Dear Colleagues:

Those interested in the classification and taxonomy of the private law might be interested in “What can Kant Teach Us about Legal Classification?” by Jacob Weinrib in (2010) Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 203. The article argues that the criticisms made against taxonomy by Waddams’ Dimensions of Private Law can be overcome if one adopts a proper understanding of what it means to classify. His answer is that a proper classification must coherently answer three questions: (1) What is it that unifies the subject (ie private law); (2) In what way is this unity differentiated? & (3) How does this differentiated unity relate to particular instances (ie legal principles or doctrine).

 On this test, the taxonomies of Aristotle and Hegel are criticized and that of Kant supported.  Although not discussed, one has the sense that Birks’ taxonomy would radically fail to measure up as a coherent taxonomy since it never really explains what the central principle of private law is and how this relates or justifies a division by causative event.

 Happy Reading,

-- 
Jason Neyers
Associate Professor of Law
Faculty of Law
University of Western Ontario
N6A 3K7
(519) 661-2111 x. 88435