Law and Technology Frameworks Quiz

Legal realists criticize traditional law (Law 1.0) by arguing that lawyers and judges often prioritize desired outcomes over following the law strictly. They claim that judges cherry-pick rules to justify their decisions, rather than applying the law consistently.

New Public Management (NPM) criticizes traditional government as inefficient, bureaucratic, and expensive. It advocates for running governments like businesses, focusing on outcomes and efficiency rather than rigid processes.

Brownsword's critique of Law 1.0 centers around its inability to adapt to rapid societal and technological changes. He argues for a move away from rigid rules and toward more flexible, goal-oriented approaches that can address evolving needs.

Law 2.0 emphasizes the use of various tools, not only legal rules, to achieve goals. It focuses on the effectiveness of these tools in achieving desired results, rather than simply adhering to rules.

Legal Reasoning 2.0 focuses on practicality and achieving outcomes, rather than strictly adhering to established rules. It prioritizes outcomes over strict adherence to established rules.

Legal Reasoning 2.0 shifts away from principle-based reasoning toward a more pragmatic approach. It emphasizes the alignment of legal reasoning with policy objectives and achieving desired outcomes.

Law 2.0 develops targeted regulations specifically aimed at addressing the issue at hand. It moves away from general rules toward tailored solutions.

Legal Reasoning 2.0 focuses on achieving specific outcomes aligned with government goals. It prioritizes policy objectives and effectiveness over just following principles.

In legal contexts, "precise" refers to the clarity and specificity of a rule or standard, using language that minimizes ambiguity. A precise provision leaves little room for interpretation, aiming to clearly define what is permitted or prohibited.

Legal standards, on the other hand, are broader and more general. They provide guidance but allow for flexibility in interpretation based on specific circumstances.

The range of application refers to how broadly or narrowly a rule or standard applies. A broad rule applies to many situations, while a narrow rule applies to only a specific set of cases.

When creating laws for emerging technologies, utilizing vague legal concepts can help ensure the rules remain relevant as technology evolves. This allows for adaptability and prevents laws from becoming outdated too quickly.

Fuller's eight demands on legislation advocate for clear, consistent, and just laws. These principles aim to create a legal system that is fair, predictable, and promotes well-being.

The idea that laws should be interpreted by relying primarily on the literal meaning of the text, avoiding subjective interpretations or external factors.

The inherent ambiguity in language where words and phrases can have multiple meanings, depending on context.

The potential for a law to be applied flexibly in the future, adapting to unforeseen circumstances and new social norms.

The use of specialized vocabulary and precise language designed to reduce ambiguity in legal documents.

The tension between providing clear rules for consistent application and allowing flexibility to adapt to new situations.

The argument that textualism does not guarantee objective interpretation, as judges may still make subjective choices when applying the law.

The claim that textualism ignores crucial contextual information, like the intent of lawmakers and the societal context in which a law was created.

Even when adhering to the text, judges face choices in applying rules and precedents, potentially influenced by personal views or desired outcomes.

Law 2.0 focuses on achieving goals through effective tools, even if it means using less general rules and more targeted solutions.

Law 2.0 emphasizes proactive prevention over reactive correction. Companies are expected to analyze risks and implement strategies to avoid issues before they arise.

Law 2.0 critiques the traditional approach of using general legal rules, arguing that it leads to an overwhelming number of regulations that are difficult to manage and ineffective.

Law 3.0 suggests using technology to prevent problems before they occur. Think of building 'fences' or using 'smart devices' to prevent accidents or rule-breaking.

Law 3.0 moves away from traditional legal language and focuses on 'what can or cannot be done' through technology, rather than focusing on rights and duties.

These norms set broad, general goals or ideals that individuals or organizations should aim for, leaving discretion in how those goals are achieved. They often focus on desired outcomes and use vague terms, such as 'ensure safety' or 'promote health.'

These norms make specific, measurable objectives that concretize the goals set by aspirational norms. They are more concrete, detailing precise outcomes to be achieved. Instead of prescribing specific behaviors, they outline measurable results, such as temperature limits or pollutant levels.

Aspirational norms focus on broad goals and ideals, leaving freedom in how those goals are achieved. They are often vague and leave room for interpretation.

Result-prescribing norms are concrete and specific, outlining measurable objectives to be achieved. They leave less room for interpretation and focus on specific outcomes.

Both types of norms aim for improvement, but at different levels of specificity. Aspirational norms set a high-level vision, while result-prescribing norms provide concrete steps to achieve those goals.

Aspirational norms often arise from social expectations and shared values, promoting self-regulation. They are not necessarily issued by a government.

Result-prescribing norms often originate from governments or official organizations, establishing concrete, measurable targets.

Aspirational norms focus on desired outcomes, leaving freedom in how those outcomes are achieved. They don't dictate specific actions or behaviors, but emphasize the overall ideal.

A critique of the traditional view that judges simply apply laws, arguing that it oversimplifies how law actually works.

Legal sources like statutes, judicial decisions, and legal codes that dictate what you can and cannot do.

Sources like legal scholars or experts who provide knowledge and insights about the law but don't create it.

The idea that precedents are the primary source of law, even with the growing importance of statutes.

The belief that supreme court decisions are not authoritative sources of law is a 'noble dream' because even non-statutory sources play a role in shaping the law.

Rules that exclude certain reasons from being used in legal reasoning, even if relevant.

The application of a rule in legal reasoning, ignoring any other factors that might suggest a different outcome.

The core of legal reasoning is centered around the use of rules as guiding principles.