The Delineation of the Theoretical Concept of a Juridical Act

The Characteristics That Separate Juridical Acts from Other Acts
  • H. D. S. van der Kaaij
Part of the Law and Philosophy Library book series (LAPS, volume 129)


To start the research into the working knowledge of the theoretical concept of a juridical act it is important to establish what questions need to be answered. The first question with regard to juridical acts that needs to be asked is a question that concerns the extension of the concept. Of all the acts and events that play a role in the world of law, which acts are juridical acts? The second question that needs to be answered concerns two aspects: (1) what is involved in the proper performance of the act; and (2) what is the connection between the act and its legal consequences? In this chapter I will try to answer the first question by discussing the four characteristics that delineate the theoretical concept of a juridical act. In Chap.  3 I will try to answer the second question and discus some of the issues that are concerned with the performance of the juridical act and its creation of legal consequences. When these questions have been answered, not only will it be known which acts belong to the extension of the theoretical concept of a juridical act, but insight will have been gained into the functioning of the juridical act. Taken together, a working knowledge of the theoretical concept of a juridical act will then have been developed.


  1. Anscombe GEM (1976) Intention. Basil Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. Austin JL (2009) How to do things with words. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Davidson D (1976) The logical form of action-sentences. In: Rescher N (ed) The logic of decision and action. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, pp 81–120Google Scholar
  4. Goldman A (1971) The individuation of action. J Philos 68(21):761–774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hage JC (2005) Studies in legal logic. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  6. Hage JC (2007) De wondere wereld van het recht (oratie Maastricht). Universiteit Maastricht, MaastrichtGoogle Scholar
  7. Hage JC (2011) A model of juridical acts, part 1 and part 2. Artif Intell Law 19:23–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hage JC (2012) Juridical acts and the gap between is and ought. Neth J Leg Philos 43:50–66Google Scholar
  9. Hage JC (2013) Can legal theory be objective? In: Husa J, van Hoecke M (eds) Objectivity in law and legal reasoning. Hart, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. Hart HLA (1982) Essays on Bentham, studies in jurisprudence and political theory. Clarendon Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hart HLA (1983) Essays in jurisprudence and philosophy. Clarendon Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hart HLA (2012) The concept of law. Oxford University Press, Oxford. (reprint of the original from 1961)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hohfeld WN (1913) Some fundamental legal conceptions as applied in juridical reasoning. Yale Law J 23(1):16–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kelk C, Lindeman JMW (2010) Studieboek materiel strafrecht. Kluwer, DeventerGoogle Scholar
  15. Kelsen H (2009) Pure theory of law. The Lawbook Exchange, Clark. (Reine Rechtslehre, 2nd ed. 1960, translated by M. Knight)Google Scholar
  16. Konijnenbelt W, van Male R (2014) van Wijk/Konijnebelt & van Male, Hoofdstukken van het bestuursrecht. Kluwer, DeventerGoogle Scholar
  17. Kurki V (2017) Legal power and legal competence. In: McBride M (ed) New essays on the nature of rights. Hart Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  18. Lindahl L (1977) Position and change, a study in law and logic. D. Reidel Publishing Company, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Loth MA (1988) Handeling en aansprakelijkheid in het recht (diss. Leiden). Gouda Quint, ArnhemGoogle Scholar
  20. MacCormick N (2007) Institutions of the law, an essay in legal theory. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. MacCormick N, Raz J (1972) Voluntary obligations and normative powers. Proc Aristot Soc Suppl Vol 46:59–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. MacCormick N, Weinberger O (1986) An institutional theory of law, new approaches to legal positivism. D. Reidel Publishing Company, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  23. Peetz V (1972) Propositional content. Analysis 32(6):183–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ross A (1968) Directives and norms. Routledge & Kegan Paul, LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. Ruiter DWP (1992) ‘Besluit’ in de algemene wet bestuursrecht. Bestuurswetenschappen 3:185–195Google Scholar
  26. Ruiter DWP (1993) Institutional legal facts, legal powers and their effects. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schiffer S (2008) Propositional content. In: Lepore E, Smith B (eds) Oxford handbook of philosophy of language. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 267–294Google Scholar
  28. Searle JR (1968) Austin on locutionary and illocutionary acts. Philos Rev 77(4):405–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Searle JR (1969) Speech acts, an essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Searle JR (1976) A classification of illocutionary acts. Lang Soc 5(1):1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Smits JM (2014a) Contract law, a comparative introduction. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  32. Smits JM (2014b) The law of contract. In: Hage JC, Akkermans B (eds) Introduction to law. Springer, Cham, pp 51–70Google Scholar
  33. Spaak T (1994) The concept of legal competence, an essay in conceptual analysis (diss. Stockholm). Dartmouth, AldershotGoogle Scholar
  34. van Dunné JM (1971) Normatieve uitleg van rechtshandelingen, een onderzoek naar de grondslagen van het geldende verbintenissenrecht (diss. Leiden). Kluwer, DeventerGoogle Scholar
  35. von Brinz A (1873) Lehrbuch der pandekten 2. Available online: URL = <> (last checked 20-08-2018)
  36. von Savigny FC (1840) System des heutigen Römischen Rechts, bandes III. Veit und Comp, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wetzel L (2014) Types and tokens. In: Zalta EN (ed) The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2014 Edition). URL = <> (last checked 20-08-2018)
  38. Windscheid B (1906) Lehrbuch des pandektenrechts, bandes I. Literarische Unstalt Rütten & Loening, Frankfurt am MainGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. D. S. van der Kaaij
    • 1
  1. 1.University of MaastrichtMaastrichtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations