|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. |
Record Nr. |
UNINA9910812935303321 |
|
|
Autore |
Heinze Eric |
|
|
Titolo |
The logic of liberal rights : a study in the formal analysis of legal discourse / / Eric Heinze |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pubbl/distr/stampa |
|
|
New York, : Routledge, 2003 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ISBN |
|
1-134-41982-1 |
1-134-41983-X |
1-280-02301-5 |
0-203-38080-0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edizione |
[1st ed.] |
|
|
|
|
|
Descrizione fisica |
|
1 online resource (353 p.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collana |
|
Routledge Studies in Twentieth Century Philosophy ; ; v.No.14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Classificazione |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disciplina |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Soggetti |
|
Law - Methodology |
Natural law |
Human rights |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lingua di pubblicazione |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Formato |
Materiale a stampa |
|
|
|
|
|
Livello bibliografico |
Monografia |
|
|
|
|
|
Note generali |
|
Description based upon print version of record. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nota di bibliografia |
|
Includes bibliographical references and index. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nota di contenuto |
|
Book Cover; Title; Contents; Acknowledgements; Cases and sources; Introduction; Agents; Rights and restrictions; Overview of agents; Parties; Quantification and reverse translation; The individual actor; The personal actor; The non-personal actor; Society; Theorems and proofs; Implication and implicature; Harm; Two harm axioms; Causation; The basic harm symbols; Causation markers; Right-based harm; Restriction-based harm; Consent; The concept of consent; Harm and consent; Volition; Forms of argument; Breach; The Urtheorie; Individualism and collectivism; The background theories |
Volitional liberalismNon-consensual liberalism; Paternalism; Democracy; Conclusion: a roomful of scholars; Axioms and background theories; Symbols and formulas; Reverse translation rules; European Convention on Human Rights (excerpts); Answers to exercises; Glossary; Notes; Bibliography; Index |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sommario/riassunto |
|
The Logic of Liberal Rights uses basic logic to develop a model of argument presupposed in all disputes about civil rights and liberties. No prior training in logic is required, as each step is explained. This analysis does not merely apply general logic to legal arguments but is |
|
|
|
|