Treść książki

Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
ChapterI.ThePhenomenonofNegotiations
andhermeneutics
2
.Inparticular,theyhaveindicatedthatwhenthere
isapromise,theremustbeanattempttofulfillit;whenthereisaques-
tion,theremustbeananswer;whenthereisaclaim,theremustbe
acorrespondingobligation.Contemporarytheoriesoflegalargumen-
tationinturn,stressthediscursivenatureofthelaw
3
.Theacceptance
oftheviewspertainingtothedialogicalordiscursivecharacterofthe
lawenablesonetorecognizethespecialstatusoftheproblemoflegal
negotiation,i.e.toconnectitdirectlytothelbasicdiscussion’concern-
ingtheontologicalandepistemologicalnatureofthelaw.
Anyaccountthattakeslegalnegotiationsasaproblemofits
own,andtheconsequentrejectionofontologicalandmethodologi-
caljustificationsmustleadtothemarginalizationofnegotiations
inlegalpractice.Thisisthemodusoperandiofthecriticsofemploying
negotiationtechniquesinthelaw.Theytendtolookatnegotiations
asakindofmethodwhichisofsecondaryimportancecompared
tothestandard,dogmaticmethodsthataregroundedinthelong,
positivisttradition.Onemakesrecoursetonegotiationsonlyafter
lbasicmethods’fail,whenallparadigmatic,formaltoolshavebeen
tested.Insteadatthebeginningofthedispute,whentheconflicthas
notyetescalated,negotiationsaredeployedonlyatalaterstage,often
whenitisimpossibletoreachanleffectivecompromise’.Thereare
atleastthreereasonsforthis.Firstly,abroaderphilosophicalperspec-
tiveisneglected.Inlegalpracticecertainmoregeneraltheses(what
isthelaw?whatarelegalmethods?)areusuallytakenforgranted,
acceptedlonceandforall’throughtradition,standardsoflegaledu-
cationortrainedhabits.Usually,thesearepositiviststandardsand
habits.Noonerealisesthatlegalphilosophyhasdevelopedmany
competingconceptions.Secondly,itoftentranspiresbecauseofthe
2
Cf.H.G.Gadamer,WahrheitundMethode.Ergänzungen.Register(in:)Gesammelte
Werke,vol.II,Tübingen1986;A.Reinach,ZurPhänomenologiedesRechts.Dieapriorischen
GrundlagendesbürgerlichenRechts,2
nd
ed.,München1953;A.Kaufmann,Beiträgezur
juristischenHermeneutik,Köln–Berlin–Bonn–München1984.
3
Cf.Ch.Perelman,Logiquejuridique:Nouvellerhetorique,Paris1999;R.Alexy,
ATheoryofLegalArgumentation:TheTheoryofRationalDiscourseasTheoryofLegal
Justification,Oxford2010.
13