of reasoning are described in a companion text¹ and referred to as required in
our explanation of legal reasoning.
Tasks
Working with law involves two primary sets of tasks –
forming law,
which
incorporates making and interpreting law, and using law, which encompasses
litigation and transaction. Working with law also incorporates a secondary or
ancillary task, communicating law, which consists of writing and reading law.
Thus there are three fundamental categories of tasks involved in working with
law – forming law, using law and communicating law. Logically, this would be
the way to structure the presentation of techniques for performing these tasks.
In fact, this is how it is done, but subject to a qualification.
The qualification arises in relation to a task that so far has not been discussed,
organising law. Organising law has two aspects, micro and macro analysis.
Micro analysis of a legal rule is an inherent part of using law. If this is all there
was to organising law, it would be best treated as part of using law, which
constitutes the natural home for micro analysis.
However, there is something else. First, while micro analysis is naturally part of
organising law, it is necessary for the reader to know about micro analysis to
enable them to follow the account of forming law and also to understand the
presentation in this book of the method for writing and reading law. Second,
macro analysis of law, which is the task of organising an overall area of law so
as to facilitate a more detailed consideration of the area, is not part of using
law.
For this combination of reasons, organising law is treated separately. In fact, it
is the first part of legal method discussed. Then, later discussion of using law
draws on this earlier micro analysis of a legal rule and incorporates it into the
model for using law.
Method
Algorithms
Methods explained in this book are as close to algorithmic in their overall
structure as can be achieved. Each step taken properly and in its proper
sequence will lead to an effective and efficient performance of the task in
question. However, the algorithmic nature of
the method cannot be fully
sustained in the actual performance of these steps since these involve
judgments and processes that are not cut and dried.
1
Christopher Enright Legal Reasoning
 |
 |
 |