasoning, Principle, Pragmatism, Policy, Dignity",

author = "Max Weaver",

year = "2020",

month = sep,

day = "2",

language = "English",

note = "Society of Legal Scholars Conference 2020 ; Conference date: 09-02-2020",

}

TY - CONF

T1 - Doctoring Doctrine

AU - Weaver, Max

PY - 2020/9/2

Y1 - 2020/9/2

N2 - Because the common law faces conundrumic demands — to be both in touch with a changing society and predictable — the proper division of law-making labour between judges and legislature is controversial. It is unrealistic to: rely on neat divisions between principle (for judges) and consequentialist policy or pragmatism (for Parliament); or to consider analogical reasoning as blind to policy. Montgomery, used as a case study, invokes autonomy as a principle (not derived analogically from previous case law) to justify the informed consent doctrine.

AB - Because the common law faces conundrumic demands — to be both in touch with a changing society and predictable — the proper division of law-making labour between judges and legislature is controversial. It is unrealistic to: rely on neat divisions between principle (for judges) and consequentialist policy or pragmatism (for Parliament); or to consider analogical reasoning as blind to policy. Montgomery, used as a case study, invokes autonomy as a principle (not derived analogically from previous case law) to justify the informed consent doctrine.

KW - Autonomy

KW - Analogical reasoning

KW - Principle

KW - Pragmatism

KW - Policy

KW - Dignity

M3 - Paper

T2 - Society of Legal Scholars Conference 2020

Y2 - 9 February 2020

ER -

Doctoring Doctrine

Abstract

Conference

Keywords

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this