We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This chapter highlights the dangers of linguistic inaccuracies and misunderstandings that permeate discussions on blockchain technology and non-fungible tokens (NFTs), impacting policy and legal outcomes. It identifies two critical issues hindering effective legislation: a lack of comprehension of blockchain technology’s technical nuances and a failure to appreciate the link between blockchain-related terminology and the intricacies of varying blockchain protocols. By borrowing frequently misused terms without questioning their technical accuracy, policy-makers may unwittingly stifle innovation and develop legal regimes that are ill-suited for their intended purpose. This chapter explores six specific language landmines prevalent in blockchain and NFT discussions, urging researchers, lawmakers, industry members, and other stakeholders to bridge the understanding gap. By addressing these linguistic pitfalls, the chapter advocates for informed and comprehensive policy-making that keeps pace with the evolving landscape of blockchain technology and its applications, including NFTs.
The numerous testaments on papyrus provide a valuable basis for an investigation of legal language around διαθήκη in the Pauline letters. Of particular importance is the ancient practice of revoking wills, which I consider to be the legal frame of reference for the recipients of the Pauline letters to grasp expressions like καινὴ/παλαιὰ διαθήκη. In the Corinthian correspondence the conformity to the current legal practice is evident, but in Galatians Paul turns the whole procedure upside down, manipulating in the construction of his argument not only the practice of testamentary cancellation, but also the traditional connection of Abraham with circumcision. We are compelled to a text-internal solution of the problem in Gal 3.15–17 by the fact that the papyrological evidence shows clearly that no other type of document than the ordinary revocable διαθήκαι can be taken into consideration. This approach is not compilatory, as it is often the case when dealing with documentary papyri applied to New Testament texts, but heuristic, with the purpose of elaborating new exegetical insights in old controversies.
The development of intensifiers has long been identified as an area of vibrant change in Late Modern English. This groundbreaking book provides the first comprehensive study of intensifiers in this period, and shows how they have changed over time. It uses speech-based and interactive data from the Old Bailey courthouse in London, enriched by extralinguistic information in the Old Bailey Corpus, to investigate an unprecedented range of intensifiers, including downtoners, boosters, and maximizers. The courtroom acts as a social microcosm of the period, providing unique insights on gender, class, and courtroom roles, and their effects on language use. The usage of intensifiers is illuminated from a lexico-grammatical angle, focusing on their formal and semantic features, as well as those of the items they modify. These perspectives are linked to temporal developments from 1720 to 1913, to offer a complete picture of variation and change in the intensifier area.
This article by Emily Allbon introduces readers to the discipline of legal design, offering an insight into its application, its methodology, and the contexts in which it appears. There is coverage of why legal design is so pivotal for ensuring access to the law and an exploration of where it is being used: in legal practice, in academia, in public legal education and in the courts. There is also a close look at one element; that of visual contracts, and some consideration of where the legal information profession might position itself.
Ponton and Canepa examine metaphor use in texts from the Cambridge Law Journal. However, the authors do not approach metaphor from a conceptual viewpoint but regard it as a component of good verbal style in the Aristotelean sense, as a figure of speech being of vital constitutive importance in legal discourse.
This chapter proposes a brief lexical history of the English term ‘responsibility’, starting from the Latin ‘respondere’, through French and Anglo-Norman, up to the emergence of the abstract noun in modern languages. Seen from a purely semantic diachronic perspective, ‘responsibility’, as a legal term, expresses the idea that one may be called upon to answer for one’s activity (or inactivity) but does not itself denote the prerequisites of liability nor hints at the source or nature of any duty to do so. It looks at what is to be done in the future, not to the imputation of a duty by reference to what has gone before. If the meaning that history brings to light is quite neutral – and pivots around the ordinary, basic meaning of the verb ‘respondere’: ‘to say something in answer to a question’ – ‘responsibility’ appears nonetheless to be most appropriate to signify the distinctive feature of contemporary international law, namely that States ‘have to answer’ for their actions.
