Lambert Academic Publishing (2015)

Ian Carlo Benitez
University of the Philippines, Los Baños
This paper challenges the Critical Legal Studies (CLS) claims of legal indeterminacy. It shall use a legal formalist logic and language as its main assertion, further maintaining that the CLS claims is only grounded in ambiguity and confusion. CLS is a legal theory that challenges and overturns accepted norms and standards in legal theory and practice. They maintained that law in the historical and contemporary society has an alleged impartiality, and it is used as a tool of privilege and power – law is politics. Consequently, CLS maintained that these results to indeterminacy of law. Legal indeterminacy can be summed up as contrary to the common understanding that legal materials, statutes and case law, do not really answer legal disputes. Legal principles and doctrines, as CLS scholars claim, are said to be indeterminate, for it is riddle with gaps, conflicts, and anomalies that are widely present even in simple cases. Legal indeterminacy also rises because of the underlying political power – law is politics – that implicates law as merely a tool for oppression. This thesis shows that CLS assertions with legal indeterminacy is only grounded on ambiguity. On one hand, using the main concept of legal formalist logic and language grounded with sub-arguments: inherent generality of legal language, reasoned elaboration, and neutral principles, it refutes the CLS claims of legal indeterminacy. On the other, the paper maintains that their main reason of legal indeterminacy, ‘law is politics’, is merely a statement of fact that currently happens in society is sentimental and weak through counterexamples.
Keywords law  jurisprudence  critical  legal  studies  CLS
Categories (categorize this paper)
Buy this book Find it on
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

American Legal Realism.Brian Leiter - 2005 - In Martin P. Golding & William A. Edmundson (eds.), The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory. Blackwell.
Legal Realism, Critical Legal Studies, and Dworkin.Andrew Altman - 1986 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 15 (3):205-235.
The Theory of Critical Legal Studies.Alan Hunt - 1986 - Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 6 (1):1-45.
Critical Legal Theory Today.Jack M. Balkin - 2009 - In Francis J. Mootz (ed.), On Philosophy in American Law. Cambridge University Press.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

On the Indeterminacy Crisis: Critiquing Critical Dogma.Lawrence B. Solum - 1987 - University of Chicago Law Review 54:462.
Critical Legal Studies.James Boyle (ed.) - 1992 - New York University Press.
On Hart's Way Out.Scott J. Shapiro - 1998 - Legal Theory 4 (4):469-507.


Added to PP index

Total views
3,020 ( #851 of 2,433,063 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
418 ( #914 of 2,433,063 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes