The Acceptance of a Legal System

1990 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 81-106
Author(s):  
Roger A. Shiner
Keyword(s):  
Political Theory ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Natural Law ◽  
Legal Theory ◽  
Legal Positivism ◽  
Separation Thesis ◽  
Natural Law Theory ◽  
The Right ◽  
Independent Account

The interest of political theory in the acceptance of law is obvious. If one believes that a regime is legitimate only if it governs with the consent of the governed, then the notion of acceptance is deeply linked with the notion of legitimacy, a fundamental concern of political theory. The interest of legal theory in the notion of acceptance is less obvious. I construe it to arise in the following way. One central tradition in legal theory is that of positivistic or content-independent theories of law. Positivism, crudely speaking, is characterized by some form of the Separation Thesis—that the existence of law is one thing and its merit or demerit another. But if it is important for positivistic legal theory to mark the separation of law and the merits of law, then it must also be important to mark the separation between law and the acceptance of law. The existence of law must be one thing and its acceptance as meritorious another. In deference to the separation of existence and merit, positivism tries to find a content-independent account of the validity of law. Equally, in deference to the separation of law and acceptance, positivism tries to find a content-independent account of the acceptance of law. The topic of this paper is whether the separation of law and the acceptance of law is possible. I shall try to suggest, in service of a non-positivistic or content-dependent approach to law, that this separation is not possible. I will attempt to argue on the basis of points which legal positivism itself has acknowledged to form valid constraints on any theory of acceptance. My ambitious thesis is that positivism has presented us with the reasons for rejecting it. Even if that thesis is not made out, I have a less ambitious thesis which I am confident of securing, that the demand for an account of law which permits law to be accepted ‘for any reason whatever’ is not a theoryneutral demand which might decide between positivism and natural law theory. Rather, it is an expression of a prior commitment to positivism. It is the familiar demand of natural law theory that the convergence of attitudes towards law which makes for acceptance of law must be a convergence for the right kind of reasons; ones that have to do with the value of law.

On the Artifactual—and Natural— Character of Legal Institutions

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Corrado Roversi
Keyword(s):  
Natural Law ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Legal Positivism ◽  
Legal Institutions ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Legal Realism ◽  
Natural Law Theory ◽  
The Law ◽  
Theory Of Law

Are legal institutions artifacts? If artifacts are conceived as entities whose existence depends on human beings, then yes, legal institutions are, of course, artifacts. But an artifact theory of law makes a stronger claim, namely, that there is actually an explanatory gain to be had by investigating legal institutions as artifacts, or through the features of ordinary artifacts. This is the proposition explored in this chapter: that while this understanding of legal institutions makes it possible to find common ground between legal positivism and legal realism, it does not capture all of the insights offered by these two traditions. An artifact theory of law can therefore be necessary in explaining the law, but it will not suffice to that end. This chapter also posits that legal artifacts bear a relevant connection to certain conceptions of nature, thus vindicating one of the original insights behind natural law theory.

scholarly journals THE LAST WOLF. THOMAS HOBBES’ PHILOSOPHY OF CRIME AND PUNISHMENT

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 75-127
Author(s):  
Silvia Alves
Keyword(s):  
Political Science ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Legal Theory ◽  
Thomas Hobbes ◽  
Modern Theory ◽  
Judicial Discretion ◽  
Crime And Punishment ◽  
Ex Post ◽  
Ex Post Facto ◽  
The Right

This article draws a reconstruction of Thomas Hobbes’ philosophy of crime and punishment. In Leviathan or Philosophical rudiments (De Cive) political science, legal theory and philosophy of crime and punishment compose a coherent unity. This scenario where power and law emerge allows to erect an extraordinarily modern theory that shelters preference for statutory law and suspicion of judicial discretion; consistency and predictability of the legal system; preventism and utilitarianism on punishments; prohibition of ex post facto laws and, in general, defense of strict legality. Boldness and the disconcerting frankness of Hobbes’ thinking coexist with some defiant antinomies. The duty to obey never eclipses the inalienable right to self-preservation. And the theorist of absolute sovereignty can present himself as an unexpected liberal. But perhaps the most disturbing is the permanent reminder that punishment remains brutal violence. The right to punish and the right to resist are the brutal remains of the state of nature.

scholarly journals General Principles of EU Law: The Ghost in the Platonic Heaven in Need of Conceptual Clarification

