The Nature of Law and Legal Systems

Everyone agrees that law is a constituent of social reality. Law seems to be a system by which conduct is governed and guided. Its usefulness consists, in part, on its ability to govern and guide conduct in its characteristic way. If laws guides the conduct of lay law subjects, then it must be (really) possible for the content of the laws governing their conduct to be known by them under standard social conditions. Moreover, if some degree of efficacy in guiding (...) and governing the conduct of lay law subjects is an existence condition for a legal system, then in existing legal systems enough of the content of directive law is epistemically accessed by enough law subjects so that they can apply it to their situations and correctly determine the act-tokens required of them. In this chapter, I argue that these modest epistemic reflections have important implications for a theory of legal content that have been largely ignored. Holistic theories of legal content, such as Greenberg’s and Dworkin’s, are inconsistent with an adequate account of epistemic access. After demonstrating the same problem in two mainstream non-holistic theories of legal content -- the view that legal content is set entirely by official interpretive conventions, and the view that legal content is set entirely by official intentions – I propose a theory of legal content that meets the epistemic access challenge. On my approach, law is, at its core, centered upon the understandings of law subjects. (This view is meant to exempt constitutional provisions.) More precisely, the legal content of statutes and judicial decisions is built around, and preserves, a core of understandings and meaning-assignments that is the province of anyone with sufficient linguistic ability and relevant socialization. The details of this view are, roughly: (1) in the case of judicial decisions in a common law system, the social salience of the example the decision sets concerning behavior sets the default legal content; (2) in the case of statutory directives, the set of socially salient applications (behavior in situations) sets the default legal content. I say `default’ because my account of legal content is a two-stage account beginning with the default content and permitting a second stage in which considerations from other sources can operate on the default. Yet if a certain amount of efficacy in guiding lay law subjects’ behavior is a requirement for the existence of a legal system, there must be a core of legal content undistorted from its default social salience by a second stage operation. There is and must be a `law of the street’. -/- . (shrink)

A New Introduction to Jurisprudence takes one of the central problems of law and jurisprudence as its point of departure: what is the law? Adopting an intermediate position between legal positivism and natural law, this book reflects on the concept of 'liberal democracy' or 'constitutional democracy'. In five chapters the book analyses: the idea of higher law, liberal democracy as a legitimate model for the state, the separation of church and state or secularism as essential for the democratic state, the (...) universality of higher law principles, the history of modern political thought. This interdisciplinary approach to jurisprudence is relevant for legal scholars, philosophers, political theorists, public intellectuals, historians, and politicians. (shrink)

This book brings the insights of theatre theory to law, legal interpretation and the jurisprudential to reshape law as a practice of response and responsibility. Confronting a Baconian antitheatrical legality embedded in its jurisprudences and interpretative practices, the book turns to theatre theory and practice to ground a theatrical jurisprudence, taking its cues from Han-Thies ¿Lehmann¿s conception of the post-dramatic theatre and the early work of theatre visionary Jerzy Grotowski. It asks law to move beyond an imagined ideal grounded in (...) Aristotelian drama and tragedy, and turns to the formation of the legal interpreter ¿- lawyer, judge, jurisprudent - as fundamental to understanding what¿s ¿noticed¿ or not noticed in law. We ¿notice¿ most easily through that which is written into the ¿body of the legal interpreter, in a way that can¿t be replicated through law¿s standard practices of thinking and reasoning. Without more, thinking and reasoning are the epitome of antitheatricality legality; a set of theatrical antonyms, including transgression and instinct, offer instead a set of possibilities through which to reconceive assumptions and foundational concepts etched into the legal imaginary. And by turning to the critical dramaturgy, the book reveals that the liveliness that sits behind theatrical jurisprudence isn¿t a new concept in law at all, but has a long pedigree and lineage that had been lost and hidden. Theatrical jurisprudence, which demands an awareness of self and beyond self, grounds a responsiveness that can¿t be found within doctrine, principle, or the technocratic, but also challenges us to notice what it is we think we know as well as what we know of lives that aren¿t our own. The book will be of interest to scholars and students in the field of jurisprudence, legal theory, theatre and performance studies, cultural studies and philosophy. (shrink)

