e-journal

Narrow versus broad judicial decisions

---

A central debate among judges and legal scholars concerns the appropriate scope of judicial
opinions: should decisions be narrow, and stick to the facts at hand, or should they be broad,
and provide guidance in related contexts? A central argument for judicial ‘minimalism’ holds that
judges should rule narrowly because they lack the knowledge required to make general rules to
govern unknown future circumstances. In this paper, we challenge this argument. Our argument
focuses on the fact that, by shaping the legal landscape, judicial decisions affect the policies that
are adopted, and that may therefore subsequently be challenged before the court. Using a simple
model, we demonstrate that in such a dynamic setting, in which current decisions shape future
cases, judges with limited knowledge confront incentives to rule broadly precisely because they
are ignorant.

---

Ketersediaan

Tidak ada salinan data

Informasi Detail

Judul Seri

Journal of Theoretical Politics

No. Panggil

-

Penerbit

USA : SAGE Publications Ltd., 2014

Deskripsi Fisik

Journal of Theoretical Politics 2014, Vol. 26(3) 355–383

Bahasa

English

ISBN/ISSN

DOI:10.1177/09516298

Klasifikasi

-

Tipe Isi

-

Tipe Media

-

Tipe Pembawa

-

Edisi

2014, Vol. 26(3) 355–383

Subjek

Social

Info Detail Spesifik

-

Pernyataan Tanggungjawab

dody/Agus

Versi lain/terkait

Lampiran Berkas

Komentar

---

Anda harus masuk sebelum memberikan komentar