DRAFT

Notes on a methodology for essay writing in legal science.

Nitish Monebhurrun

(...)la diversit de nos opinions ne vient pas de ce que les uns sont plus importants que les
autres, mais seulement de ce que nous conduisons nos penses par diverses voies (...)1. .

This can be translated by: the diversity of opinions does not mean that some are more
reasonable than others but only means that we conduct our thoughts through different means.2

Quoting Descartes is convenient to set, without any form of tautology, the methodology to
present this paper on legal methodology. Indeed, the method proposed to conduct legal reasoning in
this article has no universal value. Law, as a science, rests on its own methodology which varies
from one legal culture to another. The legal methodology explained hereinafter is influenced by the
French one but will not be limited to the latter which will only act as a useful raw material. It is not
superior to existing methods but cumulative to them.

A method is not, in itself, the material reasoning but the means and techniques used to lead
such reasoning3.

It can be induced or deduced from almost all scientific reasoning and it shows

how the mind must be directed as per a given norm4. A legal methodology conceptualises and
rationalises the working means of the jurist5, whether he or she is a professional or a student. This
paper focuses on the methodology for essay writing in legal science.

The latter is a common exercise in legal studies and is often proposed for undergraduate and
postgraduate examinations. Through an essay, it is possible to understand if the student has
understood the basic principles of a given law field and if he or she is in a position to use and apply
1 DESCARTES (R.), Discours de la mthode, Paris, Editions Classiques (dir. E. Lefranc), 1866, p.1-2.
2 This is the author's personal translation.
3 SPINOZA, Trait de la rforme de l'entendement. Tractatus de intellectus emendatione, Paris, Flammarion, 2003,
p.87; BERGEL (J-L.), Mthodologie juridique, Paris, PUF, 2001, p.17.
4 RAMOND (C.), Dictionnaire Spinoza, Paris, Ellipses, 2007, p.120.
5 MULLER (F.), Discours de la mthode juridique, Paris, PUF, 1996, p.37.

such principles in order to deal with a particular subject in a rational way. Very often, when
working on an essay, students tend to have the bad habit of exposing their culture and knowledge
instead of answering the question which has been set to them. They want to publicly expose what
they know and what they have learnt. It may be that the aim behind this behaviour is to impress or
to appear as a good and model student. In so doing, they tend to forget that their examiners are
normally more learned than they are and that their aim is not to judge if a student is an itinerant
legal dictionary but to examine his capacity to think like a jurist. What is actually expected from
students is that they make an optimal use of their knowledge by processing it through a reflection so
as to ground a legal reasoning. It is of absolutely no use to rest on mountains of knowledge if the
latter cannot be managed, dominated and canalized when required 6. What is important is not what
we know but how we use what we know to maintain a convincing argument. Presented in a martial
metaphor, knowledge is a weapon. In itself, it does not mean victory. Winning will not depend on
the weapon but on how it is used. In the same vein, an essay is not a mere reproduction of a course
which has been learnt by heart or of pieces of articles and books' extracts which have been cut and
pasted; it is an original work having its own dynamic energy7. The student must bring an original
framework filled with solidly built personal thoughts. The material used to conduct a given
argument is potentially accessible to everyone8, but the techniques, forms and methods used for
such purposes require considerable rigor9.

For these reasons, it is sine qua non to have a convenient methodology when confronted to a
legal essay. A method is fundamental to seize the reality of the object studied10. Methodology is
related to form and form is content brought to surface; it is the consecration of thinking skills
applied to material information11. Consequently, the aim of this paper is to act as a useful
methodological guide enabling students to tackle essay writing in a pragmatic, efficient and
convincing manner. A good method enables the simplification of complicated matter and the
clarification of confusing situations12. The master of methodology, Ren Descartes, used to say that
he had no genius but only a method. It is on the flow of this spirit that this paper shall navigate.

For easier comprehension, the method for tackling a legal essay will be presented in a series
6 GOUBEAUX (G.), BIHR (P.), Les preuves crites en droit civil. Mthodologie, Paris, LGDJ, 2005, pp.28-29.
7 BONNET (D.), L'essentiel de la mthodologie juridique, Paris, Ellipses, 2006, p.34.
8
SCHOPENHAUEUR, Arthur, A arte de escrever, Porto Alegre, L&PM, 2012, p.64.
9
Ibid.
10 DESCARTES (R.), Rgles pour la direction de lesprit, Paris, Classiques Garnier, 1997, p.88.
11
SCHOPENHAUEUR, Arthur, A arte de escrever, Porto Alegre, L&PM, 2012, p.63.
12 GRUA (F.), Mthode des tudes de droit. Conseils sur la dissertation et le commentaire, Paris, Dalloz, 2006, p.48.

of steps to follow. Each step is found in a particular phase. There is a preparatory process (I) and a
writing process (II).