This collection of essays explores the different ways the insights from complexity theory can be applied to law. Complexity theory - a variant of systems theory - views law as an emergent, complex, self-organising system comprised of an interactive network of actors and systems that operate with no overall guiding hand, giving rise to complex, collective behaviour in law communications and actions. Addressing such issues as the unpredictability of legal systems, the ability of legal systems to adapt to changes in (...) society, the importance of context, and the nature of law, the essays look to the implications of a complexity theory analysis for the study of public policy and administrative law, international law and human rights, regulatory practices in business and finance, and the practice of law and legal ethics. These are areas where law, which craves certainty, encounters unending, irresolvable complexity. This collection shows the many ways complexity theory thinking can reshape and clarify our understanding of the various problems relating to the theory and practice of law. (shrink)

What is law? What is the source of law? What is the law for? How does law differ from other norms or codes of conduct? What is the difference between law and morality? Who is obligated to follow the law and why? What is the difference between moral and legal obligation? This book addresses these foundational questions about the law in general, and seeks to reorient our thoughts to the specific nature of law in India, the India of today, and (...) the possible India of the future. This volume: covers relevant foundational elements, concepts and questions of the discipline; brings the uniqueness of Indian Philosophy of Law to the fore; critically analyzes the major theories of jurisprudence; examines legal debates on secularism, rationality, religion, rights and caste politics; and presents useful cases and examples, including free speech, equality and reservation, queer law, rape and security, and the ethics of organ donation. Lucid and accessible, the book will be indispensable to students, teachers and scholars of law, philosophy, politics as well as philosophy of law, sociology of law, legal theory and jurisprudence. (shrink)

This book presents a unified set of arguments about the nature of jurisprudence and its relation to the jurist's role. It explores contemporary challenges that create a need for social scientific perspectives in jurisprudence, and it shows how sociological resources can and should be used in considering juristic issues. Its overall aim is to redefine the concept of sociological jurisprudence and outline a new agenda for this. Supporting this agenda, the book elaborates a distinctive juristic perspective that recognises law's diversity (...) of cultural meanings, its extending transnational reach, its responsibilities to reflect popular aspirations for justice and security, and its integrative tasks as a general resource of regulation for society as a whole and for the individuals who interact under law's protection. Drawing on and extending the author's previous work, the book will be essential reading for students, researchers and academics working in jurisprudence, law and society, socio-legal studies, sociology of law, and comparative legal studies. (shrink)

This book addresses the problem of 'animal life' in terms that go beyond the usual extension of liberal rights to animals. The discourse of animal rights is one that increasingly occupies the political, ethical and intellectual terrain of modern society. But, although the question of the status of animals holds an important place within a range of civil, political and technological disciplines, the issue of rights in relation to animals usually rehearses the familiar perspectives of legal, moral and humanist philosophy. (...) 'Animal law' is fast becoming a topic of significant contemporary interest and discussion. This burgeoning interest has not, however, been matched by renewed inquiry into the jurisprudential frames and methods for the treatment of animals in law, nor the philosophical issue of the 'human' and the 'animal' that lies at law's foundation. Responding to this interest, Law and the Question of the Animal: A Critical Jurisprudence brings together leading and emerging critical legal theorists to address the question of animality in relation to law's foundations, practices and traditions of thought. In so doing, it engages a surprisingly underdeveloped aspect of the moral philosophies of animal rights, namely their juridical register and existence. How does 'animal law' alter our juridical image of personality or personhood? How do the technologies of law intersect with the technologies that invent, create and manage animal life? And how might the ethical, ontological and ceremonial relation between humans and animals be linked to a common source or experience of law? (shrink)

: The Idea of a Pure Theory of Law presents a new jurisprudential theory based on Hans Kelsen's Pure Theory of Law. This article responds to some criticisms of that book, in particular those that question the role that permissions can play in our thinking about he law. The article begins with a brief restatement of the basic ideas behind my theory of permission and then tackles the most salient clusters of criticism. It ends with a discussion of some more (...) general points that have been made about my book. (shrink)

: Kelsen argued that any legal system claims a monopoly of the legitimate use of coercive force. Where there is law, Kelsen held, uses of force are prohibited unless they are specifically authorized by the law. Christoph Kletzer's reconstruction of the Pure Theory of Law offers a more austere picture of the relation between law and coercive force. According to Kletzer, the law regulates the use of force simply by permitting it. To make good on this claim, Kletzer must show (...) that it is possible to give a satisfactory description of the workings of legal order in terms of permissions of the use of force alone. This paper argues that an account of legal order as austere as this cannot be given. The permissive operations of the law Kletzer takes to be fundamental presuppose a prior prohibition of unlawful uses of coercion. (shrink)

