In this study, the author identifies six types of judicial precedent-ideology and are tests them against judicial experiences in various countries.

This volume presents a variety of both normative and descriptive perspectives on the use of precedent by the United States Supreme Court. It brings together a diverse group of American legal scholars, some of whom have been influenced by the Segal/Spaeth "attitudinal" model and some of whom have not. The group of contributors includes legal theorists and empiricists, constitutional lawyers and legal generalists, leading authorities and up-and-coming scholars. The book addresses questions such as how the Court establishes durable precedent, how the Court decides to overrule precedent, the effects of precedent on case selection, the scope of constitutional precedent, the influence of concurrences and dissents, and the normative foundations of constitutional precedent. Most of these questions have been addressed by the Court itself only obliquely, if at all. The volume will be valuable to readers both in the United States and abroad, particularly in light of ongoing debates over the role of precedent in civil-law nations and emerging legal systems.

The Politics of Precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court offers an insightful and provocative analysis of the Supreme Court's most important task--shaping the law. Thomas Hansford and James Spriggs analyze a key aspect of legal change: the Court's interpretation or treatment of the precedents it has set in the past. Court decisions do not just resolve immediate disputes; they also set broader precedent. The meaning and scope of a precedent, however, can change significantly as the Court revisits it in future cases. The authors contend that these interpretations are driven by an interaction between policy goals and variations in the legal authoritativeness of precedent. From this premise, they build an explanation of the legal interpretation of precedent that yields novel predictions about the nature and timing of legal change. Hansford and Spriggs test their hypotheses by examining how the Court has interpreted the precedents it set between 1946 and 1999. This analysis provides compelling support for their argument, and demonstrates that the justices' ideological goals and the role of precedent are inextricably linked. The two prevailing, yet contradictory, views of precedent--that it acts either solely as a constraint, or as a "cloak" that never actually influences the Court--are incorrect. This book shows that while precedent can operate as a constraint on the justices' decisions, it also represents an opportunity to foster preferred societal outcomes.

In the course of a single investor-state dispute, an arbitrator may make numerous decisions, from interpreting the treaty or national laws to taking into account case law, customs and policies. In practice, this process raises important issues regarding the consistency of decisions and the predictability and legitimacy of the decision-making process in general. Investment arbitration tribunals have developed a specialised process of legal decision making adapted to the interpretational needs that arise in the context of an investor-state dispute and to the transnational characteristics of the investment arbitration framework. This is the first book to offer an in-depth analysis of the transnational characteristics of investment arbitration and to analyse the interpretive arguments of investment tribunals and the way they use treaties, precedent, policies, general principles of law and customary law in their decision-making process. Drawing on publicly available arbitral case law supplemented with personal interviews with investment arbitrators, the author touches on such concepts and practices as the following: - an overview of various decision-making genres of arbitral tribunals: attitudinal, economic, strategic and legal; - the legal argumentation triptych of language–rhetoric–dialogue; - the specific language arbitrators have developed when interpreting the law; - how arbitrators use the concepts 'standards', 'rules', 'principles' and 'rights'; - the importance of the legal reasoning of arbitral awards and the role of rhetoric therein; - concepts of 'acceptability', 'audience' and 'legitimacy'; - limitations of the public international law interpretive methodology enshrined in the Vienna Convention; - interpretation of precedents, customary law, general principles of law and policies; - the way national and international legal orders interact in the context of interpretation; and - how decision-making is connected to the issues of predictability, consistency and the rule of law. The core of the book proposes a novel, full- edged dialogical network theory for analysing the interpretation process. As an exemplary demonstration of developing theory to keep up with practice, this unique book provides a deeply engaged means for enhancing the practice of international arbitration. Its introduction of a new field of interdisciplinary analysis employing legal argumentation theories is sure to provide inestimable guidance for institutions and policymakers, especially in light of recent proposals for the creation of a permanent investment arbitration court. Given that unveiling the legal decision-making process is critical for the well-being of the whole dispute resolution procedure, and that being aware of how arbitrators interpret the law can constitute a roadmap for counsel's arguments and approaches when dealing with cross-border disputes, the topic of this book is relevant for both academics and practitioners, and its signifcance can only grow as recourse to investor-state arbitration continues to expand.

Fully updated with all of the latest developments, this will give you a full understanding of the English Legal System.

This book is about a new and different way of approaching and studying the history of the built environment and the use of historical precedents in design. However, although what I am proposing is new for what is currently called architectural history, both my approach and even my conclusions are not that new in other fields, as I discovered when I attempted to find supporting evidence. * In fact, of all the disciplines dealing with various aspects of the study of the past, architectural history seems to have changed least in the ways I am advocating. There is currently a revival of interest in the history of architecture and urban form; a similar interest applies to theory, vernacular design, and culture-environment relations. After years of neglect, the study of history and the use of historical precedent are again becoming important. However, that interest has not led to new approaches to the subject, nor have its bases been examined. This I try to do. In so doing, I discuss a more rigorous and, I would argue, a more valid way of looking at historical data and hence of using such data in a theory of the built environment and as precedent in environmental design. Underlying this is my view of Environment-Behavior Studies CEBS) as an emerging theory rather than as data to help design based on current "theory. " Although this will be the subject of another book, a summary statement of this position may be useful.

A forceful and landmark defence of individual rights, Taking Rights Seriously is one of the most important political philosophical works of the last 50 years.