I. The preparatory process

Step 1: Method for researching relevant data.
Step 2: Method for formulating a problematical question.
Step 3: Method for constructing a plan.

II. The writing process

Step 4: Method for writing an introduction.
Step 5: Method for writing the essay's body.
Step 6: Method for presenting the conclusion.

I. THE PREPARATORY PROCESS

The preparatory process is all the work done before starting to write. It is a fundamental
part of essay writing as the success of the latter is determined by the pertinence of the former.
Three steps can be identified in this process and they relate to data research (step 1) which is of
paramount importance to formulate a problematical question (step 2) and to construct a solid plan
(step 3).

Step 1: Method for researching relevant data.

When looking for pertinent data, it is relevant to define the key words of the subject (1) as
these help to determine the key questions raised by the subject (2) and eventually guide the research
for the applicable law[s] (3).

1. Key words must be defined.

Despite its obviousness, it is not unnecessary to remind that the subject given for the essay
must first and foremost be understood. Highlighting and defining the key words constitute an
efficient way to proceed. Words have a meaning which must be given due consideration so as to
avoid going out of the subject13. The key words can be polysemous and it is fundamental to search
the most convenient definition as per the context of the subject14. Definitions can exist in given
laws, treaties or precedents. If not a dictionary must be used.

2. Key questions raised by the subject must be determined.

Students must then ask themselves what are the problematical issues and questions raised by
the subject and how legal science can be used to shed light on them. They must understand that the
essay has been set on the basis of some legal questions and that these must be discovered. They
must bear in mind that there are normally no defined and pre-established answers in legal science as
there is not a unique way to construe a question and to construct an essay. The answer brought
forward is not, as such, the most important point; what is fundamental is the legal demonstration
leading to this specific answer. The expectations of the examiner or, more generally of any jurist,
are mostly related to the reasoning adopted by the students to conduct the demonstration and
arguments throughout the essay15. A high level of freedom therefore exists. However, this does not
imply that the absurdity of an argumentation will be validated. Content and form must be rigorous.

3. Relevant data must be searched by following the hierarchy of norms.

In the path of rigor, a careful selection of data is useful. Such information mainly lies in the
sources of law. A legal question waits for a legal answer which is obtained by using the sources of
law. Answering like a jurist means applying and interpreting existing laws, legal principles,
existing customs and precedents. When looking for relevant data to prepare an essay16, it is the
applicable law which must first be searched. Writings of distinguished authors act as a secondary
13 BONNET (D.), L'essentiel de la mthodologie juridique, op.cit., p.34.
14 Ibid.
15 PASCAL (B.), De l'esprit gomtrique. Ecrits sur la grce et autres textes, Paris, Flammarion, 1985, p.87:
According to Blaise Pascal, whatever is the object of our persuasion, it is important to know beforehand the one who
we want to persuade. It is essential to know his mind and principles and the relation he maintains with these.
16 This actually applies to any legal work.

source of law and therefore as a secondary means of research. Thoughts of authors remain
subjective and do not always reflect positive law. They of course have a persuasive value and they
should definitely be considered but only after the main sources of law have been examined17. Out
of the primary and secondary sources of law, those which are most relevant to the subject must be
retained. They constitute the usable raw material which must be matched to the given subject so as
to derive a general problematical question which will guide the construction of the essay. This
question normally gives the direction which will be followed in the reasoning. It is the connecting
thread which guides the argumentation.

Considering its importance, its formulation must be

explained.

Step 2: Method for formulating a problematical question.

For formulating a problematical question, its definition must be known (1) and this can be
further illustrated by an example (2).

