General Legal Theory

2014

ON PHILOSOPHISING AND THEORISING IN LAW LEGAL PHILOSOPHY, LEGAL THEORY – AND THE FUTURE OF THEORETICAL LEGAL THOUGHT [2006] 11–26: 1. Questioning and Knowing 11 / 2. Law and Philosophy [2.1. Law and Philosophical Wisdom 12 / 2.2. Appearances of Modern Formal Law 14 / 2.3. Differentiation in Complexity 16] 3. Conclusions [3.1. Legal Philosophising Reduced to Discourse-reconstruction 17 / 3.2. The Query for Natural Law Unresolved 19 / 3.3. Positive Law – without Legal Positivism? 23] 4. On What the Stake is 26 // LEGAL ONTOLOGY [1999] 27–30 // LAW AND HISTORY: ON THE HISTORICAL APPROACH TO LAW [1999] 31–35 // LAW AS HISTORY? [1986] 36–47: 1. Understandings of the Term ‘Law’ 36 / 2. Law and History [2.1. Law as Instrument 38 / 2.2. Law as Culture42] 3. Law as History 43 // VALIDITY [1999] 48–61: 1. Notions of Validity 48 / 2. Understandings of Validity 49 / 3. Statism and Dynamism of Law 54 / 4. Validity and the Realm outside the Law 55 / 5. Dissolution of the Notion of Validity? 58 // EX POST FACTO LEGISLATION [1999] 62–65 ON CONCEPTUALISING BY LOGIFYING THE LAW RULE AND/OR NORM: ON THE CONCEPTUALISABILITY AND LOGIFIABILITY OF LAW [2003] 69–78: 1. Rule/Norm 69 / 2. Origins and Contexture 70 / 3. With Varied Denotations 73 / 4. Norms Exclusively in Civil Law Rechtsdogmatik 74 / 5. Ambivalence in Language Use 77 // LEGAL LOGIC AND THE INTERNAL CONTRADICTION OF LAW [2004] 79–86: 1. Legal Logic 79 / 2. The Internal Contradiction of Law 83 // THE QUEST FOR FORMALISM IN LAW: IDEALS OF SYSTEMICITY AND AXIOMATISABILITY BETWEEN UTOPIANISM AND HEURISTIC ASSERTION [1973] 87–123: I. Systemicity [1. Form and Content {1.1. In Arts and Law 88 / 1.2. In German Philosophy 90} 2. Systemicity and Axiomatic Approach {2.1. The Idea of System and the Law-codes 95 / 2.2. Early Modern Times 97 / 2.3. Recent Times 100 / 2.4. Drawbacks in Philosophy104}] II. Axiomatism [3. The Want of Axiomatisability {3.1. From Deductivity to Axiomatisation 105 / 3.2. Futile Approximations at the Most 106 / 3.3. Lack of Deductivity in the Law’s Deep Structure112} 4. The Heuristic Value of an Ideal {4.1. Cases of N/A 113 / 4.2. Cases of Correlation 114} 5. Conclusion: Ideals and the Dialectics of Substantivity 122 // LAW AND ITS DOCTRINAL STUDY (ON LEGAL DOGMATICS) [2006] 124–175: I. The Doctrinal Study of Law [1. Legal Dogmatics in a Science-theoretical Perspective 124 / 2. The Process of Advancing Conceptualisation 128 / 3. Ideality versus Practicality in Legal Systemicity 133 / 4. Conceptualisation, Systematisation, Dogmatisation 135 / 5. Rules and Principles in Law 140 / 6. Correlation between Legal Cultures and Legal Theories 141 / 7. Theoretical and Socio-philosophical Perspectives143] II. Inquiry into the Nature of Doctrinal Studies in Law [a) Legal Dogmatics 147 / b) Non-conceptualised Traditions in Law 149 / c) The Stand of Law and of its Dogmatics 154] III. ‘Law’, ‘Science of Law’, ‘Science’ 157 [1. Critical Positions {a) Ad Mátyás Bódig ‘Doctrinal Study of Law and Jurisprudence’ 158 / b) Ad Tamás Győrfy ‘The Conceptual System of Law and the Dogmatics of Motivations’ 169 / c) Ad Péter Cserne ‘The Doctrinal Study of Law versus Policy’ 172} 2. In an Onto-epistemological Perspective 174] ON FORMS AND SUBSTANCE IN LAW STRUCTURES IN LEGAL SYSTEMS: ARTIFICIALITY, RELATIVITY, AND INTERDEPENDENCY OF STRUCTURING ELEMENTS