: This essay criticizes three positions concerning permissions taken by Christoph Kletzer in his book The Idea of a Pure Theory of Law. First, Kletzer argues that Hans Kelsen should have understood X has having a legal obligation to φ if and only if someone else is permitted to exercise force upon X for not-φ-ing. Kelsen in fact had good reasons to speak of empowerment rather than only of permission. The second topic concerns the type of strong permission that Joseph (...) Raz calls exclusionary. Kletzer argues that Raz’s definition of an exclusionary permission generates an infinite regress. In what is arguably the most detailed account of the structure of exclusionary permissions in print, this essay defends Raz’s definition. The third and primary topic concerns Kletzer’s understanding of a permission to φ as a deontic void: the absence of duties to φ and of duties to not-φ. Many share Kletzer’s view. Joseph Raz understands weak permissions as absences. And the usual reading of Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld’s related idea of a privilege to φ is that it is the absence of a duty to not-φ. But the absence theory is mistaken. When a normative system does not exist, there is no permission to φ, even though there are no duties to φ or to not-φ either. The same is true when φ-ing is outside the system’s scope and when φ-ing falls in a gap in the system. Conversely, if a normative system is inconsistent, one can have a permission to φ and a duty to not-φ. It follows that a permission, even a weak permission, is a deontic something, not a nothing, and that weak permissions can have an effect on our practical reasoning. The same points apply to Hohfeldian privileges. (shrink)

: The differentiation of law is a pervasive and crucially important topic. Although H.L.A. Hart and others have stressed how law resembles games and other institutions, Hans Kelsen’s focus on law as a “specific” social technique represents a needed focus on what makes law different, or special. Christoph Kletzer admirably follows Kelsen in focusing and what makes law unique, and Kletzer’s claim that law is unique in ordering the use of force is also a valuable contribution to the project of (...) recognizing how force, sanctions, and coercion remain important features of law. Kletzer may go too far, however, in believing that an account of law must show how law is sharply demarcated from other social institutions. A more fruitful and more descriptively and conceptually plausible project would give up the search for rigid demarcation and explore those features of law that may not be unique to law but are concentrated in law. And thus we might think of law not as something that exists or not, but that different institutions might have differing degrees of what we can call “lawness.”. (shrink)

: Kletzer’s book is the most important and most original contribution to the project of the Pure Theory of law that we have seen in decades. The reformulation that is offered by Kletzer raises the question, however, whether it is also consistent with Kelsen’s original project. This may be doubted, for it is to be feared that Kletzer’s theory involves a variety of the naturalistic fallacy and celebrates de facto as natural law the law of the jungle. As an attempt (...) to continue the legacy of the Pure Theory, Kletzer’s contribution fails. The root of the failure lies in the conflation of alethic and deontic modalities. (shrink)

Kletzer believes that, by focusing upon permission, we can derive the law’s obligatory power from the idea that the world is normatively inert. In a normatively inert world, everything is permitted. Consequently, if the law operates by permitting the use of force, it requires no deep normative underpinning: it could even invoke moral nihilism as its basis. Although ingenious, this argument faces two formidable problems. Firstly, in a normatively inert world, permissions can have causal effects but no normative effects. And (...) secondly, the normatively inert world cannot be assumed as an uncontentious given or derived from the shortfall between what is and what ought to be, as Kletzer supposes. It requires a contestable metaphysics. Although accepting the unity of practical reason, Kletzer rejects the traditional natural law position on the grounds that law and morality are of dissimilar form, so that law cannot be grounded in morality. At the same time, he fails to offer any explanation of that difference in form. Once we have a satisfactory explanation of this difference, we see that it is precisely the difference in form between law and morality that enables us to understand law’s basis in morality. Individual moral engagement and reflection can flourish only within communities governed by law. (shrink)

: This paper reflects on Christoph Kletzer’s absolute positivism and puts a focus on a view of the basic norm that grounds the validity of law in the law itself. I will try to explain the significance of this idea against the backdrop of Hans Kelsen’s transformation of the basic norm from a “hypothesis” to a “fiction.” I shall argue that the goal of an ultimate foundation of the objective validity of a legal order can only be accomplished by a (...) fictional basic norm. In my eyes, contrary to what Kelsen claimed in his later work, such a norm cannot amount to a genuine epistemological fiction in the sense of Hans Vaihinger’s “The Philosophy of ‘As If,’” but has to be regarded, rather, as a practical legal fiction. (shrink)

