Discusses theories of legal reasoning and provides an overall view of the rhetoric of legal justification. This book shows how and why lawyers arguments can be rationally persuasive even though rarely, if ever, logically conclusive or compelling. It examines the role of "legal syllogism" and universality of legal reasoning.

This book discusses theories of legal reasoning and provides an overall view of the rhetoric of legal justification. It shows how and why lawyers arguments can be rationally persuasive even though rarely, if ever, logically conclusive or compelling. It examines the role of "legal syllogism" and universality of legal reasoning, looking at arguments of consequentialism and principle, and concludes by questioning the infallibility of judges as lawmakers.

Its erudite elegance means that it will serve as an excellent introduction to jurisprudence for undergraduates, as well as providing a major contribution to legal philosophy. MacCormick reaffirms the dialectic between the universal and the particular.