Abstract
The paradigm theory of methodology, developed by authors such as Kuhn and Toulmin, has been adopted by legal scholars as an instrument of legal science(1). However, in its extrapolation of the concept of ‘paradigm’, legal theory has assumed a rather uncritical attitude towards the concept itself. The concept is used not only to articulate problems of legal science and legal dogmatics, both analytically and descriptively, but also with regard to the more encompassing question of legal change. Can the law change at all, and if so, is this change only part of a general social change, or does it imply a change of the legal paradigm?
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Kuhn, R.: 1970, The structure of scientific revolutions Chicago, 2nd ed. St.Toulmin: 1972, Human Understanding, Oxford, Vol. 1.
Kuhn, R.: 1970, The structure of scientific revolutions Chicago, 2nd ed. St.Toulmin: 1972, Human Understanding, Oxford, Vol. 1.
Peczenik, A.: 1983, The basis of legal justification, Lund, p. 130
Teubner, G.: 1982, ‘Reflexives Recht’, ARSP, ‘Substantive and Reflexive Elements in Modern Law’, Law and Society Review, 1982/83, Nr. 17, p. 401
Peczenik, A.: op. cit., p.131.
Krawietz, A.: 1979, ‘Zum Paradigmenwechsel im Juristischen Methodenstreit’, in: Rechtstheorie, Beiheft I, Berlin; - id -, 1978, Juristische Entscheidung und wissenschaftliche Erkenntnis, Wien/New York, p. 200–242.
de Wild, A.H.: 1979, De rationaliteit van het rechterlijk oordeel, p.50,52.
Aarnio, A.: 1981, ‘On the paradigm articulation in legal research’, in Rechtstheorie, Beiheft III, Berlin. Also in: 1983, ‘Philosophical perspectives in Jurisprudence’, Acta Philosophica Fennica, vol. 36, Helsinki, p.209–222.
Aarnio, A.: 1981, ‘On the paradigm articulation in legal research’, in Rechtstheorie, Beiheft III, Berlin. Also in: 1983, ‘Philosophical perspectives in Jurisprudence’, Acta Philosophica Fennica, vol. 36, Helsinki, p.209–222.
Allott, A.: 1980, The limits of Law, London, p.2.
Broekman, J.M.: 1982, ‘The inner form of legal thinking’, Primer Concreso International de Filosofia del Derecho, La Plata.
Toynbee, A.J.: 1934, 1962, A study of history, Oxford U.P.,Vol. 1, p.271–339, Vol. 2, p.1–395.
Peczenik, A.: op. cit., p.130.
Alchourron, C.E. and Bulygin, E.: 1971, Normative Systems, New York, p.4.
Summers, R.S.: 1982, Instrumentalism and American Legal Theory, Cornell, Ithaca & London, p.268–283.
Puceiro, E.Z.: 1981, Paradigma dogmatico y ciencia del derecho, Madrid.
Puceiro, E.Z.: 1981, ‘System and function in legal dogmatics’, in: Rechtstheorie, Beiheft II, Berlin, p. 349–357.
Faye, J.P.: 1972, Théorie du récit, Paris, part I, ch.2.
Broekman, J.M.: 1981, ‘Juristischer Diskurs und Rechtstheorie’, in Rechtstheorie, Vol.XI.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1984 D. Reidel Publishing Company
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Broekman, J.M. (1984). Changes of Paradigm in the Law. In: Peczenik, A., Lindahl, L., Roermund, B.V. (eds) Theory of Legal Science. Synthese Library, vol 176. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-6481-5_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-6481-5_11
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-009-6483-9
Online ISBN: 978-94-009-6481-5
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive