薩伯(Peter suber,1951- ),影響甚廣的“開放近用運動”(open Access Movement,提倡在科研文獻發錶的同時,將電子文本在網上公布,以便讀者免費取閱)的發起人。1973年畢業於美國葉爾漢姆學院,1978年獲西北大學哲學博士學位。長期擔任葉爾漢姆學院哲學教授,也講授法律、計算機等其他課程。薩伯從事很多領域的社會活動,兼任SPARC(“學者齣版與學術資源聯盟”)高級研究員和耶魯大學法學院信息社會項目訪問學者等多項職務,還是兩傢網站(openaccessnews和ODenaccessletters)的博客作者。1991年齣版專著《自我修正的悖論》。
Lon Fuller?s Case of the Speluncean Exp/ ~rers is the greatest fictitious legal case of all
time. That is saying a lot, for it has some stiff competition. While its competitors
may outdo it in courtroom drama, character development, or investigative
suspense, none matches it in legal depth or dialectical agility It shows not what
makes some lawyer?s caseload interesting, but what makes law itself interesting. It
would not make a good movie; it is all ?talking heads.? In fact, the parts that
would make a good movie - the events within the cave - are over and done with
by the time Fuller begins his piece. Moreover, these events are not depicted with
cinematic vivacity, but described after the fact with judicial precision and bland-
ness.
Fuller?s live Supreme Court justices tranquilly but rigorously show the
complexity of the facts and the flexibility of legal reasoning. The live opinions
focus on different factual details and legal precedents, and lit them into different
background structures of legal and political principle. By these means Fuller
crystallizes important conflicts of principle and illustrates the major schools of
legal philosophy in his day. Fuller?s case has been called ?a classic in jurispru-
dence,? ? a microcosm of this century?s debates,? and a ?breathtaking intellectual
accomplishment.?*
Although only half a century separates us from the date of Fuller?s essay, the
legal landscape has changed profoundly. I have written nine new judicial opin-
ions on his case, with roughly Fuller?s own objectives in view, hoping to explore
important issues of principle and in the process to bring the depiction of legal
philosophy up to date.
While I would like to depict the major schools of legal philosophy today,
giving each its due, there are a few obstacles that subtly constrain the project.
Suber, Peter. Case of the Speluncean Explorers: Nine New Opinions.
Florence, KY, USA: Routledge, 1998. p ix.
http://site.ebrary.com/lib/cityu/Doc?id=2003075&ppg=9
Copyright ? 1998. Routledge. All rights reserved.
Preface
Introduction 1
Pt. I Lon Fuller's Case of the Speluncean Explorers 5
Opinion of Chief Justice Truepenny 7
Opinion of Justice Foster 10
Opinion of Justice Tatting 15
Opinion of Justice Keen 20
Opinion of Justice Handy 25
Opinion of Justice Tatting 31
Postscript 32
Pt. II Nine New Opinions 33
Opinion of Chief Justice Burnham 35
Opinion of Justice Springham 45
Opinion of Justice Tally 57
Opinion of Justice Hellen 64
Opinion of Justice Trumpet 73
Opinion of Justice Goad 79
Opinion of Justice Frank 89
Opinion of Justice Reckon 91
Opinion of Justice Bond 99
Index 108
“洞穴奇案”被称为“史上最大的虚构案例”,在对“洞穴奇案”进行概括时发现,讨论洞穴奇案需要注意几个前提:被困者尝试建立一个新的“社会契约”;被告(即存活者)为了生存才杀害被害者;被告除了吃掉被害者之外,只有死亡这一个选择。随后在对十四位法官的观点进行...
評分美国著名法学家富勒先生撰写的《洞穴奇案》已经成为初入法学门径的读者首选的读物之一。这本书通过精妙的安排,使得读者能够领略到法律不一样的另一面:对于一般人而言,一个行为无非就是合法与非法两种简单的选择,只要学会法律条文自然也就懂了如何做出这个看上去很简单的判...
刑法21條的緊急避險很實用啊,法不責人所不能,至於該案不公平的問題,民法領域貌似有一條『契約自由』原則,但畢竟有罪與否還是得取決於那些前提假設條件的,當然,道德幷非構成殺人罪名的依據,同理,民衆意嚮亦非無罪的理由
评分不是看一次就能明白的書.
评分可能是我對法理學還不熟悉吧,我覺得討論過來討論過去,隻是在文字上的辯解而已。倒是有幾個比較有意思的點:法律的目的,“故意”,可替代的方法,還有對緊急避險的討論。第十的那裏,標題是忍受不正義好過實施不正義,但我覺得我們應該把作為和不作為放在一個平等的位置上。
评分法理學經典案例
评分不是看一次就能明白的書.
本站所有內容均為互聯網搜索引擎提供的公開搜索信息,本站不存儲任何數據與內容,任何內容與數據均與本站無關,如有需要請聯繫相關搜索引擎包括但不限於百度,google,bing,sogou 等
© 2025 qciss.net All Rights Reserved. 小哈圖書下載中心 版权所有