Abstract
According to the common modern conception of law, the legitimacy of law is based on the legitimacy of legislative authorities. The authority of the interpreters of law, i.e. courts, is a derivative authority. It depends on the authority of law itself. Therefore. (1) the power of courts to review laws is limited and, (2) when there are problems in interpreting law, courts should, if possible, be guided by the intent of legislative authorities.
The paradoxical results proved by the theory of social choice show that sometimes there is no single majority will or intention. In those cases the actual outcomes, e.g. election results or legislative decisions, are produced by an interplay of institutional structures, political strategies, and agendas. Some American political scientists and legal theorists have argued that because of these results, there is no reason to accept requirements (1) and (2): there is no reason why courts should defer to legislatures. These theorists have three arguments: first. the notion of legislative intent presupposes an illegitimate collectivistic metaphysics: second, even when there is an unambiguous majority supporting a decision, we cannot speak about a “majority will” or “intent” because individual citizens or representatives may support the decision for different reasons, and third, the “paradoxes” of social choice show that there can be several intents or majority wills within the same decision-making unit.
I will try to show that the first and the second argument are conceptually independent of the results of social choice theories. Moreover, one can speak about collective intentions without making any collectivistic metaphysical presuppositions. Against the third argument, I claim that the intent criterion may be a meaningful guide of interpretation even when a majority cycle exists.
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.
References
Arrow. Kenneth J. Social (’hoice and Individual l’alues. 2“ ed. ( New York: Wiley. 1963 ).
Buchanan, James. “Social Choice, Democracy, and Free Markets.” Journal of Political Economy 62. 2, (August 1954), 114–23.
Chemerinsky. Erwin. “Foreword: The Vanishing Constitution.” Harvard Law Review 103 (1989), 4389.
Easterbrook, Frank H. “Statute’s Domains.” The University of Chicago Law Review 50 (1983). 533552.
Ely, John Hart. Democracy und Distrust. A Theory o[Judicial Review (Cambridge ( Mass. ): Harvard University Press. 1980 ).
Goodwin, Barbara and Keith Taylor. The Politics of Utopia.A Study in Theory and Practice ( London: Hutchinson, 1982 ).
Levine, Andrew. Liberal Democracy. A Critique of as Theory ( New York: Columbia University Press, 1981 ).
Riker, William H. Liberalism against Populism ( San Francisco: Freeman Co., 1982 ).
Riker, William H. and Barry R. Weingast. “Constitutional Regulation of Legislative Choice: Consequences of Judicial Deference to Legislatures.” l’irginia Law Review 74 (1988), 373–401.
Rowley, Charles K. Liberty and the Siate.(Aldershot: Elgar. 1993 ).
Salzburger, Eli M. “A Positive Analysis of the Doctrine of Separation of Courts. or Why do We have an Independent Judiciary.” International Journal of Law and Economics 13 (1993), 349–379.
Shepsle, Kenneth A. “Congress is a ‘They’, not an ‘It’: Legislative Intent as Oxymoron.” International Review of Law and Economics 12 (1992), 239–256.
Wolff. Robert P. In Defense of Anarchism (New York: Harper Row). 1976.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2001 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lagerspetz, E. (2001). Collective Intentions, Legislative Intents, and Social Choice. In: Soeteman, A. (eds) Pluralism and Law. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2702-0_19
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2702-0_19
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-5722-8
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-2702-0
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive