Graduate studies at Western
Ratio Juris 16 (3):281-295 (2003)
|Abstract||A number of important legal theorists have recently argued for metaphysically realist approaches to legal determinacy grounded in particular semantic theories or theories of reference, in particular, views of meaning and reference based on the works of Putnam and Kripke. The basic position of these theorists is that questions of legal interpretation and legal determinacy should be approached through semantic meaning. However, the role of authority (in the form of lawmaker choice) in law in general, and democratic systems in particular, require that these realist solutions to the problem of legal determinacy be rejected, or at least significantly revised.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Thom Brooks (2007). Between Natural Law and Legal Positivism: Dworkin and Hegel on Legal Theory. Georgia State University Law Review 23 (3):513-60.
Stefano Civitarese Matteucci (2010). Is Legal Positivism as Worthless as Many Italian Scholars of Public Law Depict It? Ratio Juris 23 (4):505-539.
Derrick Albert Dubose (1990). The Equivalence of Determinacy and Iterated Sharps. Journal of Symbolic Logic 55 (2):502-525.
Andrei Marmor (ed.) (1995). Law and Interpretation: Essays in Legal Philosophy. Oxford University Press.
Elena Pribytkova (2009). Personality, Person, Subject in Russian Legal Philosophy at the Turn of the Twentieth Century. Studies in East European Thought 61 (2/3):209 - 220.
John Hund (1995). Brian Bix: Law, Language and Legal Determinacy. Mind 104 (416):885-889.
Brian Bix (2006). Legal Positivism and 'Explaining' Normativity and Authority. American Philosophical Association Newsletter 5 (2 (Spring 2006)):5-9.
Brian Bix (1993). Law, Language, and Legal Determinacy. Oxford University Press.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads24 ( #57,851 of 731,339 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,087 of 731,339 )
How can I increase my downloads?