: Barber’s recent book The Principles of Constitutionalism argues that state sovereignty is not subject to legal limits, from either domestic or supranational law. It further suggests that state sovereignty is not subject to moral limits either. This paper argues that this is an unsound view of state sovereignty and that Barber’s work contains valuable resources for developing an alternative, sounder view. A sound account of state sovereignty will consider the legitimate scope of a state’s authority, over and above the (...) authority the state claims. It will explain the foundations of state authority in terms of rules, rather than the mere say-so of someone mighty. And it will be continuous with influential legal accounts of state sovereignty that historically accompanied the very emergence of the state. (shrink)

In this review article I consider Kenneth Einar Himma’s argument that law is necessarily coercive. While casting doubt on Himma’s framing of the issues as well as on his specific claims in support of that conclusion, I suggest some alternate avenues for arguing that law is a coercive institution.

This chapter interrogates the human in human rights. It first takes issue with the common assumption that to be human just is to be a member of the species homo sapiens, and that this suffices for possession of human rights. Such an assumption is problematic because it presupposes a unique ‘essence’ possessed by all and only human beings, which in turn functions to exclude certain individuals from the realm of the human, and presents a culturally-specific vision of humanity as if (...) it were universal. As an alternative, this chapter develops a conception of the human as a social construct. Analogous to the sex/gender distinction common to feminist theory, it posits a homo sapiens/human distinction, whereby the human refers to the network of social norms, political status, privileges and burdens that are conferred on people because they are (taken to be) members of the species homo sapiens. (shrink)

Explores indigenous intellectual culture and its relationship to, and within, the dominant Euro-American culture. This book also contends that indigenous intellectuals need to engage the legal and political discourses of the state, respecting both indigenous philosophies and Western European intellectual traditions.

Nosso objetivo neste trabalho é apresentar uma proposta de solução a paradoxos relacionados à lógica deôntica presentes na literatura, reunidos sob o que é chamado de dilemas deônticos - situações nas quais duas obrigações conflitantes estão presentes num mesmo sistema normativo. Situações deste tipo, quando formalizadas (em SDL - standard deontic logic - ou em outras lógicas relacionadas), levam a uma inconsistência. Nossa proposta baseia-se em relações de preferência que geram uma ferramenta de escolha dentre as duas soluções normativas conflitantes, (...) o que evita a inconsistência e permite o pleno cumprimento do sistema. Justificativas filosóficas são fornecidas as ferramentas lógicas, bem como as suas implicações. (shrink)

In Incomprehensible!, Wendy Wagner highlights a blind spot in the design of many legal programmes: they demand that market players share as much information as possible, but neglect to demand that the information be conveyed comprehensibly. Wagner shows how the neglect of comprehensibility undermines the law’s effectiveness, and provides a menu of concrete proposals for alleviating it. Yet Wagner’s analysis leaves one important question unanswered: will making information more comprehensible necessarily lead to more accountability and better policy outcomes? This review (...) article examines the elusive link between comprehensibility and accountability, and spotlights four common scenarios whereby the former is not a sufficient or even a necessary condition for the latter. In some markets, we have accountability without comprehensibility, through the threat of reputational sanctions. In others, we have comprehensibility without accountability: disclosures are perfectly readable, yet the end users opt not to read them. A third scenario is where more comprehensibility actually leads to less accountability: top-down mandates of comprehensibility crowd out efforts by private intermediaries to process complex information. Finally, there are circumstances where comprehensibility leads to too much accountability: in certain trade-offs, more accountability leads to worse decision making. (shrink)

In this unique book, leading legal scholars and philosophers provide a breadth of perspectives and inspire stimulating debate around the transformations of jurisprudence in a globalized world. Traditionally the central debates surrounding jurisprudence and legal theory are concerned with the elucidation of the particularities of state-law. This innovative book considers that this orthodox picture may no longer be tenable, given the increasing standardization of technologies, systems and information worldwide. -/- Split across four thematic parts, this timely book provides a broad (...) overview of the topic, followed by in depth analyses investigating the modifications to jurisprudence’s methodological approaches driven by globalization, the concepts and theoretical tools required to account for putative new forms of legal phenomena, and normative issues relating to the legitimacy and democratic character of these legal orders. Chapters cover legal encounters with alterity in a post-monist mode, normative legal pluralism, relating law and power in a historical global context, cosmopolitan legitimacy and human rights and dignity in a corporate world. -/- Jurisprudence in a Globalized World will be a key resource for students and scholars working in global transnational law, public international law and legal theory and philosophy. (shrink)

