Simone Goyard's *Critique de la Raison Juridique* (often referenced as *Critique de la raison juridique (Thémis)* or simply *Critique de la raison juridique*) stands as a significant contribution to critical legal philosophy. From its very inception, the pursuit of the reasons underpinning law has served as a central avenue for legal philosophy. Goyard's work, published as part of the prestigious Thémis series, directly engages with this historical pursuit, subjecting the very concept of "reason" in law to rigorous self-examination. This article will delve into the core arguments of Goyard's *Critique de la raison juridique*, exploring its place within the broader landscape of critical legal studies and examining its lasting impact on the field.
The opening statement, "Dès l'aurore de la pensée, la recherche des raisons du droit a constitué une voie royale pour la philosophie juridique," immediately establishes the historical context of Goyard's project. From the earliest philosophical inquiries into justice and law, the search for rational justification has been paramount. This search, however, has not been a straightforward or unproblematic one. Goyard's work is not simply a rehashing of traditional justifications for legal systems. Instead, it engages in a critical deconstruction of the very notion of "reason" as it operates within legal discourse. Her critique is not a rejection of reason *per se*, but rather a careful examination of its limitations, biases, and potential for abuse within the legal framework.
Goyard's *Critique de la raison juridique* can be understood within the broader context of critical legal studies. This movement, active since the latter half of the 20th century, questions the neutrality and objectivity often attributed to legal systems. Critical legal scholars argue that law is not merely a neutral instrument for resolving disputes but rather a reflection and reinforcement of existing power structures. Goyard's work aligns with this perspective, though her approach is nuanced and avoids simplistic conclusions. Instead of simply dismissing legal reason as a tool of oppression, she undertakes a meticulous analysis of how reason operates within legal systems, exposing its inherent contradictions and limitations.
One of the central themes in Goyard's analysis is the tension between formal and substantive rationality in law. Formal rationality, often associated with procedural due process and adherence to established rules, emphasizes consistency and predictability. Substantive rationality, on the other hand, focuses on the outcomes and the inherent justice of legal decisions. Goyard explores the inherent conflict between these two forms of rationality, showing how an overemphasis on formal rationality can lead to unjust outcomes, while a focus solely on substantive rationality can result in arbitrary and unpredictable judgments. Her work highlights the difficulty of balancing these competing demands, revealing the inherent limitations of any purely rational approach to legal decision-making.
current url：https://rsdpqm.e518c.com/bag/goyard-fabre-critique-de-la-raison-juridique-53117