Skip to main content

A Sufficientist Approach to Reasonableness in Legal Decision-Making and Judicial Review

  • Chapter

Part of the book series: Law and Philosophy Library ((LAPS,volume 86))

I shall argue for a sufficientist understanding of reasonableness in legal decision-making: cognitive or moral optimality are not required for reasonableness; what needed is just that a determination—be it epistemic or practical—is sufficiently good (acceptable, or at least not unacceptable). Correspondingly, judicial review on the ground of unreasonableness requires more than mere suboptimality: it requires failure to achieve the reasonableness threshold.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   259.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Aarnio, A. 1987. The Rational as Reasonable. Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aleinikoff, T. 1987. Constitutional Law in the Age of Balancing. Yale Law Journal 96: 943–1005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexy, R. 2002a. On Balancing and Subsumption: A Structural Comparison. Ratio Juris 16: 33–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexy, R. 2002b. A Theory of Constitutional Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexy, R. 2003. Constitutional Rights, Balancing, and Rationality. Ratio Juris 16, 131–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle. 1912. On the Motion of Animals (De motu animalium). Oxford: Clarendon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle. 1924. Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon, T. J. M. and H. Prakken. 2006. Justifying Actions by Accuring Arguments. In Computational Models of Argument. Eds. P. E. Dunne and T. J. M., Bench-Capon, 247–258. Amsterdam: IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackburn, S. 1998. Ruling Passions: A Theory of Practical Reasoning. Oxford: Clarendon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bratman, M. 1987. Intentions, Plans and Practical Reasoning. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brentano, F. 1973.,Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint. London: McAlister.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. 1983. The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, A. 1999. Knowledge in the Social Word. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, A. 2006. Social Epistemology. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. 1999. Between Facts and Norms. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. (1st ed. in German 1992.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, H. L. A. 1982. Essays on Bentham. Oxford: Clarendon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeffrey, R. 1983. The Logic of Decision. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kant, I. 1996. Groundwork of the Metaphisics of Morals. In Practical Philosophy. Ed. M. J. Gregor, 37–107. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R. and H. Raiffa. 1993. Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Trade Offs. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelsen, H. 1967. The Pure Theory of Law. Berkeley, Cal.: University of California Press. (1st ed. in German 1960.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumm, M. 2007. Political Liberalism and the Structure of Rights. In Law, Rights and Discourse. Themes from the Legal Philosophy of Robert Alexy. Ed. G. Pavlakos, 131–66. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. 1973. Zweckbegriff und Systemrationalität. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. 1974. Rechtssystem und Rechtsdogmatik. Stuttgard: Kohlhammer.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCormick, N. 1978. Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory. Oxford: Clarendon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mill, J. S. 1991. On Liberty. In On Liberty and Other Essays, Ed. J. Gray, 5–130. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (1st ed. 1859.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Nimmer, M. 1968. The Right to Speak from Times to Time: First Amendment Theory Applied to Libel and Misapplied to Privacy. California Law Review 56: 935–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nozick, R. 1993. The Nature of Rationality. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettit, P. 2002. Collective Persons and Power. Legal Theory 8, 443–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pettit, P. 2004. Groups with Minds of Their Own. In Socializing Metaphysics. Ed. F. Schmitt, 167–93. New York, N.Y.: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinker, S. 1999. How the Mind Works. London: Penguin. (1st ed. 1997.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollock, J. L. 1995. Cognitive Carpentry: A Blueprint for How to Build a Person. New York, N.Y.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollock, J. L. and J. Cruz. 1999. Contemporary Theories of Knowledge. Totowa, N.Y.: Rowman and Littlefield. (1st ed. 1986.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Postema, G. 1995. Morality in the First Person Plural. Law and Philosophy 14: 35–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raz, J. 1978. Reasons for Action, Decisions and Norms. In J. Raz, ed., Practical Reasoning, pp. 128–43. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ripstein, A. 2001. Equality, Responsibility and the Law. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadurski, W. 2008. Equality and Legitimacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sartor, G. 2005. Legal Reasoning: A Cognitive Approach to the Law, Volume 5 of Treatise on Legal Philosophy and General Jurisprudence. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sartor, G. 2006. Fundamental Legal Concepts: A Formal and Teleological Characterisation. Artificial Intelligence and Law 21: 101–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sartre, J. P. 1993. Being and Nothingness. New York, N.Y.: Washington Square Press. (1st ed. in French 1943.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Schauer, F. 1991. Playing by the Rules. Oxford: Clarendon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seidman, A. and R. Seidman. 2001. Legislative Drafting for Democratic Social Change: A Manual for Drafters. London: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. 2004a. Elements of a Theory of Human Rights. Philosophy and Public Affairs 32: 315–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. 2004b. Rationality and Freedom. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. 1965. Administrative Behaviour: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organisations. 2nd ed. New York, N.Y.: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. 1983. Reason in Human Affairs. Stanford, Cal.: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soper, P. 2002. The Ethics of Deference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone Sweet, A. and J. Mathews 2008. Proportionality Balancing and Global Constitutionalism. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thagard, P. 2000. How to Make Decisions: Coherence, Emotion, and Practical Inference. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thagard, P. 2001. Coherence in Thought and Action. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuomela, R. 2000. Cooperation: A Philosophical Study. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldron, J. 1999. Law and Disagreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. N., C. Reed, and F. Macagno. 2008. Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giovanni Sartor .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Sartor, G. (2009). A Sufficientist Approach to Reasonableness in Legal Decision-Making and Judicial Review. In: Bongiovanni, G., Sartor, G., Valentini, C. (eds) Reasonableness and Law. Law and Philosophy Library, vol 86. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8500-0_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics