Abstract

The success on a universal scale of the canon of reasonableness in law calls for shedding light on its different components. By criticising a reductive notion of reasonableness, the essay claims its logical and institutional merit as a general standard for human action provided that one distinguishes its 'procedural substance' (the rules of decision-making) from the content of a decision, even though legal experience has mainly to do with the latter. The implications of the recourse to reasonableness in relation to different legal institutions are then analysed to get to the conclusion that reasonableness is not a prerogative of the courts, but it is rather a common place of any legal decision-making process (e.g. legislative proceedings).