Abstract
By “legal ontology” I mean the religious or philosophical view which is the basis of a system of law and by “legal reasoning” I mean the totality of techniques which legal theorists and lawyers use to adjust that system to the requirements of adjudication; these requirements essentially being security and justice. Since the role of the judge is to proclaim the law in each specific case, we want his decisions to be not arbitrary, to be predictable in that they treat cases which are basically similar in the same way. We also want them to be seen as equitable, appropriate to the circumstances, the ways and the customs of the community. In reconciling stability and flexibility, the various systems to be compared in this article, i.e. Jewish law, Continental European law and Common law, allocate differently the powers of judge and legislator, regarded as complementary to one another. It will be seen that this division of powers changes at different times, while at the same time the ontology according to which the allocation of powers is effected becomes more flexible.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