1. The definition of a problematical question.

The problematical question is the angle through which the subject will be studied. It is the
question(s) which the students extract from the subject and on which they decide to work. This
implies that a given subject for a given essay can have various problematical issues. It is hence not
surprising if five students come up with five different questions for the same essay. No one would
be wrong as long as he manages to justify why he has chosen this particular question and why he
thinks that it sheds relevant light on the subject. The question must put emphasis on the interest and
on the difficulties of the essay18. It can for example, highlight that despite the contradictions which
the subject seems to contain there in fine exists a coherence19 or vice versa. The correct and clear
formulation of the problematical question reveals that the student has well understood the subject20.
It enables the reader to seize the guiding Ariadne's thread. The problematical question stands on a
17 In international law, the teachings of distinguished authors act as a subsidiary source of international law (See article
38 of the International Court of Justice's statute, available on: http://www.icjcij.org/documents/index.php?p1=4&p2=2&p3=0#CHAPTER_II).
18 BONNARD (J.), Mthode de travail de l'tudiant en droit, Paris, Hachette suprieur, 2006, pp.72-73.
19 BONNET (D.), L'essentiel de la mthodologie juridique, op.cit., p.37.
20 Ibid., p.36.

specific spot in the essay; it is presented in a precise part of the work. This will be considered in
further detail during the explanation on the introduction of the essay21. For the moment, the
explanation can be illustrated by an example.

2. An example of a problematical question.

In abstract reasoning, the problematical question cannot be formulated ex nihilo. It cannot

be identified before some preliminary tasks. It is indeed the result of all the research which has
been made on the given subject. It might sometimes be apparent, especially when the subject is set
in an interrogative mode. For instance, 'Should laws always be respected? If this is the subject, it
actually contains the problematical issue. Most students might, for example, formulate the latter in
the following manner: 'This essay studies and analyses the mechanism and reasons of compliance
with laws. What will be studied here is how and why laws are respected. This would be the
simplest way of addressing the subject which might be descriptive and perhaps not too well rated.
However, this is not the only way to understand and deal with the subject. It all depends on how
one wants to direct the argumentation. Writing a legal essay does not mean considering all of the
subject's aspects. A sole aspect can be chosen and followed as long as it is duly justified. The
lenses through which the question will be analysed actually delimitates it automatically22. For the
same subject, another problematical question, and therefore anotherdelimitation, can thus be: 'If by
their material existence and constitution laws are expected to be complied with, certain exceptional
circumstances sometimes legitimate their violation. This would be a more sophisticated but surely
a more interesting manner of setting the question. A form of dialectic comes up with such a
formulation. Very often, law seems to construct its path on contradicting needs 23. Dialectical
problematical questions are much appreciated.

After having decided what question will be examined, the next step is concentrating on how
to proceed to conduct the argumentation. The method proposed for this is to build a working plan
which will, by its own existence, show how the subject and problematical question are dealt with.

21 See Infra.
22 The delimitation of the work will be seen in the part on the introduction.
23 GRUA (F.), Mthode des tudes de droit. Conseils sur la dissertation et le commentaire, op.cit., p.51.

Step 3: Method for constructing a plan.

A plan has a defined use (1) and a precise construction (2).

1. The use of a plan

This part raises the question of the necessity of a plan. After all, it very much possible to
start writing the essay right away once all the data has been searched. The use of a plan is to act as
a guide. It acts as an indicator to the reader who must know beforehand where he is being
conducted to24. It helps to reveal the different aspects of the subject 25. An image can be used to
illustrate this. It is the image of a castle which one has to visit. When confronted to its immensity,
it is not easy to proceed alone in the visit in an orderly and comprehensive manner by fully
understanding the use of such room, such tower, such types of stairs or such dungeon or the reason
behind a given painting, a given wall colour or a given bed size. In such circumstances, it is easy to
get lost despite being in the castle and despite being able to circulate in it. The castle symbolises
the data collected to write the essay. If it is thrown as it is in a disorderly manner in the eyes of the
examiner, the latter will definitely have some difficulties to grasp and understand everything. The
information may be relevant and pertinent but if it is not presented in a properly and rational way,
the exercise is completely futile. It is of absolutely no use to have the required information and
material if they are not correctly applied to a given problem26. To get back to the image, the castle
becomes immediately more comprehensible and interesting if a guide is present to conduct the visit
and explanation. The immensity of the castle becomes accessible. An essay should in the same
manner have a guide and the latter is materialised in the form of an appropriate methodological
plan. The plan orders the student's arguments to achieve his demonstration. It must be constructed
with rigor and coherence to inform the reader as simply as possible.