IN A PRACTICAL (HERMENEUTICAL) CONTEXT [2001] 179–188: 1. Theoretical Background 179 / 2. Foundations of Structuring Challenged 181 / 3. Is there a Structure had? 184 / 4. Structuring as a Meta-construct 186 // GOALS AND MEANS IN LAW [2003] 189–201: 1. The Neutrality of Techniques 189 / 2. John Paul II [2.1. On Personhood, his Goods, and Law 191 / 2.2. On Person, Family, and Nation 196] 3. Artificiality and Antithetical Developments in Law 198 // LAW, ETHICS, ECONOMY: INDEPENDENT PATHS OR SHARED WAYS? [2004] 202–215: 1. “Cynical Acid” in the Foundation of Modern Formal Law 202 / 2. Example: Perspectives for Curing Malpractice in Law 205 / 3. Clash between Europeanism and Americanism 207 / 4. A Search for Reason and Systemicity 211 / 5. Ethics in Economy 213 // TOWARDS AN AUTONOMOUS LEGAL POLICY [1984] 216–221: 1. Relationship between Politics and Law 216 / 2. Legal Policy as a Mediator 218 / 3. Legal Scholarship, Legal Policy, and the Law on Law 219 / 4. Demand for an Autonomous Legal Policy 221 ON PROCESSES OF LAW THE JUDICIAL BLACK-BOX AND THE RULE OF LAW IN THE CONTEXT OF EUROPEAN UNIFICATION AND GLOBALISATION [2008] 225–242: I. Basic Issues in the Understanding of Law [1. Normativism and Legal Reality (Re)Construction 225 / 2. The Insufficiency of the Law Enacted 227 / 3. Duplicity of the Ontological Reconstruction of Judicial Process 227 / 4. The Law as Rule and the Law as Culture 231 / 5. Complementation by the Law’s Self-resolution in Post Modernism 232 / 6. The Metaphoric Nature of the Term ‘Law’ 234 / 7. Added Queries for the European and International Rule of Law 235] II. Questions to be Raised by Legal Arrangements Individually [8. Law as Subsistence and Law as Conventionalisation 236 / 9. Dilemmas of the Law Exhaustively Embodied by Texts, Thoroughly Conceptualised and Logified 237 / 10. Conservatio/novatio, ius strictum / ius aequum, generalisatio/exceptio, and the Moment of Decision 238] III. The Circle of Legal Arrangements to be Involved in the Investigation 240 [11. Cultures and Traditions to be Investigated 241] IV. Purpose and Impact of Investigations [12. The Tasks’ Horizons 241] DOCTRINE AND TECHNIQUE IN LAW [2002] 243–262: 1. Law, Legal Policy and Legal Technique 243 / 2. Formalism and Anti-formalism 245 / 3. Law as Potentiality and Actualisation 246 / 4. Example: Constitutional Adjudication 248 / 5. Legal Imaginability 251 / 6. Linguistic Mediation 254 / 7. Rechtsdogmatik 256 / 8. Clauses and Principles 258 / 9. With Safety Velvets Built in 260 // THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LAW: ON THE MAGICAL ROLE OF LEGAL TECHNIQUE [2006] 263–286: 1. Legal Formalism in a Practical Context 263 / 2. Magic in Law: Culture and Mediation 268 / 3. Legal Conceivability and its Limits 270 / 4. One Langugage, Unlabelled 272 / 5. Formalisation and De-formalisation: Principles as Safety Velves 276 / 6. Within Given Cultural Bounds 278 / 7. Kelsenian Re-interpretation: Law Getting Defined in Society 282 / 8. A Closed/Open Systemic Response 284 // LAW, UNDERSTANDING OF LAW, APPLICATION OF LAW (A SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENTS IN THIRTY-SIX PARAGRAPHS) [2007] 287–303: I. Classical Heritage [1. Continental Law 287 / 2. Anglo-Saxon Law 291] II. Reality in our Approach to Law [1. As Professional Deontology 293 / 2. In its Theoretical Explanation 294] III. The