Sources of Law

2021 ◽  
pp. 58-92
Author(s):  
Giorgio Pino

Oddly enough, very scant reference—if any—is made to the sources of law as a genuinely jurisprudential topic in contemporary legal philosophy. Yet, the jurisprudential import of the concept of ‘sources of law’ seems substantial: sources of law are what makes of something ‘a law’—a law is what is produced by, or derives from, a source of law. Sources epitomize the very ‘positivity’ of positive law, an aspect of law which is central to legal positivism of course, but whose importance not even a natural lawyer or an anti-positivist would ever deny. This essay highlights several jurisprudential questions that surround the sources of law, and tries to show they relate to–and contribute to illuminate–many long-debated jurisprudential topics such as the concept of legal validity, the notion and the conditions of existence of a legal system, the problem of legal change, and the scope of legal disagreements.

ULUMUNA ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-95
Author(s):  
Muslihun Muslihun

This study elucidates the legal positivism and critically compares it with other schools of philosophy of law. Debates on the legislation of Islamic law in Indonesian can be traced back to the discursive practice of legal philosophy such as legal positivism. Indonesia as a law-based state (rechtsaat) adopts to a considerable degree legal positivism. However, it cannot be said that pure legal positivism, as it is promoted by its thinkers such as John Austin and Hans Kelsen, is applied because the Indonesian legal system accept morality such as religious and customary norms as the ground of legislation. By examining the postivisation of Islamic law, that is the legislation of Islamic law into the state legal system, this study argues that morale, ethics or norms derived from religion and customs are accepted to the state law. They can be used as the source of justice while justice in the positivists’ view refers to the code and statute endorsed by those who are in authority or power to do that. It thus denies the view of legal positivists who reject ethics or norms beyond the state law as non-law.


1999 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 169-188 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeremy Waldron

In an extreme case, … only officials might accept and use the system’s criteria of legal validity. The society in which this was so might be deplorably sheeplike; and the sheep might end in the slaughter-house. But there is little reason for thinking that it could not exist or for denying it the title of a legal system.The essence of legal positivism, wrote H.L.A. Hart, is a very simple contention: “[I]t is in no sense a necessary truth that laws reproduce or satisfy certain demands of morality” (185-86).It is tempting to treat this claim—which some have called “the separability thesis”—as a definitional truth about law, i.e., as a constraint on any adequate definition of the term “law.” On this understanding, the positivist maintains that one should not define “law" in a way that excludes some norms from the extension of this term simply because they do not reproduce or satisfy a particular moral demand. Similarly, on this understanding, one should not exclude a system of norms, S, from the extension of the term “legal system” on account of S’s failure to satisfy the demands of justice. Indeed, positivism entails not only that one should not exclude S on this ground, but also that the injustice of S is not even a reason for regarding S as a problematic or marginal or less-than-central case of “law.” The positivist holds that it is a mistake to build moral conditions into the definition of “law” in any way whatsoever.


1997 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 231-248
Author(s):  
James Allan

‘Legal Positivism’ is a much abused term. It is often pejoratively invoked by those occupying both the natural law and critical legal studies ramparts. The former see it as a school of thought which ignores the role in law of those standards and values which have not been deliberately laid down or unintentionally evolved. Positivism, for them, fails because it is prepared to describe a legal world where moral values play no necessary part and where transcendent values may not exist at all. The latter group of critics, not too dissimilarly, see legal positivism’s doctrines as over-reliant on rules and too inclined to accept that a legal system somehow can generate a logically mandated code of answers.In order to defend positivism it is advisable to start with an enunciation of its core precepts. With all that has been written attacking and supporting positivism though, this can be a contentious matter. So instead I shall defend one particular version of positivism, that of H.L.A. Hart. As Hart’s The Concept of Law, first published in 1961, is at worst one of the handful of great legal philosophy texts written in English this century and at best “the classic work of philosophical jurisprudence”, this preference for concentrating on the tangible and identifiable precepts of Hart over the woolly, elusive and frequently caricatured precepts of something disparagingly termed positivism has much to recommend it.


2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 195
Author(s):  
Muhammad Harun