2. The construction of the plan.

The plan adopted constitutes the backbone of the work27. It highlights the essay's structure.
Reading the plan must enable the examiner to know what will be said in each of its part. Its
24
25
26
27

GOUBEAUX (G.), BIHR (P.), Les preuves crites en droit civil. Mthodologie, op.cit., p.30
Ibid., p.39.
Take the example of a lawyer who knows the applicable law but who is unable to apply it in a convincing way.
BONNET (D.), L'essentiel de la mthodologie juridique, op.cit., p.39.

formulation must hence be quite concise and rigorous. The plan must be clear and intelligible.
When thinking on an essay, a torrent of ideas may come to one's mind. Suppose that there is a line
of twelve ideas relevant and available to tackle the essay. The easiest way of building a plan would
be to divide it in twelve parts28. Each idea would be exposed in one different part. This way of
proceeding might however have an inconvenience. The work might appear too fragmented and
without a defined coherence. The twelve points might follow each other without the existence of a
necessary link between them. The reader might as well find it difficult to follow and he might
forget the first part when he is reading the last one. He might not find it obvious to photograph
everything in a glance and can easily get disconnected. For more convenience on this point, those
twelve ideas may be reduced to few main ones29. To achieve this, links must be found between
these ideas. Linking is an art. An artist creates a link by his art because art is beauty forged by
him30. For the jurist, the art of linking his ideas and arguments is found in his capacity to
synthesise. To synthesise means to build bridges between different ideas in order to harmonise
them. The ideas must not be presented independently and seperately throughout the essay but must
be ordered in a synthetical fashion.

Hence to construct a plan with twelve points means to

synthesise and to harmonise these points upon two or three main axes which will describe the core
ideas developed throughout the essay31. In turn, the main axes can contain two or three sub-parts.
Applied to the plan, this means that there can be two or three titles and two or three subtitles per
title. The subtitles will illustrate the main titles. These different parts must be related to each other
in such a continuous and uninterrupted way32 that the core of the essay is understood by simply
reading the plan.

Considering the subject set above, 'Should laws be respected?', and the problematical
question proposed33, the following indicative plan can be adopted:

I. The expectations of compliance with laws in principle.

A. A logical compliance as laws derive from the People's will.
B. A necessary compliance as laws maintain social order.
28 This would be in conformity with Descartes' method of dividing each problem or difficulty in as many parts as
possible in order to solve them. See, DESCARTES (R.), Discours de la mthode, Paris, Editions Classiques (dir. E.
Lefranc), 1866, p.14; DESCARTES (R.), Rgles pour la direction de lesprit, op.cit, p.154.
29 Note that if this apply for essay writing, it might be different while writing a thesis.
30 GIORDANO (B.), Des liens, Paris, Allia, 2001, p.10.
31 GOUBEAUX (G.), BIHR (P.), Les preuves crites en droit civil. Mthodologie, op.cit., p.41.
32 DESCARTES (R.), Rgles pour la direction de lesprit, op.cit., p.127.
33 The second problematical question will be chosen : 'If by their material existence and constitution laws are expected
to be complied with, certain exceptional circumstances sometimes justify civil disobedience.'

II. The acceptation of civil disobedience as an exception.

A. A civil disobedience justified by the egregious character of laws.
B. A civil disobedience upholding morality at the detriment of legality.

This would be a basic type of plan putting forward firstly the principle before presenting the
exception. The plan answers to the subject. It states that laws should in principle be respected but
civil disobedience is tolerated. In the same reasoning, the subtitles must answer to the main title.
Hence, there is, in principle, a compliance with laws (Title 1) because firstly laws derive from the
People's will (Subtitle A) and secondly, because laws maintain social order which is in itself in
perfect conformity with the People's will (Subtitle B). Similarly, civil disobedience can be justified
(Title II) by the existence of egregious laws (Subtitle A) and implies a choice of morality rather than
legality (Subtitle B). The construction is rather mathematical in the sense that A+B must equal to I
(or II). A simple illustration would be as such:

I. 30
A. 16
[+]
B. 14

II. 30
A. 17
[+]
B. 1334

Presented in such a way, the final work is sure to be coherent and convincing. What is said
in subtitle A will not appear in subtitle B. Each part's content must be in line with its title35. This
avoids useless repetition and prevents from going out of subject. It is also important to establish a
balance between the different parts in order to avoid having a well-furnished first part or first
subtitle and a poor second part or second subtitle36. By reading the plan, the essay's direction is
known. Considering that a global coherence is expected, it is recommended not to present the main

