Autor rekonstruuje stanowiska przyjmowane w ramach tzw. poznańsko-szczecińskiej szkoły teorii prawa (Szkoła) dotyczące znaczenia językowego normy prawnej. Pozwala to na unaocznienie pewnych dylematów związanych z przyjmowaniem założeń filozofii analitycznej w teorii prawa. Następnie zwrócono uwagę na wpływ filozofii Kazimierza Ajdukiewicza na pojmowanie znaczenia językowego w Szkole. Problem znaczenia językowego może zostać wyjaśniony przy użyciu definicji równoznaczności, której rdzeń stanowi zbiór dyrektyw danego języka. W ostatniej części tekstu omówione zostały natomiast tezy pragmatyzmu analitycznego Roberta B. Brandoma i sposób jego aplikacji do teorii prawa przez Macieja Dybowskiego. Pragmatyzm analityczny poszerza badania semantyczne o próbę zrozumienia uwarunkowań praktycznych.
The aim of this paper is to show that the meaning and significance of legal evidence is being constituted throughout the course of a singular instance of legal proceedings. This is to be achieved by describing what legal agents do while appealing to different propositions of fact and inferring from them throughout the course of legal proceedings. The authors claim that the process of applying the law is ultimately rooted in the inferential discursive practices of exchanging reasons on the part of the participants of legal proceedings. Therefore, they set forth a model of legal proceedings that consists of an interplay between three types of reasons, which are exchanged by the participants of legal proceedings: i.e. legal reasons, epistemic reasons and stake reasons. To illustrate this interplay, the authors deploy a metaphor of law as a game, and provide a description of legal proceedings as a particular instance of playing a game of law. The conclusion is that the legal concept of evidence is (at least in part) constituted by the role that evidence plays in affecting which reasons for action the participants to legal proceedings choose to act on. The other final assumption of this paper is metatheoretical: authors want to show that when analyzing what legal evidence is, one should begin from the perspective of a singular instance of legal proceedings, rather than from the perspective of law in general.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.