Judicial Comparativism and Legal Positivism

A Companion to Legal Positivism, 2020

This essay traces a thematic thread through broadly Anglophone legal philosophy since the seventeenth century. Ownership of the title “positivism” is contested in contemporary Anglophone jurisprudence. If we to take the core theses embraced by contemporary legal positivists to identify the key figures in their tradition the story would be very brief, starting, perhaps, with Hart. Hence, rather than tracing a line of development of a coherent jurisprudential tradition, this essay sketches in broad outlines the transformation of Anglophone legal philosophy since Hobbes. However, it begins with a brief discussion of the headwaters of Anglophone positivist tradition in the “thetic” tradition of legal theory in late medieval jurisprudence and in the practice and theory of English common law and ends with a discussion of Salmond and other twentieth-century jurists who paved the way for Hart’s contemporary version of legal positivism.

SSRN Electronic Journal, 2017

The aim of this article is to see whether we can account for the normativity of law within the framework of legal positivism and whether the idea of a social convention could be of help in this endeavour. I argue, inter alia, that we should distinguish between (α) the problem of accounting for the normativity of law, conceived as a necessary property of law, and (β) the problem of accounting for the use of normative legal language on the part of legal actors; that the debate about the normativity of law, which mainly concerns (α), is more or less identical to the debate between legal positivists and non-positivists; that one cannot account for the normativity of law, conceived along the lines of (α), within the framework of legal positivism, and that the question of the normativity of law considered within the framework of legal positivism is not an open question.

2003

Kaarlo Tuori, professor of law, judge, and counsellor to the Constitutional Committee of the Finnish Parliament, has embarked on an ambitious project. He aims to build on the positivism of Kelsen and Hart, but to discover a normative justification of law which goes beyond their limited validity claims. This is the 'critical' element which he adds to 'legal positivism'. Kelsen's basic norm and Hart's rule of recognition are irreducible underlying principles. The arbitrary nature of such principles is intellectually suspect, while their internal self referentiality renders them morally sterile. The law is the law -because we recognise it as such or because it is founded on the basic norm -and as such it is valid. This leads to a lack of critical purchase, which is the fundamental drawback of positivism when confronted by natural law or other ethically based theories. Classical mid-twentieth century positivism offers no ethical foundation outside the declared law from which we may criticise unjust laws.

Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence

Legal positivists maintain that the legality of a rule is fundamentally determined by social facts. Yet for much of legal history, ordinary officials used legal terminology in ways that seem inconsistent with positivism. Judges regularly cited, analyzed, and predicated their decisions on the 'laws of justice' which they claimed had universal legal import. This practice, though well-documented by historians, has received surprisingly little philosophical attention; I argue that it invites explanation from positivists. After taxonomizing the positivist's explanatory options, I suggest that the most viable option appeals to conceptual change: classical Romans, early modern Europeans, founding-era Americans were not using 'law' (or 'lex' or 'jus') to refer to the subject matter of contemporary legal philosophy. But the strategy is costly. It renders positivism's truth surprisingly parochial. And it supplies new reasons for doubting positivist accounts of contemporary practices, including the treatment of moral principles in modern adjudication.

Oxford Journal of Legal Studies , 2023

This article examines the jurisprudential arguments elaborated in David Dyzenhaus's The Long Arc of Legality. In particular, it looks into the main claim of the book: that the fact of 'very unjust laws' is central to illuminating the idea of law's authority, the elaboration of which Dyzenhaus takes to be the purpose of legal theory. The article analyses Dyzenhaus's own normative proposal in this matter, which consists of a version of legal positivism committed to Lon Fuller's principles of the internal morality of law, with the corollary of a conception of the judicial role as bound to a duty to apply these internal principles of legality when exercising their main function. While I cast some doubts on the feasibility of constructing the judge's function that way, in the end I celebrate Dyzenhaus's attempt at refining legal positivism's identity, especially in light of the ongoing debate with contemporary anti-positivism.