2013 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Constanze Semmelmann
Keyword(s):  
Natural Law ◽  
General Principle ◽  
Legal Theory ◽  
Legal Positivism ◽  
Legal Philosophy ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Conceptual Clarification

General principles are en vogue in EU law – and in need of conceptual clarification. A closer look at several concepts of principle in legal philosophy and legal theory sheds light upon the concept of general principles in EU law. A distinction between an aprioristic model of principle and a model of principle informed by legal positivism may contribute to clarifying the genesis of a (general) principle in EU law, as well as its nature and functions. This paper demonstrates that an evolution has taken place from a reliance on seemingly natural law inspired reflections of general principles via the desperate search to ground general principles in various kinds of sources based on a more or less sound methodology  towards an increasing reliance on strictly positivistic approaches. Against this backdrop, general principles are likely to lose significance where there are other norms while retaining an important yet uncontrollable role where the traditional canon of sources is silent.

The Sources of Law[121]

2019 ◽  
pp. 89-126
Author(s):  
Alf Ross
Keyword(s):  
Legal System ◽  
Legal Theory ◽  
Legal Positivism ◽  
Cultural Tradition ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
Legal Rules ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Realist Perspective

This chapter identifies the ideology of the sources of law in the sense of determining the general sources through which judges form their beliefs about the validity of individual legal rules. In accordance with the norm-descriptive perspective, the focus is on identifying the ideology of the sources of law that is actually held by judges. As part of scientifically valid law, the ideology of the sources of law varies from one legal system to another. The task for general legal theory can therefore only consist in stating and characterizing certain general types of sources of law, which experience tells us are found in all well-developed legal systems where they are found to determine how courts proceed in their search for the norms on which they base their decision. This chapter identifies four such sources of law and considers the degree of objectification or positivization possessed by each of these types of sources. Specifically, it discusses the completely objectivized type of source: authoritative formulations (legislation in its widest sense); and the partially objectivized types of source: precedent and custom; and the non-objectivized, ‘free’ type of source: ‘cultural tradition’ or ‘the nature of the matter’. Countenancing the latter as a scientifically valid source of law, is further argued to highlight the difference between the author’s legal realist perspective and the formalist perspective characteristic of legal positivism.

Natural Law

2019 ◽  
pp. 174-203
Author(s):  
Lenn E. Goodman
Keyword(s):  
Natural Law ◽  
Legal Theory ◽  
Natural Theology ◽  
Human Freedom ◽  
Naturalistic Fallacy ◽  
Legal Positivism ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Theology And Science ◽  
Great Tradition

Natural law links moral and legal theory with natural theology and science. It is critical to thinking about God’s sovereignty and human freedom. Tracing the roots of the natural law idea, I defend the approach against conventionalism and legal positivism. For they leave human norms ungrounded. Chapter 7 opens by disarming Hume’s elenchus about ‘is’ and ‘ought’. I do not deny the reality of a naturalistic fallacy, but I do argue that facts make rightful claims on us and that the unity of reality and value central to Jewish thinking and to the philosophical great tradition does not confuse facts with values but does appreciate the preciousness of being—of life and personhood most pointedly. Once again here transcendence consorts with immanence. For we find God’s law writ subtly in nature, not least when we discover what it means to perfect ourselves as loving and creative human beings.

4. Modern legal positivism

2020 ◽  
pp. 97-141
Author(s):  
Raymond Wacks
Keyword(s):  
Legal System ◽  
Legal Theory ◽  
Good Deal ◽  
Legal Positivism ◽  
Hans Kelsen ◽  
Joseph Raz ◽  
Legal Positivist ◽  
Linguistic Philosophy

This chapter explores the works of some of the leading exponents of contemporary legal positivism: H. L. A. Hart, Hans Kelsen, Joseph Raz, Jules Coleman, Scott Shapiro, and others. Hart staked out the borders of modern legal theory by applying the techniques of analytical (and especially linguistic) philosophy to the study of law. Kelsen may be the least understood and most misrepresented of all legal theorists. To the extent that he insisted on the separation of law and morals, what ‘is’ (sein) and what ‘ought to be’ (sollen), Kelsen may legitimately be characterized as a legal positivist, but he is a good deal more. Raz argues that the identity and existence of a legal system may be tested by reference to three elements: efficacy, institutional character, and sources. Thus, law is autonomous: we can identify its content without recourse to morality.