Lähtökohtanaan Jean-Paul Vernantin ja Albrecht Dihlen historialliset teesit artikkeli tarkastelee tärkeimpien ”lakia ja järjestystä” ilmaisevien käsitteiden (nomos, dikē) roolia esisokraattisten filosofien, erityisesti Anaksimandroksen, Herakleitoksen ja Parmenideen, ajattelussa. Arkaaisessa kreikkalaisessa ajatusmaailmassa sekä luonnon että ihmisyhteisön sisäinen tasapaino ilmentää moninaisen jumalmaailman ja ihmisten välistä vuorovaikutusta. Esisokraatikot ajattelevat todellisuutta eriytyneenä ykseytenä, jonka moninaisuutta sitoo yhteen yhtenäinen perusrakenne; tämän mallin uusi filosofia jäsentää uudesta polis-ajattelusta lainattujen käsitteiden avulla. Tämä esisokraatikkojen ”poliittinen ontologia” ja toisaalta nomoksen, yhteisöllisen normiston, enenevä ymmärtäminen inhimillisenä konventiona, mahdollistaa fysiksen ja nomoksen, (...) ”luonnon” ja ”kulttuurin” välisen myöhemmän vastakkainasettelun. (shrink)

We sought to compare the implicit and explicit views of a group of Muslim graduates on the fairness of Islamic law. In this preliminary investigation, we used the Electroencephalographic N400 Event Related Potential to detect the participant’s implicit beliefs. It was found that the majority of participants, eight out of ten, implicitly held that Islamic Law was unfair despite explicitly stating the opposite. In seeking to understand what separated these eight participants from the remaining two – the two who both (...) implicitly and explicitly held that Islamic Law was fair – only two distinguishing characteristics could be identified. Both participants had undertaken an in-depth study of a branch of Islamic law that places the spirit of the law above that of a literal interpretation. They had also attended the same seminary, exclusive to the other participants. Of the eight participants, it was discovered that, while they implicitly held Islamic law to be unfair, they also held it to be rational – in the same way they found that it was rational to push a person of a ship in order to save the remaining from drowning, yet unfair. We discuss these preliminary findings and consider theories on how an innate sense of fairness, an aspect of nativism, may come into play when it is not congruent with a participant’s own beliefs. Further, we ask, where such an inconsistency occurs, how does the mind attempt to rectify it – if at all? As a possible contribution to the discussion on theories of nativism vs. empiricism we put forward a hypothesis and methodology for investigation that may produce previously unconsidered data on human nature. (shrink)

This paper considers the connections between the Statehood/recognition debate in international law and social ontology. I aim to show that certain theories of social ontology, which I call Groupjective Internalism, can be used to defend Constitutive Theories of Statehood. Among philosophers whom I consider committed to Groupjective Internalism are major figures in the field: Searle, Gilbert and Tuomela. This is an interesting result as Constitutive Theories are generally looked upon with suspicion in international law.

Most legal and political philosophers agree that typical legal systems are coercive. But there is no extant account of what typically makes typical legal systems coercive when they are coercive. This paper presents such an account and compares it with four alternative views. Towards the end I discuss the proposed account’s payoffs. Among other things, I show how it can help us explain what I call ‘comparative judgements’ about coercive legal systems (judgements such as ‘Legal system a is more coercive (...) than legal system b’) and how it can help the development of social scientific inquiries into the coerciveness of our legal systems. (shrink)

The assumption that coercion is largely responsible for our legal systems’ efficacy is a common one. I argue that this assumption is false. But I do so indirectly, by objecting to a thesis I call “(Compliance)”, which holds that most citizens comply with most legal mandates most of the time at least partly in virtue of being motivated by legal systems’ threats of sanctions and other unwelcome consequences. The relationship between (Compliance) and the efficacy of legal systems is explained in (...) section 1. There I also show that (Compliance) must be rejected for it relies on unsubstantiated empirical assumptions. In section 2, I claim that an alternative, and more refined, formulation of (Compliance) also lacks adequate support. I conclude with a few general remarks about the centrality of coercion in our thought and talk about legal systems. (shrink)