Complexity of our Legal World Concept [1. The Complexity of Civil Law Mentality 301 / 2. The Complexity of Common Law Mentality 301] IV. With Humans in the Legal Machinery 302 APPENDIX: LEGAL THEORISING: AN UNRECOGNISED NEED FOR PRACTICING THE EUROPEAN LAW [2009] 307–354: 1. Introduction: Queries in European and Global Perspectives 307 / 2. Basic Issues [2.1. Human Refinement 310 / 2.2. The Westphalian Heritage of State Law and International Law 313 / 2.3. The Place of European Law 315] 3. Analogies [3.1. Solar System with Planets 319 / 3.2. Pre-modernity, Modernity, Post-modernity 320] 4. The Structural Pattern of the European Law [4.1. Legal Culture of the European Union 322 / 4.2. Implementing a Grand-System Functioning 328 / 4.3. With Legal Pluralism? 330] 5. Theoretical Model of the Operation of European Law [5.1. Multipolarity with Centripetality and Centrifugality 333 / 5.2. Order, Out of Chaos 336 / 5.3. Practical Continuum in a Standing Flux 342 / 5.4. Activated by Nations 347] 6. Conclusions for Practicing the European Law [6.1. The Ethos of the Tasks 349 / 6.2. For Reaching an Own Future, Thanks to Own Efforts 351] Index of Subjects 355 / Index of Normative Materials 362 / Index 364

2018

Course description The aim of the seminar is to problematize law in socio-legal and multidisciplinary approaches and to trace "law in action" beyond the static and descriptive dimension of legislations. Locating law in its socio-temporal context and considering the legal phenomena as a multi-layered dynamic process, the seminar intends to explore the complex relationship between law, legal institutions and socio-historical dynamics and to problematize law within the social landscape and the particular cultural settings in which it emerges in relation to a variety of social actors. As Christopher Tomlins argues, the project of situating law in its socio-temporal context engenders an almost infinite set of relationships for examination. Normative approaches investigating law only understand it within the narrow context of legal reforms and are far from reflecting the intellectual and epistemological process, which preceded the ultimate form of legislations. After introducing the major theories on the sociology of law, the seminar intends and to explore law as a social product. Without leaving aside the making of state laws and other forms of normativity, the epistemological dimension of the seminar will focus on law in all its variety, in the form of ideas, ways of reasoning, doctrines, legal and cultural transfers, and more importantly as a subject of legal science and will analyze the role of education and social movements in the development of legal thought. Such an approach to law also opens a productive dialogue between neighboring disciplines, law, history and sociology and offers an empirical laboratory through historical case studies. The seminar will privilege the Ottoman/Turkish geographical space in relation to Europe without neglecting a global context. The time frame will mainly cover the nineteenth century. The seminar will contextualize law within historical momentums and global movements (such as constitutionalism, dynamics of revolutions, etc.) and will address issues such as legal pluralism and imperialism. The various themes of this seminar will also overlap with those of imperial history.