scholarly journals Hart's Methodological Positivism

Legal Theory ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 427-467 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen R. Perry
Keyword(s):  
General Theory ◽  
Natural Law ◽  
Legal Theory ◽  
Legal Positivism ◽  
Social Phenomenon ◽  
Modern Times ◽  
Theory Of Law ◽  
Michael Moore

To understand H.L.A. Hart's general theory of law, it is helpful to distinguish between substantive and methodological legal positivism. Substantive legal positivism is the view that there is no necessary connection between morality and the content of law. Methodological legal positivism is the view that legal theory can and should offer a normatively neutral description of a particular social phenomenon, namely law. Methodological positivism holds, we might say, not that there is no necessary connection between morality and law, but rather that there is no connection, necessary or otherwise, between morality and legal theory. The respective claims of substantive and methodological positivism are, at least on the surface, logically independent. Hobbes and Bentham employed normative methodologies to defend versions of substantive positivism, and in modern times Michael Moore has developed what can be regarded as a variant of methodological positivism to defend a theory of natural law.

scholarly journals GROUNDS OF LAW AND LEGAL THEORY: A Response

Legal Theory ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 13 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 315-344 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Finnis
Keyword(s):  
Natural Law ◽  
Common Good ◽  
Legal Theory ◽  
Moral Judgments ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Sound Theory ◽  
Questions And Answers ◽  
The Face ◽  
Natural Law Theory ◽  
Good For

Linking theses of Plato, Wittgenstein, and Weber, section I argues that identification of central cases and settling of focal meanings depend upon the theorist's purpose(s) and, in the case of theory about human affairs—theory adequately attentive to the four irreducible orders in which human persons live and act—upon the purposes for which we intelligibly and intelligently act. Among these purposes, primacy (centrality) is to be accorded (by acknowledgement, not fiat) to purposes which are, as best the theorist can judge, reasonable and fit to be adopted by anyone, the theorist included. Section II defends the reasonableness (and hence entitlement to universal assent) of practical and moral judgments, against Michael Perry's ultimately nihilist claims that egoism's challenge to moral normativity has gone unanswered and that “reason for A” does not entail “reason for” anyone else. Section III takes up Steven Smith's suggestion that such subjectivism is encouraged by the talk in Natural Law and Natural Rights of “pursuing goods,” talk which (he argues) is individualistic and neglectful of (other) persons, inimical to an understanding of friendship, and impotent in the face of egoism. Here as elsewhere the key is to grasp that understanding any basic or intrinsic human good is to understand it as good for anyone like me and thus—since as I instantiate and embody a universal, viz. human being—as a good common to (good for) anyone and everyone. Section IV argues that common good (which includes respect for human rights, and the Rule of Law) gives reason for exercise and acceptance of authority, and for allegiance, even (and in a sense, especially) in time of breakdown. Section V argues that natural law theory is no more dependent on affirming God's existence than any other theory is, in any of the four orders of theory, but equally that is not safe for atheists. For, like any other sound theory, it suggests and is consistent with questions and answers about its grounds, in this case about the source of its normativity and of the human nature that its normative universals presuppose and affirm; and the answers are those argued for, too abstemiously, in the last chapter of NLNR and, more adequately, in the equivalent chapter of Aquinas.

Choosing a Legal Theory on Moral Grounds

1986 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-48 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip Soper
Keyword(s):  
Natural Law ◽  
Moral Theory ◽  
Legal Theory ◽  
Moral Authority ◽  
Legal Positivism ◽  
The Other ◽  
Law And Morality ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Practical Implications

I. INTRODUCTIONTwenty-five years is roughly the time that has elapsed since the exchange between H. L. A. Hart and Lon Fuller and the subsequent revival in this country of the natural law/positivism debate. During this time, a curious thing has happened to legal positivism. What began as a conceptual theory about the distinction between law and morality has now been turned, at least by some, into a moral theory. According to this theory, the reason we must see law and morality as separate is not (at least not entirely) because of the logic of our language, but because of the practical implications of holding one or the other of the two traditional views in this area. The natural law theorist, it is said, can connect law and morality only at the cost of investing official directives with undeserved moral authority, thus encouraging obedience where there should be none. The natural law position should therefore be rejected – and the positivist's accepted – on moral grounds.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document