This essay analyses those statements that mention legal norms in negative terms. Specifically, it analyses those statements that define a legal system by mentioning how legal protection does not work and where legal protection ends, and those statements that identify what rights‐holders do not have to with their legally protected free capacities. This essay argues that these statements address a systemic question. It calls such a dynamic as negative governmentality. The argument proceeds in four steps. It introduces the concept of (...) negative governmentality by arguing that the idea of freedom requires both the positive affirmation of moral agency and the constraining of moral agency (Section 2). It then explores how rights constitute freedom by limiting rights or making exceptions to them (Section 3). Later, it analyses how rights‐based norms prevent abuse of rights by holders of rights (Section 4). Finally, it sees how rights‐based norms constrain the legal guarantor of rights, i.e., a state (Section 5). The essay concludes by mentioning the importance of negative governmentality (Section 6). (shrink)

Legal and political controversies persist about the performance of Kelsenian-type constitutional courts in democratic systems. One of the reasons is that the design of these institutions cannot easily accommodate simultaneous but conflicting demands for the strong protection of democracy and human rights, judicial independence and constitutional restraint. Challenging the dominant approach to the design of contemporary constitutional courts, this article proposes a new way to balance these three values through reforms to the structure of Kelsenian institutions. The proposal seeks to (...) institutionalize constitutional restraint, embedding it into courts’ internal functioning rules while, concurrently, emancipating constitutional judges from political control through a reform of appointment procedures. It is argued that the combined effects of these two reforms will produce constitutional courts that are more independent and able to protect the core elements of a democratic political community while, at the same time, increasing constitutional deference to the democratically elected legislator. (shrink)

Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly expected to disrupt the ordinary functioning of society. From how we fight wars or govern society, to how we work and play, and from how we create to how we teach and learn, there is almost no field of human activity which is believed to be entirely immune from the impact of this emerging technology. This poses a multifaceted problem when it comes to designing and understanding regulatory responses to AI. This article aims to: (i) (...) defend the need for a novel conceptual model for understanding the systemic legal disruption caused by new technologies such as AI; (ii) to situate this model in relation to preceding debates about the interaction of regulation with new technologies (particularly the ‘cyberlaw’ and ‘robolaw’ debates); and (iii) to set out a detailed model for understanding the legal disruption precipitated by AI, examining both pathways stemming from new affordances that can give rise to a regulatory ‘disruptive moment’, as well as the Legal Development, Displacement or Destruction that can ensue. The article proposes that this model of legal disruption can be broadly generalisable to understanding the legal effects and challenges of other emerging technologies. (shrink)

The debate between natural law and positivist law has been received much attention. Ronald Dworkin exposes the limitation of positivist law through the argument of hard cases. This argument is furthered strengthened when we apply the interpretation of Martin Luther King Jr and the voluntarist natural law tradition, and Lon Fuller’s ‘procedural view’ and the application of the ‘principles of legality’.

Argues that reasons internalism, suitably understood, explains categorical reasons for us to cooperate with each other. The norms we then cooperate to satisfy can lie at the heart of legal systems, yielding unexpected implications in the philosophy of law.

Die Disziplin, die als „Juristische Methodenlehre“ bezeichnet wird, ist gegenwärtig chinesischen Juristen nicht fremd, sie stammt aber ursprünglich aus dem deutschen Sprachraum. In der Literatur finden sich auch verwandte Ausdrücke wie „Juristische Methodologie“, „Juristische Methodik“ bzw.„Methodenlehre der Rechtswissenschaft“. Seit Anfang des 21. Jahrhunderts wurde ihre Rezeption in China durch zwei Übersetzungen gekennzeichnet, nämlich die „rechtswissenschaftliche Methodenlehre“ (faxue fangfalun) und die „rechtliche Methodenlehre“ (falü fangfalun). Neben der herkömmlichen Methodenlehre entwickelte sich auch eine jüngere Theorie der juristischen Argumentation, die die weltweite Aufmerksamkeit (...) sogar außerhalb Deutschlands auf sich lenken konnte und deren Bestand in China einen ganz selbständigen Abschnitt verdient. Als Hintergrund dafür soll von vornherein ein Blick auf die Entwicklungen der chinesischen Rechtstheorie und Rechtsphilosophie nach 1978 und demzufolge auf die Entstehung der Methodenfrage in der chinesischen Rechtswissenschaft geworfen werden. (shrink)

