Michael Zander's The Law-Making Process

1521 Words7 Pages
Need for Interpretation In his The Law-Making Process, Michael Zander gives has stated the three reasons why statutory interpretation is necessary: 1. Intricacy of statutes with respect to the way of the subject, various artists and the mixture of legal and technical language can bring about incongruity, obscure and questionable language. 2. Anticipating the future occasion’s prompts the utilization of uncertain terms. Statutes are interpreted by the judges. Case of indeterminate dialect incorporate words, for example, "sensible". For this situation the courts are in charge of figuring out what constitutes "sensible". 3. “The multifaceted nature of language. Language, words and phrases are an imprecise form of communication. Words can…show more content…
It developed mainly through judicial decisions. Most of the branches of law, such as torts, have been created exclusively by judges. The Constitutional Law of England, especially the freedom of the citizens, developed through judicial decisions. According to Tennyson, Where freedom slowly broadness down, from precedent to precedent. The precedents have their importance not only in the municipal law but in international law also. The International Court of Justice decisions play an important role in the formation of International law. These precedents of reference have been perceived by the International Court of Justice by Article 38(2)(d) of the Statue of the International Court of Justice. On a further note, Article 59 of the same holds that the choices of the court just have influential worth for future cases and henceforth the International Court of Justice is not bound by its own particular choices in choosing comparative cases in future. It holds that the choice is just restricting the gatherings to the…show more content…
For instance, a district court in the United States First Circuit could consider a decision made by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit as persuasive authority. Horizontal Courts The rulings which are made in other courts that have an equivalent authority in the legal system may be considered by the court. Statements made in obiter dicta “Courts may consider obiter dicta in opinions of higher courts. Dicta of a higher court, though not binding, will often be persuasive to lower courts. The obiter dicta is usually, as its translation “other things said”, but due to the high number of judges and several personal decisions, it is often hard to distinguish from the ratio decidening. For this reason, the obiter dicta may usually be taken into consideration.” Dissenting judgement While hearing a judgment one judge dissented from the decision, then the judge in the following case can choose to take after the dissenting judge's obiter and method of reasoning. Treatises, Restatements, Law Review

More about Michael Zander's The Law-Making Process

Open Document