Ratio Juris 22 (3):339-358 (2009)
|Abstract||Many philosophers take the view that, while coercion is a prominent and enduring feature of legal practice, its existence does not reflect a deep, constitutive property of law and therefore coercion plays at best a very limited role in the explanation of law's nature. This view has become more or less the orthodoxy in modern jurisprudence. I argue that an interesting and plausible possible role for coercion in the explanation of law is untouched by the arguments in support of the orthodox view. Since my main purpose is to clear the ground for the alternative, I spell out the orthodox view in some detail. I then briefly sketch the alternative. Finally, I turn to Jules Coleman's discussion of the alternative.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Michael Philips (1984). Are Coerced Agreements Involuntary? Law and Philosophy 3 (1):133 - 145.
William A. Edmundson (forthcoming). Coercion. In Andrei Marmor (ed.), Routledge Companion to the Philosophy of Law. Routledge.
Martin Gunderson (1979). Threats and Coercion. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 9 (2):247 - 259.
Russell Hardin (1990). Rationally Justifying Political Coercion. Journal of Philosophical Research 15:79-91.
Joan McGregor (1988). Bargaining Advantages and Coercion in the Market. Philosophy Research Archives 14:23-50.
Laura Valentini (2011). Coercion and (Global) Justice. American Political Science Review 105 (1):205-220.
Raymond Plant (2011). The Jurisprudence Annual Lecture 2010 Freedom, Coercion, Necessary Goods and the Rule of Law. Jurisprudence 2 (1):1-16.
Jan-Willem van der Rijt (2011). Coercive Interference and Moral Judgment. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 14 (5):549-567.
Added to index2009-08-27
Total downloads58 ( #16,866 of 549,084 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,317 of 549,084 )
How can I increase my downloads?