Nearly thirty years ago, Robert Alexy in his book The Concept and Validity of Law as well as in other early articles raised non-positivistic arguments in the Continental European tradition against legal positivism in general, which was assumed to be held by, among others, John Austin, Hans Kelsen and H.L.A. Hart. The core thesis of legal positivism that was being discussed among contemporary German jurists, just as with their Anglo- American counterparts, is the claim that there is no necessary connection (...) between law and morality. Robert Alexy has argued, however, that the law, besides consisting conceptually of elements of authoritative issuance and social efficacy, necessarily lays a claim to substantial correctness, which is derived from analytical arguments. Furthermore, if this claim to substantial correctness necessarily requires the incorporation of moral elements into law, then the ‘necessary connection thesis’, as defended by non-positivism, can be justified. Some of the most significant objections to this sort of claim, stemming from the Anglo-American world, are those introduced by Joseph Raz. In his ‘Reply’ to Robert Alexy, Raz raises at least three interesting criticisms, including, first, the ambiguity of ‘legal theory in the positivistic tradition’, second, the indeterminate formulations of the ‘separation thesis’, and, third, the necessary claim of law to legitimate authority as a moral claim. As a point of departure, I will argue that Raz’s three criticisms are misleading. For they do not enhance our understanding of the genuine compatibility or incompatibility between legal positivism and non-positivism. Despite the frequently reformulated theses of legal positivism and the various kinds of opponents responding thereto, the essential divergence between legal positivism and non-positivism was and remains the answer to the question of the relation between law and morality. Furthermore, I will clarify that in the strictest sense there can be three and only three logically possible positions concerning the relation between law and morality: the connection between them is either necessary, or impossible (i. e. they are necessarily separate), or contingent (i. e. they are neither necessarily connected nor necessarily separate). The first position is non-positivistic, while the latter two positions are, indeed, both positivistic, but in different forms: one may be called ‘exclusive’ legal positivism, the other ‘inclusive’ legal positivism. I will continue by showing that these three positions stand to one another in the relation of contraries, not contradictories, and that, taken together, they exhaust the logically possible positions concerning the relation between law and morality, never mind the tradition or authority from which these positions are derived. Raz mentions, however, many changeable formulations of the separation thesis, which even leads him to acknowledge ‘necessary connections between law and morality’. One who is trying to understand legal positivism would no doubt be puzzled by this claim. Nevertheless, I will argue that this is an alternative strategy of legal positivism, and it points to naturalistically oriented view. Although this necessary separation between law and morality, understood naturalistically, strikes one as strengthening the separation, in the end it leads to a weakened notion of necessity. This weakened necessary separation thesis, however, cannot be justified through the so-called claim of the law to legitimate authority, defended by Raz, for it is difficult to answer the question of whether a normally justified but factual authority can gain legitimate authority. Finally, the necessary connection between law and morality in a strong sense can still be justified by the claim of law to correctness, as per Alexy’s argument. (shrink)

According to an influential and intuitively appealing argument, morality is usually continuous, namely, a gradual change in one morally significant factor triggers a gradual change in another; the law should usually track morality; therefore, the law should often be continuous. This argument is illustrated by cases such as the following example: since the moral difference between a defensive action that is reasonable and one that is just short of being reasonable is small, the law should not impose a severe punishment (...) when the action is almost reasonable and no punishment at all when the action is reasonable. In this Article, I consider two doubts regarding this argument. First, the premise that morality is continuous in such cases is incompatible with the common view that the moral status of actions is not continuous since there is an important difference between actions that are permissible and actions that are wrong— even if this difference is due to a difference that is very small, such as the one between an action whose consequences are the best and an action whose consequences are just slightly less good. This view extends also to the overall moral status of agents given the common assumption that it depends on the moral status of their actions. This is an important challenge that the Continuity Argument should confront. However, I argue that the best account of morality is more scalar than the common view in these respects. Therefore, I conclude that the first premise of the Continuity Argument is correct in this regard, although it is based on a minority view. The second doubt concerns the scope of the second premise: since there are reasons both in favor and against legal continuity, and the applicability and force of these reasons depend not only on various moral propositions but also on contingent non-moral facts, we often lack the evidence to determine the degree to which the law, at a certain place and time, should be continuous, and specifically that it should often be continuous. (shrink)

Since at least the 1980s, police departments in the United States have embraced a set of practices that aim, not to enable the prosecution of past criminal activity, but to discourage people from breaking the law in the first place. It is not clear that these practices effectively lower the crime rate. However, whatever its effect on the crime rate, I argue that preventive policing is essentially distinct from legal governance, and that excessive reliance on preventive policing undermines legal governance. (...) To show this, I emphasize law’s unique aptitude to define legal subjects’ ‘manifest’ status relations – that is, the rights and obligations that live within their local practices. I then argue, first, that preventive policing does not aim to define these relationships; and second, that excessive preventive policing threatens the relationship that law must bear with its subjects if law is to define their manifest relations authoritatively. (shrink)

Commentary on Crowe's metaethics and his theory of law as a goodness-fixing kind.

