Intro Summary – Leg Tech and Logic
of law is articulating and evaluating the
Note: PLEASE DO NOT COPY
WORD/WORD, it reflects what is in
my presentation. I-paraphrase niyo na
lang hehe! zet
1. Freidrich Waismann and the
Distinctive Logic of Legal Language
-talks about concept of “open texture”
meaning possibility of vagueness
-language has own semantics and
syntax
-quality of quantum mechanics – cannot
be translated into that classical
mechanics
-wonders on literary truth
-anti-reductionism meaning different
languages may have not only different
meaning but dramatically different
structures.
-technical language in legal profession
is recognized but not much theorized
-language may have different structures,
depending on the needs of linguistic
community including specialized
community – within which language
exists
-although law is often straightforward,
straightforward applications of the legal
rules rarely wind up in court because
people rarely pursue losing causes to
the point of actual litigation
-legal profession must deal with ‘open
texture’ regularly
-law must decide, law cannot know what
to say like science.
2. Discovering the Logic of Legal
Reasoning
-important means of achieving the rule
various elements of legal reasoning –
interpret consti, statutes, regulations
-legal profession devote little research
to developing our own general
methodology UNLIKE mathematicians,
social scientists, medical profession
-we apply “Knowing good legal
reasoning when we see it”
-legal educators illustrate reasoning by
exhibiting stream of examples (both
historical and hypothetical)
-methods of reasoning is reflected in
legal writing (or sometimes skills
training)
-legal profession is a pragmatic
(practical) profession
-it has little time for formal theories
-pragmatic in at least three senses:
1.action-oriented (both administrative
and governmental in nature)
2. balances epistemic objective v. non-
epistemic objective (*epistemic means
being constrained only by reasonable
interferences)
3. occurrence in real time (reasoning is
uncertain through times)
-legal profession ignores formal systems
-areas of legal reasoning:
1. rule-based reasoning (develop and
apply substantive legal rules)
2. evidence evaluation (identify those
issues of fact that are relevant)
3. second-order process reasoning
(process governed by rule of law –
dynamic, participatory, interactive and
finds balance on ‘epistemic’ objectives)
Conclusion: Legal reasoning is open-
ended but it is the method by which
lawyers invent arguments, judges and
regulators makes considered legal
decision, and students and professionals
learn the law.

3. PCA: RP v PRC
Decision on Merits
1. Nine-dash line and china’s claim to
historic rights in the maritime areas is
baseless
(no legal proof that the SCS must be
merited with their sovereignty)
2. status of features in SCS
(the PCA has defined which islands may
or may not have eez)
3. Chinese activities
(activities of Chinese people (specially
those from Hainan) has aggravated the
dispute eg. garnering clam shells
through a drastic method on coral reefs)
4. aggravation of the dispute between
parties
(China has built artificial islands with
permanent harm, big no-no! – a
violation from aggravating dispute
during pendency)
5. future conduct of the parties
(china shall respect the rights and
freedom of ph and comply with duties
under convention. No further
declaration is necessary)