Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=510384
 
 

Citations (3)



 
 

Footnotes (86)



 


 



The Dubious Concept of Jurisdiction


Evan Tsen Lee


University of California Hastings College of the Law


Hastings Law Journal, Vol. 54, pp. 1613-1640, August 2003

Abstract:     
The conventional wisdom about jurisdiction is based on a false premise - that the true concept of jurisidiction is distinct from the true concept of the merits. According to this wisdom, if a judge is smart enough and searches hard enough, he or she can always distinguish issues that are jurisdictional from issues that go only to the merits. By the same token, this wisdom holds that every legal issue is either jurisdictional or non-jurisdictional. This paper argues that the conventional wisdom is wrong - that there can be no hard conceptual difference between jurisdiction and the merits. The line between jurisdictional issues and merits issues is always at some level arbitrary. Furthermore, the conventional wisdom is dangerous because it indoctrinates judges to think that the only issue is whether they can exercise their ability to do justice rather than whether they should exercise that ability.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 28

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: February 29, 2004  

Suggested Citation

Lee, Evan Tsen, The Dubious Concept of Jurisdiction. Hastings Law Journal, Vol. 54, pp. 1613-1640, August 2003. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=510384

Contact Information

Evan Tsen Lee (Contact Author)
University of California Hastings College of the Law ( email )
200 McAllister Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
United States

Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 1,575
Downloads: 103
Download Rank: 154,485
Citations:  3
Footnotes:  86

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo4 in 0.281 seconds