This volume contains the proceedings of the Social Ontology, Normativity, and Philosophy of Law conference, which took place on May 30–31, 2019 at the University of Glasgow. At the invitation of the Social Ontology Research Group, a panel of prominent scholars shed light on a range of key topics within social ontology, normativity, and philosophy of law from an interdisciplinary perspective.

In order to show the validity of here proposed conception of social ontology and its advantages over descriptive theories of social reality, which in the analysis of the socio-ontological status of human rights find only legally understood normativity as present in social reality, we will first lay out Searle’s interpretation of human rights. In the second step, we will introduce the methodical approach and basic concepts of our socio-ontological position, and explain the structure of the relationship between justice, law, morality, (...) social institutions and collective intentionality. At the end we will show how our theory of social ontology is better than Searle’s legal positivism in examining the ontological status of human rights. At the end, we show in what ways such a theory of social ontology more intuitively and with wider arguments explains the ontological status of institution of human rights than Searle’s legal positivism. (shrink)

In order to show the validity of here proposed conception of social ontology and its advantages over descriptive theories of social reality, which in the analysis of the socio-ontological status of human rights find only legally understood normativity as present in social reality, we will first lay out Searle’s interpretation of human rights. In the second step, we will introduce the methodical approach and basic concepts of our socio-ontological position, and explain the structure of the relationship between justice, law, morality, (...) social institutions and collective intentionality. At the end we will show how our theory of social ontology is better than Searle’s legal positivism in examining the ontological status of human rights. At the end, we show in what ways such a theory of social ontology more intuitively and with wider arguments explains the ontological status of institution of human rights than Searle’s legal positivism. (shrink)

A critical analysis of Kelsen’s theory leads to a broad concept of custom, which covers diverse types of customary norms, where the always required conviction of legal bindingness depends on different types of factual and normative reasons. In it we should include a strict concept of custom or legal usage, derogating custom, custom of general international law, custom that establishes an unwritten constitution, custom that establishes a new written constitution, judicial custom which creates a rule of precedent and custom newly (...) expressed in the judicial application of customary rules. The basic norm could be formulated as a constitutive norm: ‘If the norms created through the first historical constitution are effective, then the first historical constitution are valid.’ It is thus a customary constitutive rule that recognizes the first historical constitution as valid law. Norms which establish sources of law are constitutive rules, they can be customary norms or legislated norms, but if they are legislated, they have their validity recognized by, directly or indirectly, a constitutive customary norm. By using a broad concept of custom as a conventional practice, Hart implies that general recognition of a customary rule, together with the practice that accompanies it, are sufficient conditions of validity. A doctrine of recognition that is arrived at by means of criticism and a rational reconstruction of the doctrines of Kelsen and Hart regains the essential theses of the traditional recognition theory of Bierling and Engisch. (shrink)

Purpose The purpose of this study is to consider the complementarity of ethics and law with regard to the problem of their common existence in society through the identification of common and different characteristics in the philosophy of I. Kant. -/- Design/methodology/approach This study is based on the observation that in modern society ethics and law remain the main social regulators and their co-existence requires the definition of their interaction and complementarity. Also, as this problem is closely related to issues (...) of freedom and obligation, it is necessary to show their role in ethics and law. -/- Findings The results show that the complementarity of ethics and law is due to the obligation that unites them, and the categorical imperative is the only postulate of ethics and the rights to execute, which allows a person to always remain worthy of his name. Ethics also has the meaning of legal capacity, and law means the recognition of people moral independence by public authorities. Thus, the law must protect a person not only from arbitrariness on the part of other people but also from the state power. -/- Originality/value This paper uses a philosophical approach, the utility of which is that ethics and law are studied as elements of normative regulation system of the society in terms of the phenomenal and noumenal nature of a man. It is proposed to consider ethics and law not only as different social regulators, which have their own specifics but also as complementary elements of a single social being, which should exist together and not attempt to substitute one another. (shrink)