Titlebook: ;

ISSUE

書目名稱Groups, Rules and Legal Practice影響因子(影響力)




書目名稱Groups, Rules and Legal Practice影響因子(影響力)學科排名




書目名稱Groups, Rules and Legal Practice網(wǎng)絡公開度




書目名稱Groups, Rules and Legal Practice網(wǎng)絡公開度學科排名




書目名稱Groups, Rules and Legal Practice被引頻次




書目名稱Groups, Rules and Legal Practice被引頻次學科排名




書目名稱Groups, Rules and Legal Practice年度引用




書目名稱Groups, Rules and Legal Practice年度引用學科排名




書目名稱Groups, Rules and Legal Practice讀者反饋




書目名稱Groups, Rules and Legal Practice讀者反饋學科排名

消息靈通

amplitude

Boris W. Levin,Mikhail A. Nosovvely complex social rule. It is argued that Raz’s account also fails. It does not capture the nature of social rules in general, for one crucial aspect of them (the fact that social rules are invoked as complete reasons for action) is left unexplained. It does not capture the institutional character

有機體

Methods of Tsunami Wave Registration,ve action. Shapiro’s proposal (which is based on Bratman’s account of collective action) is, perhaps, the more sophisticated one along those lines. This part of the work claims that Shapiro’s account fails. As an account of collective intentional action, his account (and Bratman’s) is unsatisfactory

Palpate

有機體

有機體

Geophysics and Astrophysics Monographsted” to doing certain things, a joint commitment being an irreducible normative notion. The notion seems, nevertheless, uninformatively circular, for joint commitments are explained ultimately in terms of joint commitments. The notion is, besides, unfamiliar to us, and it could be perfectly replaced

不容置疑

Physics of the Earth’s Space Environmento agree and why agreements may be binding by explaining what it is to promise and why promising may be binding. They also attempt to solve another problem, the treatment of which is important for the general argument of the book: they try to establish how the content of agreements is determined. Thr

貞潔

Magnetospheric Plasma Regions and Boundaries. It is argued that it captures most instances of institutional practices in general, and of legal practice in particular. The main idea is that, in these cases, participants think that content-independent normative considerations require that they perform their parts. This is paradigmatically the c

Kaleidoscope

Electromagnetic Induction and Radiation,hat they are under a duty. And they can accommodate disagreement at a fundamental level. The test-case of an actual example of this kind of disagreement in a contemporary legal system is analyzed briefly.