Abstract

Presenting itself as exemplifying a certain postmodernist trend, the law and narrative approach has used methodological rigor to achieve success, riding the wave of the cultural and narrative turn of the seventies and eighties in such a way as to define the study of legal narrativity as a “useful enterprise,” imagining that narration constitutes a legal category in its own right. If in Jerome Frank’s day narration was generally associated with the linguistic distortions and manipulations practiced by attorneys and witnesses, it later came to be analyzed in terms of the consistency and plausibility of the stories told for the purpose of persuading a jury and, more recently, as a tool for coherently modelling fact and also as a tool for practicing clinical lawyering and case theory. The result is that we can now attribute additional values to narrations: a) as a method to analyse legal cases and re-construct facts in context; b) as a method to educate lawyers and other legal actors towards a more conscious use of storytelling in their daily activities; c) and as a device to include voices that are silenced or marginalised within legal discourse. Intended as a contribution to this debate, the paper offers a “narrative legal analysis” – situated in a civil law system – proposing the design of a research action that gives due consideration to voices that are otherwise not heard.

摘要

作为某种后现代主义趋势的例证，法律和叙事方法利用方法论的严谨取得了成功，驾驭了七八十年代的文化和叙事转向的浪潮，从而将法律叙事研究定义为一种“有用的事业”，想象叙述本身就构成了一个法律范畴。如果在杰罗姆·弗兰克 (Jerome Frank) 的那个时代，叙述通常与律师和证人的语言扭曲和操纵联系在一起，那么后来就为了说服陪审团而讲述的故事的一致性和合理性对其进行了分析，最近，作为对事实进行连贯建模的工具，也作为实践临床律师和案例理论的工具。结果是我们现在可以为叙述赋予额外的价值：a) 作为一种分析法律案例和在上下文中重新构建事实的方法；b) 作为一种教育律师和其他法律行为者在日常活动中更有意识地使用讲故事的方法；c) 并作为一种手段，将在法律话语中被压制或边缘化的声音包括在内。作为对这场辩论的贡献，该论文提供了一种“叙事法律分析”——位于大陆法系——提出了一项研究行动的设计，适当考虑了否则不会听到的声音。c) 并作为一种手段，将在法律话语中被压制或边缘化的声音包括在内。作为对这场辩论的贡献，该论文提供了一种“叙事法律分析”——位于大陆法系——提出了一项研究行动的设计，适当考虑了否则不会听到的声音。c) 并作为一种手段，将在法律话语中被压制或边缘化的声音包括在内。作为对这场辩论的贡献，该论文提供了一种“叙事法律分析”——位于大陆法系——提出了一项研究行动的设计，适当考虑了否则不会听到的声音。