<p>The purpose of this paper is to compare and evaluate the thoughts of Hans Kelsen with Satjipto Raharjo. Both offer their respective theories, namely Hans Kelsen's pure legal theory and Satjipto Rahardjo's progressive law. In this theory, both of them base their philosophical approach. After reviewing, the theories of these two figures are relevant for interpreting the law. This paper uses a critical paradigm with a combination of normative or doctrinal and sociological or non-doctrinal approaches. The results showed that Hans Kelsen directed his mind that legal positivism considers moral speech, values are finished and final when it comes to the formation of positive law. Pure Legal Theory is not a perfect copy of transcendental ideas, but it does not try to see the law as a posterity of justice. While Rahardjo's progressive law rests on the aspects of rules and behavior. Regulations will build a positive and rational legal system. While the behavioral or human aspects will drive the rules and systems that are built.</p><p> </p><p>Tujuan penulisan ini adalah untuk membandingkan dan mengevaluasi pemikiran Hans Kelsen dengan Satjipto Raharjo. Keduanya menawarkan teori masing-masing, yaitu teori hukum murni Hans Kelsen dan hukum progresif Satjipto Rahardjo. Dalam teori ini, keduanya sama-sama mendasarkan pendekatan secara filosif. Setelah dikaji, teori dari kedua tokoh ini relevan untuk memaknai hukum. Tulisan ini menggunakan paradigima kritis dengan pendekatan kombinasi normatif atau doktrinal dan sosiologis atau non doktrinal. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa Hans Kelsen lebih mengarahkan pikirannya bahwa positivisme hukum yang menganggap pembicaraan moral, nilai-nilai telah selesai dan final manakala sampai pada pembentukan hukum positif. Teori Hukum Murni bukanlah salinan ide transendental yang sempurna, namun tidak berusaha memandang hukum sebagai anak cucu keadilan. Sementara hukum progresifnya Rahardjo bertumpu pada aspek peraturan dan perilaku (rules and behavior). Peraturan akan membangun suatu sistem hukum positif yang logis dan rasional. Sedangkan aspek perilaku atau manusia akan menggerakkan peraturan dan sistem yang dibangun. </p>


1999 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 135-150 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrei Marmor

There are many versions of legal positivism; perhaps as many as there are legal positivists around. All the versions of legal positivism, however, subscribe to the so-called Separation Thesis. This thesis basically maintains that detenriining what the law is, does not necessarily, or conceptually, depend on moral or other evaluative considerations about what it ought to be in the relevant circumstances. Legal positivists differ, however, and quite substantially, over the appropriate interpretation of this thesis. The so-called ‘strong’, or ‘exclusive’ version of legal positivism maintains that moral considerations never determine the legal validity of norms. ‘Soft’ positivists, on the other hand, do maintain that there is a close relation between legal validity and morality, but they hold that this relation is, at best, a contingent matter; it does not derive from the nature of law or legal reasoning as such. Soft-positivists claim that moral considerations determine legal validity only in certain cases, namely, in those cases which follow from the rules of recognition that happen to prevail in a given legal system.


2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 199
Author(s):  
Muhammad Harun

<p>The purpose of this paper is to compare and evaluate the thoughts of Hans Kelsen with Satjipto Raharjo. Both offer their respective theories, namely Hans Kelsen's pure legal theory and Satjipto Rahardjo's progressive law. In this theory, both of them base their philosophical approach. After reviewing, the theories of these two figures are relevant for interpreting the law. This paper uses a critical paradigm with a combination of normative or doctrinal and sociological or non-doctrinal approaches. The results showed that Hans Kelsen directed his mind that legal positivism considers moral speech, values are finished and final when it comes to the formation of positive law. Pure Legal Theory is not a perfect copy of transcendental ideas, but it does not try to see the law as a posterity of justice. While Rahardjo's progressive law rests on the aspects of rules and behavior. Regulations will build a positive and rational legal system. While the behavioral or human aspects will drive the rules and systems that are built.</p><p> </p><p>Tujuan penulisan ini adalah untuk membandingkan dan mengevaluasi pemikiran Hans Kelsen dengan Satjipto Raharjo. Keduanya menawarkan teori masing-masing, yaitu teori hukum murni Hans Kelsen dan hukum progresif Satjipto Rahardjo. Dalam teori ini, keduanya sama-sama mendasarkan pendekatan secara filosif. Setelah dikaji, teori dari kedua tokoh ini relevan untuk memaknai hukum. Tulisan ini menggunakan paradigima kritis dengan pendekatan kombinasi normatif atau doktrinal dan sosiologis atau non doktrinal. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa Hans Kelsen lebih mengarahkan pikirannya bahwa positivisme hukum yang menganggap pembicaraan moral, nilai-nilai telah selesai dan final manakala sampai pada pembentukan hukum positif. Teori Hukum Murni bukanlah salinan ide transendental yang sempurna, namun tidak berusaha memandang hukum sebagai anak cucu keadilan. Sementara hukum progresifnya Rahardjo bertumpu pada aspek peraturan dan perilaku (rules and behavior). Peraturan akan membangun suatu sistem hukum positif yang logis dan rasional. Sedangkan aspek perilaku atau manusia akan menggerakkan peraturan dan sistem yang dibangun. </p>


2011 ◽  
Vol 11 (Edsus) ◽  
Author(s):  
H Mustaghfirin

West Legal System follow the philosophy of legal positivism values conflict with the noble values of the Indonesian nation, so there Gab between the law and people of Indonesia are regulated, System of Customary Law in the values of certain indigenous communities whose territory reached 350 indigenous territories, and can only be believed by public socialized habits, and can not be validated as a national law, and Islam as the Legal System is based on the attributes of God as "Asmaul Husna" and diamalkan believed by the majority of individuals nationwide Indonesian society and tolerance of permanent values believed by minority groups in Indonesia, therefore the system of Islamic law that allows a system of national law in accordance with the personality of the Indonesian nation and not betentangan with the values of Pancasila. Keywords   :  Western Legal System, system of customary law, islamic legal system, the national legal system, perspective of legal philosophy, harmony.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesca Fiorentini