34 A+B must = I, hence 16+14=30.

35 GOUBEAUX (G.), BIHR (P.), Les preuves crites en droit civil. Mthodologie, op.cit., p.39.
36 Ibid., pp.39-40; for instance, the first part must not spread on five pages while the second one rests on two pages.

titles as being in full contradiction. The second part must not be an antithesis of a thesis explained
in the first one. They must complete each other, the aim being to value one global thesis. In fine,
each part is firmly related to each other and their harmonious combination states ab initio what will
be said. Examples of combinations for I and II can be37: I. The principle / II. The exception; I. The
applicability (of a principle) / II. The efficiency; I. The application (of a principle) / II. The
consequences; I. The effectivity (of a principle) / II. The efficiency; I. The conditions (for the
validity of a contract) / II. The execution (of the contract's clauses); I. The enforcement (of a new
statute) / II. The contribution (of the new statute); I. The structure (of an international organisation) /
II. The Operations (of the international organisation); I. The Use (of a court) / II. The competences
(of the court)38.

These propositions are not the most original ones but they have the advantage of being clear.
The originality of the plan and of the titles relates to each and everyone's creativity.

Establishing the plan has another implication. For optimal efficiency, the choice of words
for the titles must be rigorous. As the titles must be concise, the right words must be chosen; titles
must be eloquent39. They must reflect and enlighten the content and a maximum of things must be
said in a minimum of words. If possible, they must be affirmative and written in an affirmative
mode40.

What can be noted is that the whole preparation obeys to a deconstruction theory. The
subject is dissected, each part is analysed and the composition of the essay follows a certain
syllogism. To use a theatrical allegory, the preparation of an essay is constituted of all the behindthe-scene assembling and fitting work. Writing the essay means raising the curtain and presenting a
fully prepared and duly accomplished work. In other words, essay writing is not tantamount to
improvisation. The student must not start writing right way and search his way through as he
proceeds. He must not decide what he will say during the writing process but before it has started:
discovery writing is not for the jurist. Everything must be known and concluded beforehand. This
makes writing easier, clearer and quicker. As he already knows what he will state in part A and in
part B, writing becomes a formality combined with each and everyone's personal style.
37 The plan will of course depend on the given subject.
38 BONNARD (J.), Mthode de travail de l'tudiant en droit, op.cit., pp.80-89.
39 PASCAL (B.), Penses, Paris, Flammarion, 1976, p.53: Eloquence, according to the author, is the art of saying
things in such a way that those who are listening (or reading) can do so without any pain and with pleasure and that
they become so interested that they voluntarily dive into reflection.
40 The student is affirming a point.

10

Once the problematical question has been found and once the plan has been determined and
constructed, the essay can be written.

11

II. THE WRITING PROCESS

All the material gathered and ordered in the previous part can now be used. In the writing
phase, the data collected and processed will be placed in specific and well-defined parts of the
essay. This will be seen herein. Some preliminary considerations must be put forward. The style
must be fluid. This avoids the reader from being disconnected and from getting lost. The latter
must be guided41 and accompanied from the first to the last word. Besides it is necessary to go
directly to the point while writing. A legal essay is not a fictitious story and no kind suspense must
be used or maintained42. Writing obviously depends on the student's pen and ease. However, it
must be noted that a good method can compensate and cover any gap in the writing style.

Despite the specificities of the method explained in the first part, the form of the essay
remains classical. It is composed of an introduction (step 4), a body (step 5) and can have a
conclusion (step 6).

Step 4: Method for writing an introduction.

The introduction states what will be seen in the essay and why and how it will be seen 43. It
can start with a quote (1) which must be justified (2) before the keys words are defined (3) and the
historical background of the subject is set (4). This chain enables to delimitate the subject (5) in
order to formulate and explain the problematical question (6) before presenting the adopted plan
(7).

1. The introduction can start with a quote.

An original way to start is to quote a distinguished author, a famous precedent or even part
of the text of a statute or of a treaty. The aim is to catch the reader's attention from the very first
words. The quote must therefore be original and in line with the subject and eventually with the

41 See the castle's allegory supra.

42 When a lawyer pleads, he is affirmative and states his arguments clearly and directly. He does not play on suspense.
The same reasoning method applies here.
43 GOUBEAUX (G.), BIHR (P.), Les preuves crites en droit civil. Mthodologie, op.cit., p.59.

