Analysis of Coherentism and Fundamentalism in Legal Theories: Case Study of "Theory of Criminalization"

Document Type : Research Article

Author

Assistant Professor, Department of Criminal Law & Criminology, Faculty of Islamic Studies & Law, Imam Sadiq University, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

An important issue that has been neglected in research on the analysis of legal theoretical foundations is the epistemological analysis and description of the theoretical structure of this science. Some jurists believe that legal knowledge is an independent knowledge that defines its concepts and principles; Others, on the other hand, believe that concerning defining and explaining basic concepts and principles, law and its branches, despite their methodological independence, are inevitably bound to follow the definitions provided by other sciences. Using the definition of “knowledge structure” provided by justification theories, the first group can be described as “cohesive” and the second group can be analysed according to “fundamentalist” criteria. In this article, an attempt is made to first analyse and evaluate the effects of coherence and fundamentalist approaches in legal theories, and then to examine the impact of each of these two approaches in the analysis of criminological theory. Since criminological theories are committed to upholding the fundamental values of society and regulating the coercive relationship between the state and man through the use of “power” and coercive power, the analysis of its epistemological structure has significant effects and dimensions. Consequently, if the structure of criminology is analysed with a coherent approach, problems such as “lack of input”, “infinite sequence” and the challenges of justifying extrajudicial statements will arise. In contrast, fundamentalist analysis of criminality makes it possible to speak of “political limitations of criminal law” instead of “moral constraints of criminal law”.

Keywords

References

آلتمن، اندرو (1385). درآمدی بر فلسفه حقوق. ترجمه بهروز جندقی. قم: مؤسسه آموزشی و پژوهشی امام خمینی (رحمت‌الله‌علیه).
برلین، آیزا (1398). چهار مقاله درباره آزادی. ترجمه محمدعلی موحد. تهران: انتشارات خوارزمی.
پولاک، جان و کراز، جوزف (1385). نظریه‌های امروزیِ شناخت. ترجمه علی حقی. قم: بوستان کتاب قم.
پویمن، لوئیس پی (1398). معرفت‌شناسی؛ مقدمه‌ای بر نظریه شناخت. ترجمه رضا محمدزاده. تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه امام صادق (علیه‌السلام).
تبیت، مارک (1384). فلسفه حقوق. ترجمه حسن رضایی خاوری. مشهد: دانشگاه علوم اسلامی رضوی.
غفاری، محمد (1386). عوامل توجیه‌کننده جرم‌زدایی. فصلنامه عدالت آرا، (8). صص. 136-173.
فعالی، محمدتقی (1379). درآمدی بر معرفت‌شناسی دینی و معاصر. قم: نشر معارف.
کلسن، هانس (1391). نظریه حقوقی ناب. ترجمه اسماعیل نعمت‌اللهی. تهران: انتشارات سمت و پژوهشگاه حوزه و دانشگاه.
گریلینگ، ای.سی. و دیگران (۱۳۹۰). معرفت ‌شناسی. ترجمه امیر مازیار. تهران: انتشارات حکمت.
مالوری، فیلیپ (1398). اندیشه‌های حقوقی. ترجمه مرتضی کلانتریان. تهران: نشر آگه.
محمودی جانکی، فیروز (1382). مبانی، اصول و شیوه‌های جرم‌انگاری. (رساله دکتری). دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.
محمودی جانکی، فیروز (1387). جرم‌زدایی به منزله یک تغییر. فصلنامه حقوق دانشکده حقوق دانشگاه تهران، 38(1)، صص. 321-350.
میل، جان استوارت (۱۳۸۵). رساله درباره آزادی. ترجمه محمدجواد شیخ‌ا‌لاسلامی. تهران: انتشارات علمی و فرهنگی.
هوساک، داگلاس (1390). جرم‌انگاری افراطی. ترجمه محمدتقی نوری. تهران: انتشارات مجد.
Ashworth, Andrew (2003). Principles of Criminal Law (4th ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Baker, Dennis J. (2008). Constitutionalizing the Harm Principle. Criminal Justice Ethics, 27(2), pp. 4-16.
Dore, Isaak I. (2007). The Epistemological Foundations of Law: Readings and Commentary. Durham, North Carolina: Carolina Academic Press.
Dworkin, Ronald (1986). Law’s Empire. London: Fontana Press.
Feinberg, Joel (1989). Moral Limits of Criminal Law: Harm to Self. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fletcher, George P. (1978). Rethinking Criminal Law. New York: Oxford University Press (Reprint 2000).
Fletcher, George P. (2006). Criminal Law & Political Theory. Criminal Justice Ethics. 25(1), pp. 18-38.
Hamowy, Ronald (2008). The Encyclopaedia of Libertarianism. California: Sage Publication.
Kelsen, Hans (1967). Reine Rechtslehre: Mit einem Anhang Das Problem der Gerechtigkeit. Wien: Franz Deuticke (Reprint: 2017).
Kress, Kenneth J. (1984). Legal Reasoning and Coherence Theories: Dworkin's Rights Thesis, Retroactivity, and the Linear Order of Decisions. California Law Review, 72(3), pp. 369-402.
Laudan, Larry (2006). Truth, Error, And Criminal Law: An Essay in Legal Epistemology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Marmor, Andrei (2021). The Pure Theory of Law. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL=<https://plato.stanford.edu/ archives/fall2021/entries/lawphil-theory/>.
MacCormick, Neil (1978). Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mill, John Stuart (1859). On Liberty. Oxford: Oxford University.
Raz, Joseph (1994). The Relevance of Coherence. In: Raz, Joseph. Ethics in the Public Domain. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Rodriguez-Blanco, Veronica (2001). A Revision of the Constitutive and Epistemic Coherence Theories in Law. Ratio Juris. 14(2), pp. 212-232.
Schiavello, Aldo (2001). On “Coherence” and “Law”: An Analysis of Different Models. Ratio Juris. 14(2), pp. 233-243.
Schonsheck, Jonathan (1994). On Criminalization: An Essay in the Philosophy of the Criminal Law. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
The Journal of Islamic Law Research
Volume 23, Issue 3 - Serial Number 57
September 2022
Pages 483-510

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 24 January 2022
  • Accept Date: 28 September 2022

Share

How to cite

Statistics