Abstract The article analyses the many actors and initiatives that, in the last decades, have pursued the goal of worldwide harmonization of secured transaction laws, scrutinizing the achievements and the limits of these experiments. In light of such results, the article also outlines the methodological contribution that comparative law can offer to legal change in the sector of secured transactions law, by way of confronting positive law models with meta-legal elements such as culture, society, economy, law-making processes, and geopolitics.


Author(s):  
Vera A. Iliukhina

Based on the understanding of the doctrinal principles of law as socially significant ideas formulated by scientists, practitioners, politicians in scientific works and other texts, as well as in public speeches and have not found a normative consolidation, the peculiarities of the doctrinal principles of law are highlighted. It is proposed to delimit the doctrinal principles of law from legal axioms and normatively enshrined principles of law (principles of positive law). The similarity between the doctrinal principles of law and legal axioms is that they are ideas. It is substantiated that their differences lie in the fact that legal axioms are always ideas that are socially important and tested by historical experience, and doctrinal principles can be absolutely any, including new ones, coinciding or not coinciding with the needs of society; doctrinal principles are always not normatively fixed (this is their main specific feature), and legal axioms may or may not have normative consolidation. The main differences between doctrinal and normatively enshrined principles of law are highlighted. Three ways are established for the implementation of doctrinal ideas to the level of sectoral, inter-sectoral or general legal principles. The position is substantiated that doctrinal principles have enormous social significance and play an important role in the legal system of Russia, since are the basis for innovative changes in law, are a driving force for the development of legislation, based on the level of development of scientific knowledge and the needs of society in a specific historical period.


Author(s):  
Nan Gong ◽  
I. I. Fedorov

The formation of the Russian procedural legal system is closely connected with its unique historical evolution. Russian Russian culture According to the Norman theory of the origin of the Russian nation, the Scandinavian culture is the most important source of early Russian culture. During the chaotic period of the tribe at the stage of primitive society, the Norman Varian was invited to Russia to reconcile the tribes of Russia and manage them, and this brought the Germanic custom to regulate the socio-economic and legal relations of various tribes. Since the formation of the ancient state of Russia, the ruling class has constantly strengthened the drafting of new laws and regulations, but customary law still dominates the legal system of the state. At the same time, ordinary norms in the system of customary law as a quasi-legal norm between morality and law have become an integral organic component of social customs and norms at all stages of Russian social development.During the period of Ancient Russia, the common custom of the Slavic people and the Norman Customary Law had a profound impact on the social life of ancient Russia. From the beginning of the 9th to the 17th century, customary law existed as the main legal source for regulating social relations in the late period of the development of Russian primitive society and in the earlier time of feudal society. His coercive force was based on the conviction that was widespread in the social community during this period, that is, "existing customs denote a reasonable basis". With the formation of the East Slavic state, the rulers began to work on drafting new legal norms, but inheritance is still mainly based on customs based on the clan system. As a result, as a rule of conduct recognized and guaranteed by the state, traditional customs gradually acquired a legal nature, and after that, positive law was formed. "Russkaya Pravda" is the most representative legal collection in the early years of the Russian feudal society, "The Truth of Ross", which was compiled according to the customs of the Eastern Slavs, and is the very fi rst positive law of ancient Russia.Before the appearance of formal law, customary law always played a role and coercive force as legislation, but the self-defense and insane methods of revenge obtained from it also caused social unrest. In order to stop personal self-defense and self-arbitrariness, as well as to strengthen ties between different regions, it is necessary to use the power of common law to unite the Principality into a whole. Although the new law does not exclude the original good customary norms, if there are no necessary penalties for violations, it will be destructive for the law. Therefore, it is necessary to give customary law a legal meaning and a compelling force, without changing the existing content of customary law.I must say that the German customs and the traditional customs of the Slavic people are intertwined in the historical codifi cation of Russian procedural law, forming a unique historical path of development of the procedural legal system of ancient Russia. Although national customs were recognized by the state in the form of positive law with the help of " Russian Truth”, and became the norm of justice and social norm on the basis of the guarantee of national coercive force, but this did not change the essence of customary law, but the form of positive law was given to it. As the modernization of the Russian judicial system moves into modern times, generations of legislators and lawyers are focusing on the study of national legal traditions and history, trying to discover the natural laws governing the development of the Russian legal system, and are constantly trying to make progress in the modern and modern process of judicial reform. The harmony of legislation, the borrowing of laws and national customs to a certain extent ensured a reasonable adjustment of national laws and norms of customary law.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document