Acadexon

Academic Catalogue of Legal Research

Journal article Open access

Epistemic-Justificatory Proof Theory and the Legitimacy of Judicial Decisions

By Erwin Susilo

Law and World · Vol. 12, No. 37, pp. 25-39 · 2026

Access

Visit official source

lawandworld.ge

View full text

Open access

Acadexon indexes bibliographic metadata and links to the publisher. The full text is not stored here, and copyright remains with the authors, publishers or other rights holders.

Abstract

A judge’s decision plays a central role in the rule of law by establishing legal truth and legitimizing the state’s coercive power. This role has become increasingly complex in contemporary adjudication, where courts confront scientific, statistical, and algorithmic evidence amid normative uncertainty and heightened human rights demands. This article examines legal interpretation and proof in judicial decisions as a process of epistemic justification rather than procedural compliance. Using a qualitative normative approach supported by conceptual–philosophical and limited comparative analysis, the study explores how judges construct claims of legal truth through evidentiary reasoning. A review of the literature shows that existing studies on proof remain fragmented—doctrinal, probabilistic, or technological—and lack an integrated epistemological framework capable of explaining the inferential transition from evidence to legal fact. This fragmentation risks reducing judicial legitimacy to formal compliance or subjective judicial belief. The article’s primary contribution is the proposal of Epistemic-Justificatory Proof Theory, which defines proof as an epistemic practice that necessitates inferential transparency, rational coherence, and intersubjective testability. By integrating legal theory with the philosophy of science, this framework offers an evaluative model for assessing the legitimacy of judicial decisions and provides a normative response to the challenges of proof in contemporary justice systems.

Details

Publication type
Journal article
Author
  • Erwin Susilo - Ph.D Candidate in Law, Universitas Syiah Kuala, Judge, Pangkalan Balai District Court (Class IB), Indonesia
Journal
Law and World
Publication
March 31, 2026
Volume
12
Issue
37
Pages
25-39
Language
English
DOI
10.36475/12.1.2
ISSN
2346-7916
Institutions
Universitas Syiah Kuala
Access
Open access
Licence
CC BY-SA 4.0
Added to catalogue
Metadata source
Supplied by the publisher

Areas of law

Judiciary and Justice

Keywords

Judicial decisions legal proof epistemic justification judicial reasoning rule of law

Cite this record

Susilo, E. (2026). Epistemic-Justificatory Proof Theory and the Legitimacy of Judicial Decisions. Law and World, 12(37), 25-39. https://doi.org/10.36475/12.1.2
Susilo, Erwin. "Epistemic-Justificatory Proof Theory and the Legitimacy of Judicial Decisions." Law and World 12, no. 37 (2026): 25-39. https://doi.org/10.36475/12.1.2.
@article{susilo2026_zfakky,
  title     = {Epistemic-Justificatory Proof Theory and the Legitimacy of Judicial Decisions},
  author    = {Susilo, Erwin},
  year      = {2026},
  journal   = {Law and World},
  volume    = {12},
  number    = {37},
  pages     = {25--39},
  doi       = {10.36475/12.1.2},
  issn      = {2346-7916},
  language  = {en},
  url       = {https://lawandworld.ge/index.php/law/article/view/955},
  note      = {Open access}
}
Download BibTeX 
TY  - JOUR
AU  - Susilo, Erwin
TI  - Epistemic-Justificatory Proof Theory and the Legitimacy of Judicial Decisions
PY  - 2026
JO  - Law and World
VL  - 12
IS  - 37
SN  - 2346-7916
DO  - 10.36475/12.1.2
LA  - en
UR  - https://lawandworld.ge/index.php/law/article/view/955
AB  - A judge’s decision plays a central role in the rule of law by establishing legal truth and legitimizing the state’s coercive power. This role has become increasingly complex in contemporary adjudication, where courts confront scientific, statistical, and algorithmic evidence amid normative uncertainty and heightened human rights demands. This article examines legal interpretation and proof in judicial decisions as a process of epistemic justification rather than procedural compliance. Using a qualitative normative approach supported by conceptual–philosophical and limited comparative analysis, the study explores how judges construct claims of legal truth through evidentiary reasoning. A review of the literature shows that existing studies on proof remain fragmented—doctrinal, probabilistic, or technological—and lack an integrated epistemological framework capable of explaining the inferential transition from evidence to legal fact. This fragmentation risks reducing judicial legitimacy to formal compliance or subjective judicial belief. The article’s primary contribution is the proposal of Epistemic-Justificatory Proof Theory, which defines proof as an epistemic practice that necessitates inferential transparency, rational coherence, and intersubjective testability. By integrating legal theory with the philosophy of science, this framework offers an evaluative model for assessing the legitimacy of judicial decisions and provides a normative response to the challenges of proof in contemporary justice systems.
KW  - Judicial decisions
KW  - legal proof
KW  - epistemic justification
KW  - judicial reasoning
KW  - rule of law
KW  - სასამართლო გადაწყვეტილებები
KW  - სამართლებრივი მტკიცება
KW  - ეპისტემური დასაბუთება
KW  - სასამართლო მსჯელობა
KW  - კანონის უზენაესობა
SP  - 25
EP  - 39
ER  -
Download RIS

Generated from the metadata stored in this record. Please verify against the published version before citing.

Related research

Discussion

No comments yet · Comments are discussion only. They do not change the bibliographic record.

Sign in to join the discussion.

No comments yet. Start the discussion.