Hartʼs judicial discretion revisited
Abstract
The Harvard Law Review recently, for the first time, published Hart’s essay titled “Discretion”. It is a carefully arranged version of the lecture which he gave at Harvard in 1956. This essay fills significant gap in Hart's work concerning judicial reasoning. In my paper attention is devoted to his conception of judicial discretion, its two main types (express and tacit), and his understanding of interpretation and rationality related to Hartian discretion. According to Hart, discretion is a form of decision-making in hard cases, which is rational and to some extent constrained by law. However, because no combination of legal rules and principles, properly interpreted, will always give only one legally right answer, the judge in some cases must resort to non-legal reasons, i.e. exercise discretion. Hart’s insight that the law is not the sole ground for (judicial) decisions suggests that there is something “out there” (in our “practical universe”) that plays a role in the legal “earthly...” world, and consequently, in the judicial world as well.
Source:
Revus, 2023, 2023, 50Collections
Institution/Community
Pravni fakultet / Faculty of Law University of BelgradeTY - JOUR AU - Dajović, Goran PY - 2023 UR - https://ralf.ius.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/1398 AB - The Harvard Law Review recently, for the first time, published Hart’s essay titled “Discretion”. It is a carefully arranged version of the lecture which he gave at Harvard in 1956. This essay fills significant gap in Hart's work concerning judicial reasoning. In my paper attention is devoted to his conception of judicial discretion, its two main types (express and tacit), and his understanding of interpretation and rationality related to Hartian discretion. According to Hart, discretion is a form of decision-making in hard cases, which is rational and to some extent constrained by law. However, because no combination of legal rules and principles, properly interpreted, will always give only one legally right answer, the judge in some cases must resort to non-legal reasons, i.e. exercise discretion. Hart’s insight that the law is not the sole ground for (judicial) decisions suggests that there is something “out there” (in our “practical universe”) that plays a role in the legal “earthly” world, and consequently, in the judicial world as well. T2 - Revus T1 - Hartʼs judicial discretion revisited IS - 50 VL - 2023 DO - 10.4000/revus.9735 UR - conv_3312 ER -
@article{ author = "Dajović, Goran", year = "2023", abstract = "The Harvard Law Review recently, for the first time, published Hart’s essay titled “Discretion”. It is a carefully arranged version of the lecture which he gave at Harvard in 1956. This essay fills significant gap in Hart's work concerning judicial reasoning. In my paper attention is devoted to his conception of judicial discretion, its two main types (express and tacit), and his understanding of interpretation and rationality related to Hartian discretion. According to Hart, discretion is a form of decision-making in hard cases, which is rational and to some extent constrained by law. However, because no combination of legal rules and principles, properly interpreted, will always give only one legally right answer, the judge in some cases must resort to non-legal reasons, i.e. exercise discretion. Hart’s insight that the law is not the sole ground for (judicial) decisions suggests that there is something “out there” (in our “practical universe”) that plays a role in the legal “earthly” world, and consequently, in the judicial world as well.", journal = "Revus", title = "Hartʼs judicial discretion revisited", number = "50", volume = "2023", doi = "10.4000/revus.9735", url = "conv_3312" }
Dajović, G.. (2023). Hartʼs judicial discretion revisited. in Revus, 2023(50). https://doi.org/10.4000/revus.9735 conv_3312
Dajović G. Hartʼs judicial discretion revisited. in Revus. 2023;2023(50). doi:10.4000/revus.9735 conv_3312 .
Dajović, Goran, "Hartʼs judicial discretion revisited" in Revus, 2023, no. 50 (2023), https://doi.org/10.4000/revus.9735 ., conv_3312 .