12

point of view that is valued in the work44. As from now on and concerning the whole essay, it is
important to link the different paragraphs to ensure coherence.

The reasoning must flow.

Consequently, once the quote has been found and written, it must be justified.

2. The choice of the quote and the quote must be explained.

The choice must be explained and the relevance to the subject must be deepened. The
presence of the quote is necessarily grounded on a reason and this reason must be specified. Once
this is done, the key words of the subject must be defined.

3. The key words must be defined.

This has actually already been done in the preparatory phase and must now only be used
properly. Indeed, definition enables a first delimitation of the subject. The influence of such and
such definition on the delimitation must be explained45. It is logical to define the object of a study
before starting the study46. A good method implies knowing what is being worked on before
starting the work47. Building cannot start if the base is not known and solid48. Of course not every
word must be defined but only the key ones49. Obscure or unequivocal definitions must not be
relied upon; definitions which are used must be well-kown and well explained50 ones. As already
mentioned above, definitions must be searched by following the hierarchy of norms. Existing
definitions in positive law have a primacy.

44 If the above mentioned essay subject ('Should laws be respected?') is considered a possible quote could be:
It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a
right to assume, is to do at any time what I think is right. (See: THOREAU (H.D.), Civil Disobedience and Other
Essays, New York, Dover Publications, 1993, p.2);
Another quote from the same author could be: Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their
respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice. (Ibid.)
45 BONNET (D.), L'essentiel de la mthodologie juridique, op.cit., p.46.
46 POPPER (K.R.), Des sources de la connaissance et de l'ignorance, Paris, Petite Bibliothque, 1998, pp.106-107:
For some philosophers like Aristotle, definition is in itself a principle and lies at the very basis of any science.
47 PASCAL (B.), De l'esprit gomtrique. Ecrits sur la grce et autres textes, op.cit., pp.68-69.
48 Ibid., p.89.
49 GOUBEAUX (G.), BIHR (P.), Les preuves crites en droit civil. Mthodologie, op.cit., p.64.
50 Ibid., p.91.

13

4. The historical background can be set.

After this step, the historical background of the subject can be raised if need be or if by its
very consistence, the subject makes it inevitable. As per the subject, it can for example be the
drafting history of a law, the history underscoring a particular concept or the history of a given
institution or court51. Depending on the essay, the historical aspects may appear before or after the
definition. However, if diving in history might not always be required, defining the subject is a
must for reasons of proper delimitation.

5. The delimitation of the subject.

The construction is now ripe for the work to be delimitated. Delimitating means further
highlighting the interest of the subject by stating what will be taken into consideration in the study
and what will be excluded.

The angle of analysis must be specified and justified 52.

The

delimitation is the result of what has been said in the precedent steps. A particular quote, a
particular definition and particular historical aspects give rise to a particular delimitation 53. It is not
at all strange if two students delimitate the same subject differently.

Philosophical, political,

economical or sociological considerations can also be taken into account even if their presence must
be controlled. The essay remains a legal one. These different steps which have been cautiously
followed must lead to the problematical question which will be tackled in the body of the essay.
This question, which has also already been determined in the preparatory step, must not be brought
about abruptly and delimitating the subject allows a more convenient presentation. The linking
logic still applies and the harmony which exists between the different parts of the introduction must
direct the presentation of the problematical issue. The reasons for delimitating the subject already
give a foretaste of this question. The latter must appear as a logical consequence of what has been
said from first word of the introduction.

51 For the subject considered in this paper, the historical background of civil disobedience can, for example, be
described.
52 GOUBEAUX (G.), BIHR (P.), Les preuves crites en droit civil. Mthodologie, op.cit., p.64.
53 For instance quoting Thoreau makes it clear that the issue of civil disobedience will be studied. Civil disobedience
enters the framework of the analysis and helps to delimitate the subject.

14

6. Presenting the problematical question.

The problematical question which has long before been forged and framed is presented at
this point of the introduction. It is the crystallisation of the reasoning. The formulation of this
question has already been explained in step two54.
A last step remains before completing the introduction. The problematical question has
been stated but must be enlightened. It is important to specify the means that will be used to
provide such light and to bring potential answers. These means have also already been carved and
sharpened in the preparatory phase and indeed rest in the adopted plan55.

