Skip to main content

Comments on the Comments

Buy Article:

$51.00 plus tax (Refund Policy)

Abstract:

Abstract. 

The paper replies to Bix and Soper ( Bix 2007; Soper 2007). Bix's paper raises methodological questions, especially whether a form-theorist merely needs to reflect on form from the arm-chair so to speak. A variety of methods is called for, including conceptual analysis, study of usage, “education in the obvious,” general reflection on the nature of specific functional legal units, empirical research on their operation and effects, and still more. Further methodological remarks are made in response to Soper's paper. Soper suggests the possibility of substituting “form v. substance” of a unit as the central contrast here rather than form v. complementary material or other components of a unit. Various reasons are given here for not doing this. Among other things, it is also argued here that form does not, contrary to Soper's suggestion, always follow substance.

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9337.2007.00348.x

Affiliations: Cornell UniversityCornell Law School312 Myron Taylor HallIthaca, 14853New YorkU.S.A., Email: rss25@cornell.edu

Publication date: March 1, 2007

bpl/raju/2007/00000020/00000001/art00005
dcterms_title,dcterms_description,pub_keyword
6
5
20
40
5

Access Key

Free Content
Free content
New Content
New content
Open Access Content
Open access content
Subscribed Content
Subscribed content
Free Trial Content
Free trial content
Cookie Policy
X
Cookie Policy
ingentaconnect website makes use of cookies so as to keep track of data that you have filled in. I am Happy with this Find out more