This chapter aims at substantiating three claims: (1) that legal thinking consists in the interaction between three mental mechanisms: intuition (unconscious decision making), imagination (mental simulation), and thinking in language (theory-construction); (2) that legal epistemology has largely neglected the role of imagination in legal thinking, while it is imagination that provides ‘the missing link’ between unconscious decision making and thinking in language; and (3) that the picture of the legal mind which embraces intuition, imagination and language provides an explanation of the enduring and seemingly inconsistent threads in legal epistemology. I begin with a general overview of the existing theories in legal epistemology, distinguishing between formalism, dialecticism, coherentism and intuitivism. Along the way, I highlight the fact that these four philosophical stances offer different and sometimes mutually inconsistent perspectives on legal thinking. Subsequently, I analyse the three mechanisms at play in all types of reflection, including legal thinking: intuition, imagination and thinking in language. I try to explain what stands behind these labels, and argue that a lawyer cannot limit themselves to only some of these mechanisms in their cognitive efforts. Moreover, I venture to depict how the mechanisms in question interact in, and what they contribute to, legal decision making. In this context, I put special emphasis on the role of imagination, explaining how it provides a link between intuition and language.
The search of legal precedence or stare decisis has always distinguished the lawyer who is in professional practice. The development of the internet has led to a greater dimension in this research and to an empirical approach to understanding the application of law. The academic lawyer has always needed access to the newest legislation and case law and the online search engines are of increasing relevance to accessing the virtual library. This is necessary to assimilate because of the impact of law and technology which is not just of relevance to find texts but also the process of artificial intelligence that is of utility in forms of inquiry. It includes portals that can be sourced online, Lexis and Westlaw which have available software packages that are available for lawyers. The issue is if the technology is moving at excessive speed or is the momentum of digital technology sustainable within the profession. This article argues that legal software provides the means for artificial intelligence in an increasingly specialist field and it is necessary for professionals to stay equipped with knowledge updates on computer terminals in order to enhance their research or lose out in the information supply chain.
Harold J. Berman, a Jewish convert to Christianity, was a pioneer in the study of legal history, legal philosophy, and law and religion. He mapped the deep Christian and post-Christian foundations of the Western legal tradition as a whole and of many of its particular legal doctrines. He developed an integrative jurisprudence that transcended many of the dualistic dialectics of the past, and that reconciled natural law theory, legal positivism, and historical jurisprudence with each other on the basis of a holistic theory of God and humanity. He offered creative explorations of the roles of language, speech, and dialogue in the development of local and global legal communities. And he developed an innovative theory of the religious dimensions of law, the legal dimensions of religion, and the need for a healthy interaction of legal ideas, institutions, and methods in a just and orderly society. Despite the tensions that exist in all societies between religious faith and legal order, he argued, law and religion inevitably interact, and neither can maintain its vitality independently of the other. At the highest level, surely the just and the holy are one.
Lay participation in criminal trials has primarily been studied in common law systems, thereby mainly focusing on the separate role of juries. These studies have provided detailed accounts of language use between jurors during deliberation as well as their use of storytelling techniques and common-sense reasoning in decision-making. However, only few studies have focused on the linguistic learning processes that lay judges in other legal systems go through when they deliberate cases together with a professional judge both in reaching a verdict and in sentencing. In Denmark, lay judges are appointed for a period of four years, and this paper presents findings from an ethnographic study of lay judges and their growing experience with interactions in the deliberation room. It argues that lay judges learn to use legal language in order to strengthen their arguments vis-à-vis the professional judges. Lay judges feel that their influence is dependent on how well they master new, legal context-specific ways of expressing themselves, a point that may run counter to their legitimation as lay voices in an otherwise formalized judiciary.
This study investigates the interpretation of or in legal texts, focusing on two puzzles: “inclusive/exclusive” or and “free choice permission”. The study first examines various examples of or in American court cases described by Solan and the “and/or” rule that he describes. It then turns to occurrences of or in a different legal domain, that of the World Trade Organization, giving a brief introduction to the WTO dispute mechanism and its principles of interpretation before examining these occurrences of or. The study then introduces the inquisitive semantics framework as a way to account for these occurrences, offering an analysis of the inclusive/exclusive or and free choice or puzzles and of the interaction of or with obligation, permission, and negation more generally.
This paper, by Ginevra Peruginelli, examines the general issue of mapping concepts of different legal orders, with a focus on legal terminology and semantics of the law. Interoperability between legal thesauri is a possible operative solution in so far as it meets two important functions: cross-collection retrieval and cross-language retrieval. At a practical level a feasibility study, carried out by the Institute of Legal Information Theory and Techniques of the National Research Council of Italy is described. The study aims at aligning a number of thesauri used in e-government services within the EU, while testing new methods of automatic mapping.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.