7. Announcing the plan.

Finally, the plan chosen for the essay must be announced. The reader must know that for a
given problematical question a given solution exists. The plan cannot appear to him without having
been presented. The introduction therefore ends by a specification of the main axes of the essay.
Stating the two or three main parts is wholly sufficient.
Considering the question already raised: 'If by their material existence and constitution laws
are expected to be complied with, certain exceptional circumstances sometimes legitimate their
violation', the plan can be announced as follows: 'Therefore, despite the legitimate expectations of a
compliance with laws in principle (I), civil disobedience can be accepted as an exception (II).'.

The plan may be followed as from this point and the body and conclusion of the essay may
be written.

Step 5: Method for writing the essay's body.

Here emphasis will be laid on the writing technique. It again rests on the chain spirit of
links. Its mathematical aspect has already been explained. The parts of the plan must be related to
each other and this can be achieved by using transitions. When proceeding after having written the
54 See supra.
55 See step 3 supra.

15

first title, it is important to explain why it contains two or three subtitles, that is, why the 'I' is
divided into 'A' and 'B'. A linking sentence must be used for such purposes. For example:

I. The expectations of compliance with laws as a principle.

Compliance with laws is logical from the perspective of legal theory because laws derive
from the People's own will (A) and such laws aim at maintaining social order which is again in
conformity with the People's will (B). .

Hereon, subtitle 'A' can start. This part will explain why compliance with laws is logical as
a matter of principle if the People's will is considered. Nothing else should be covered in this part
as the latter has its own aim and its own rationale. Writing should concentrate only on the subtitle's
object with the objective of convincing the reader. Again, the different paragraphs of the subtitle
must be arranged in an orderly manner. Arguments and ideas must be illustrated and justified 56 and
not just copied and pasted57. The line of the demonstration must be kept in mind while writing. In
other words, the general direction of the essay must not be forgotten. Each word and each sentence
have a meaning and are individually useful for a collective construction; each word and each
sentence must be interrogated to check if their presence is justified. All this helps to avoid going
out of subject.

At the end of part 'A', there must be a connecting sentence explaining why the ideas
developed in 'A' obviously lead to 'B'. It can be presented as simply as this:

As per the legal theory, laws are complied with because they are the result of the People's
will. Considering that such laws directly or indirectly aim at preserving a social order which is
also wanted by the People, they are obviously respected as a matter of principle.

After this statement, subtitle B can be presented:

B. A necessary compliance as laws maintain social order.

At the end of part 'B', there must be a connecting sentence making it clear why what has

56 It can be useful to present several arguments in different paragraphs. It might lighten the essay.
57 BONNET (D.), L'essentiel de la mthodologie juridique, op.cit., p.49; PASCAL (B.), De l'esprit gomtrique.
Ecrits sur la grce et autres textes, op.cit., p.91.

16

been seen in Part I logically leads and connects to Part II. For instance:

In legal matters, principles are never solitary navigators. They are often followed by
exceptions. As a matter of fact, if compliance with laws is accepted as a principle, exceptions exist.
Civil disobedience is one of these.

Title II can then be written:

II. The acceptation of civil disobedience as an exception. .

The same reasoning applies for all titles and subtitles of the essay. Once the body has been
built, a conclusion can be drawn.

Step 6: Method for presenting the conclusion.

Many think that a conclusion is not necessary for an essay. Indeed, if the student has been
clear enough throughout his demonstration, there should be nothing more to add. Very often,
students tend to include in the conclusion some ideas which they have forgotten or omitted in
precedent parts or which have in some way popped at the end of the essay. This definitely breaks
the global coherence of the work and does not serve the purpose of a conclusion which is neither a
collection of ideas found in extremis nor a summary what has already been said. Repetition might
appear as a doubt on one's own clarity. As this is the part which the examiner reads as he gets to
the end of the essay, it is important to make him leave the last lines on a good impression.
Particular attention is therefore required. A conclusion must connect the current issue to parallel
ones so as to further express the interest and the use of the subject and the difficulties it implies 58.
What has been explained in the essay can for example be compared to some current events or
debates59 on a similar matter. Eventually, what is stated as a conclusion can be geared to match and,
if possible, to answer the questions which had been raised in the introduction60. This completes the
reasoning cyle.

58 BONNET (D.), L'essentiel de la mthodologie juridique, op.cit., p.50.

59 On comparative law for instance.
60 Ibid.

17