incompletely theorized agreements gen.

[burnix]

Sunstein advocates a special role for ‘incompletely theorized agreements’ in judicial decision-making. Such agreements can occur where judges agree on the outcomes of individual cases even though they disagree on which general theory best accounts for those outcomes, or agree on a general principle, but not on what that principle requires in particular cases, or agree on a ‘mid-level’ principle but disagree about both the general theory underlying it and particular cases falling under it

incompletely theorized agreements - недотеретезированные соглашения?
что значит в этом контексте account, outcome и "mid-level"
Спасибо

[second opinion]

неформальные договоренности

How is constitutionalism possible, when people disagree on so many questions
about what is good and what is right? This essay, written for a special issue of Social
Research on Difficult Decisions, explores the role of two kinds of incompletely theorized
agreements amidst sharp disagreements about the largest issues in social life. The first
consist of agreements on abstract formulations (freedom of speech, equality under the
law); these agreements are crucial to constitution-making as a social practice. The
second consist of agreements on particular doctrines and practices; these agreements
are crucial to life and law under existing constitutions. Incompletely theorized
agreements help illuminate an enduring constitutional puzzle: how members of diverse
societies can work together on terms of mutual respect amidst intense disagreements
about both the right and the good. Such agreements help make constitutions and
constitutional law possible, even within nations whose citizens cannot concur on the most
fundamental matters.

[paderin]

не соглашаются относительно того, чем такие результаты наиболее оптимальным образом учитываются общей теорией, или соглашаются с основным принципом, но выражают свое несогласие с тем, что требует такой принцип в частных случаях, или соглашаются с ‘общепринятым’ принципом

[second opinion]

The agreement on particulars is incompletely theorized in the sense that the relevant participants are clear on the practice or the result without agreeing on the most general theory that accounts for it. Often people can agree that a rule—protecting political dissenters, allowing workers to practice their religion—makes sense without entirely agreeing on the foundations of their belief. They may accept an outcome— affirming the right to marry for heterosexual couples, protecting sexually explicit art, banning racial segregation—without understanding or converging on an ultimate ground for that acceptance. Often people can agree not merely on the outcome, but also on a rationale offering low-level or mid-level principles on its behalf. But what ultimately accounts for the outcome, in terms of a full-scale theory of the right or the good, is left unexplained.

[second opinion]

account - (зд.) объяснять, обосновывать
outcome - (конечный) результат
и "mid-level" - средний (по важности принимаемых решений) уровень

[paderin]

здесь логически не средний уровень;
пример, суд по УПК - обвинительный приговор по тяжести действий (N лет заключения), общая теория - виновен(виновна); частный случай - достоин (достойна) / не достоин (не достойна) снисхождения