La question posée est celle des interfaces entre le système juridique et la société. Le contexte social du droit n’est pas pris ici comme surdéterminant, le droit se développant de manière autoréférentielle, dans une mesure, certes limitée, limites qu’il convient précisément d’analyser. Il y a entre le système social et le système juridique une circulation constante d’informations, qui passent par ce que nous appelons les figures juridiques. Celles-ci—le législateur, le juge ou le sujet de droit—sont en situation de choisir dans (...) le contexte social ce qu’elles décident d’y prendre pour lui donner statut de norme. En cela, la figure juridique fait acte politique: elle ne prend pas le contexte auquel elle fait face comme un donné «naturel» qui s’imposerait à elle univoquement, mais elle choisit dans la complexité de ce contexte ce qui lui semble correspondre à l’univers juridique auquel elle appartient. Cela est possible de par sa position même dans chacun des deux univers—c’est sa véritable situation—d’un côté comme fonction juridique et de l’autre, mais en même temps, comme acteur social: elle a à dire ce qui peut passer de l’un à l’autre, elle ne répète pas ce que l’un ou l’autre dit; elle se trouve en situation parce qu’elle est le lieu de passage entre deux mondes non concomitants dans leur existence propre, mais entre lesquels elle a à faire correspondre un discours qui donne et prenne sens. (shrink)

This paper describes and defends the “virtues of ingenuity”: detachment, lucidity, thoroughness. Philosophers traditionally praise these virtues for their role in the practice of using reasoning to solve problems and gather information. Yet, reasoning has other, no less important uses. Conviction is one of them. A recent revival of rhetoric and argumentative approaches to reasoning (in psychology, philosophy and science studies) has highlighted the virtues of persuasiveness and cast a new light on some of its apparent vices—bad faith, deluded confidence, (...) confirmation and myside biases. Those traits, it is often argued, will no longer look so detrimental once we grasp their proper function: arguing in order to persuade, rather than thinking in order to solve problems. Some of these biases may even have a positive impact on intellectual life. Seen in this light, the virtues of ingenuity may well seem redundant. Defending them, I argue that the vices of conviction are not innocuous. If generalized, they would destabilize argumentative practices. Argumentation is a common good that is threatened when every arguer pursues conviction at the expense of ingenuity. Bad faith, myside biases and delusions of all sorts are neither called for nor explained by argumentative practices. To avoid a collapse of argumentation, mere civil virtues (respect, humility or honesty) do not suffice: we need virtues that specifically attach to the practice of making conscious inferences. (shrink)

ArgumentRecent studies of patents have argued that the very materiality and techniques of legal media, such as the written patent document, are vital for the legal construction of a patentable invention. Developing the centrality placed on patent documents further, it becomes important to understand how these documents are ordered and mobilized. Patent classification answers the necessity of making the virtual nature of textual claims practicable by linking written inscription to bureaucracy. Here, the epistemological organization of documents overlaps with the grid (...) of patent administration. How are scientific inventions represented in such a process? If we examine the process of creating a new patent category within the International Patent Classification (IPC), it becomes clear that disagreements about the substance of the novel inventive subject matter have been resolved by computer simulations of patent documents in draft classifications. The practical needs of patent examiners were the most important concerns in the making of a new category. Such a lack of epistemological mediation between the scientific and legal identities of an invention depicts a legal understanding that science is already inside patent law. From an internal legal perspective, the self-referential introduction of the new patent category may make practical sense; however it becomes problematic from a technological and scientific standpoint as the remit of the patent classification also affects other social contexts and practices. (shrink)

This article explores the “fair trial” as a good practice for the construction of public proof. If proof signifies closure on matter at hand, and publicness is taken to signify both “access to” and “participation in” the construction of proof by the publics concerned, the authors contend that the “fair trial” is a good example of building public proof and that its backbone constraints can be of great interest to the defenders and advocates of participative Technology Assessment, especially citizens' juries.

This paper explores what is apparently a non-topic for Luhmann. Luhmann is preoccupied with decision-making rather than with judgment. The paper argues that Luhmann, attempting to find a way out of the dilemma between the fundamentalism of positivistic legal theory and the relativism of anti-foundationalist post-modern thinking, presents the epistemological–ethical doublet of a “self-binding” of the law. In this bootstrapping manoeuvre decision plays the central part. The paper begins by examining judgment in its relation to decision as considered by non-system-theoretical (...) thinking. Against that background it unfolds the distinction between distinction, form and decision in systems theory and in the system-theoretical observation of the law. The article then discusses Luhmann’s description of the functioning of decision(-making) within the legal system. The hypothesis is that Luhmann blends here cognitive with ethical aspects. Finally, the article addresses Luhmann’s polemics against alternative approaches to his own. The suggestion is that ‘judgment’, in Luhmann’s systems theory, re-enters by the back door as an ethical–theoretical imperative that commands theory’s responsibility for society and law. (shrink)