2021

In this thesis, I discuss and evaluate five theories of jurisprudence explaining how each one answers two central questions. The first, the Grounding Question, asks what it is that makes something a law. The second question, the Normative Question, asks why it is that laws ought to be followed. I use these questions to establish four desiderata for a theory of jurisprudence: a satisfactory theory must answer the Grounding Question and explain its answer, and it must do the same for the Normative Question. The five theories fall into two historically opposed categorizations: legal positivism and natural law theory. In section 2, I explain three positivist and two natural law theories, highlighting how each answers the central questions. In section 3, I discuss two more desiderata that help to explain some of the motivations for holding each view. Finally, in section 4, I compare each theory’s answer to the central questions. I find that while each theory has a satisfactory answer to ...

In this article, I distinguish between a moral and a strictly legal conception of legal normativity, and argue that legal positivists can account for law's normativity in the strictly legal but not in the moral sense, while pointing out that normativity in the former sense is of little interest, at least to lawyers. I add, however, that while the moral conception of law's normativity is to be preferred to the strictly legal conception from the rather narrow viewpoint of the study of law's normativity, it is less attractive than the latter from the broader viewpoint of the study of the nature of law. I then distinguish between a moral and a strictly legal conception of the normative force of legal justification, and argue that legal positivists may without contradiction embrace the moral conception, and that therefore the analysis of the normative force of legal justification need not be a problem for legal positivists. I conclude that, on the whole, we have reason to prefer legal positivism to natural law theory. I begin by introducing the subject of jurisprudence (section 1). I then introduce the natural law/legal positivism debate, suggesting that we ought to understand it as a debate about the proper way to explicate the concept of law (section 2). I proceed to argue that legal decision-making is a matter of applying legal norms to facts, and that syllogistic reasoning plays a prominent role in legal decision-making thus conceived (section 3). Having done that, I discuss law's normativity (section 4), the normative force of legal justification (section 5), and the relation between the former and the latter (section 6). I conclude with a critical comment on Joseph Raz' understanding of the question of law's normativity (appendix).

Isonomia Revista, 2021

Taking as its starting point María Cristina Redondo's book Positivismo jurídico "interno", this article proposes an alternative conception of normativist legal positivism. The article argues that legal theory can be neutral to the extent that it is intersubjective and transparent regarding its own metaphysical premises. On the one hand, thus, the article aims to shed light on the role of metaphysics and common sense in the construction of the concept of law. On the other hand, it seeks to make more transparent the ethical-political choices that constitute legal discourses, including theoretical ones. To pursue these goals the article first analyzes Redondo's theses on the ontology / epistemology distinction and the possibility of objective knowledge, and advances the idea that inter-subjectivity, and not objectivity, should be the appropriate criterion for normativist legal positivism. Second, the article examines the role of normativity in normativist legal positivism, focusing on the metaphysical nature of the thesis that law belongs to the fields of normativity and practical reason. The following sections then discuss reductionist and anti-reductionist conceptions of legal "entities" (norms, normative statements, propositions, and beliefs) and the theory of legal sources. The final section addresses the question of the axiological neutrality of legal theory and discusses the possibility of describing participants' internal point of view without committing to existing legal practice(s).

Oxford University Press eBooks, 2007

It has become increasingly popular to argue that legal positivism is actually a normative theory, and that it cannot be purely descriptive and morally neutral as H.L.A. Hart has suggested. This article purports to disprove this line of thought. It argues that legal positivism is best understood as a descriptive, morally neutral, theory about the nature of law. The article distinguishes between five possible views about the relations between normative claims and legal positivism, arguing that some of them are not at odds with Hart's thesis about the nature of jurisprudence, while the others are wrong, both as expositions of legal positivism or as critiques of it. Legal positivism does not necessarily purport to justify any aspect of its subject matter, nor is it committed to any particular moral or political evaluations.

2009

This paper deals with the possibility of faultless disagreement in law. And it does looking for other spheres in which faultless disagreement seems possible, mainly the matters of taste and the ethical matters. Three possible accounts are explored: the realist account, the relativist account, and the expressivist account. The paper tries to show that in the case of legal disagreements there is a place for an approach able to take into account our intuitions in the sense that legal disagreements are genuine disagreements and, sometimes, these disagreements are faultless.