2014

Foreword [1994] 1–4 LAW AS PRACTICE QUELQUES QUESTIONS MÉTHODOLOGIQUES DE LA FORMATION DES CONCEPTS EN SCIENCES JURIDIQUES [1970] 7–33: 1. Introduction 7 / 2. La particularité de l’objet des sciences juridiques 8 / 3. La particularité de la méthodologie des sciences juridiques 10 / 4. La particularité de la formation des concepts en sciences juridiques: Quelques problèmes 15 [4.1. Le concept du droit 16 / 4.2. Le concept dogmatique du contenu du droit 21 / 4.3. Le concept de la normativité juridique 23 / 4.4. Le concept des lacunes en droit 24] / 5. La particularité de la formation des concepts en sciencesjuridiques: Quelques conclusions 26 / 6. La formation des concepts en sciences juridiques et la réalité: Conclusion finale 29 / 7. Annexe: Des bases d’une classification possible des définitions en sciences juridiques 31 // GELTUNG DES RECHTS – WIRKSAMKEIT DES RECHTS [1978] 35–42 // MACROSOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES OF LAW: A SURVEY AND APPRAISAL [1983] 43–76: I. Issues of the Macrosociological Theories of Law 46 / II. The Role of the Macrosociological Theories in the Social Science Foundation of Legal Thinking 63 // REFLECTIONS ON LAW AND ITS INNER MORALITY [1984] 77–89: 1. Law and Morals As Two Systems of Norms, and the Inner Morality of Law 77 / 2. Law As A Value Bearer and As A Mere External Indicator 78 / 3. The Inner and External Moral Credit of Legislator 83 / 4. The Inner Morality of Law 86 // THE LAW AND ITS LIMITS [1985] 91–96 LAW AS TECHNIQUE DOMAINE »EXTERNE« ET DOMAINE »INTERNE« EN DROIT [1983] 99–117: 1. Le »juridique« et le »non-juridique« 99 / 2. Domaine »externe« et domaine »interne« en tant que groupes de phénomènes 104 / 3. Domaine »externe« et domaine »interne« en tant que points de références 112 / 4. Conclusion 116 // DIE MINISTERIELLE BEGRÜNDUNG IN RECHTSPHILOSOPHISCHER SICHT [1977] 119–139: I. Die prinzipiellen und geschichtlichen Grundlagen der Herausforderung der ministeriellen Begründungen 120 / II. Die möglichen und erwünschten Funktionen der ministeriellen Begründung im sozialistischen Rechts 128 / III. Die ministerielle Begründung und ihr Wert in der Auslegung derRechtsnormen 132 // THE PREAMBLE: A QUESTION OF JURISPRUDENCE [1970] 141–167: I. The Notion of the Preamble 142 / II. Content and Functions of the Preambles 146 / III. Normativity of the Preamble Content 150 / IV. The Problem of the Justifiability of Preamble-drafting in the Light of Socialist Legal Policy 161 // PRESUMPTION AND FICTION: MEANS OF LEGAL TECHNIQUE [1988] 169–185: I. Presumption 169 [1. In the Judicial Process of Establishing the Facts: praesumptio homini vel facti 170 / 2. In the Normative Definition of the Facts: praesumptio juris tantum 170 / 3. In the Normative Definition of the Facts: praesumptio juris et de jure 171 / 4. In a Possible Theoretical Reconstruction 171] On »Presumption« 172 [1. Function 172 / 2. Presumption and Fiction 173 / 3. Irrelevancy of Epistemological Foundation 173 / 4. The Technique of Presumption 174] II. Fiction 175 [1. In the Linguistic Formation of Legal Norms 175 / 2. In the Judicial Application of Legal Norms 175 / 3. In the Doctrinal Processing of Legal Norms 176 / 4. In the Theoretical Reconstruction of Legal Norms 176 / 5. Approaches to and Understandings of Fiction 177] On »Fiction« 178 [1. History and Understandings 178 / 2. Classification 180 / 3. Law as Fiction 181 / 4. Presumption and Fiction 182] // LEGAL TECHNIQUE [1988] 187–198: I. Legal Technique 187 [1. In the Large Sense 1987/ 2. In Legal Practice 189 / 3. In Legal Science 189 / 4. As a Special Technique 190] II. On Legal Technique [1. Definition and Function 190 / 2. Legal Technique and Legal Cultures 192 / 3. Postulates of Legal Technique in the Cultures of Modem Formal Law 195 {a) The Principle of Consequentiality 195 / b) The Principle of Coherency 195 / c) The Principle of Conceptual Economy 196 / d) The Principle of Non-redundancy 196}] LAW AS LOGIC MODERNE STAATLICHKEIT UND MODERNES FORMALES RECHT [1982] 201–207: 1. Die Klassifizierung als logisches und als gesellschaftswissenschaftliches Verfahren 202 / 2. Typologie der staatlichen und rechtlichen Erscheinungen 202 / 3. Der moderne Staat und das moderne formale Recht: Frage der Zusammenhänge und Entwicklungsalternativen 204 // HETEROGENEITY AND VALIDITY OF LAW: OUTLINES OF AN ONTOLOGICAL RECONSTRUCTION [1986] 209–218 // LEIBNIZ UND DIE FRAGE DER RECHTLICHEN SYSTEMBILDUNG [1973] 219–232: 1. Aktualität von Leibniz 219 / 2. Der Gedanke der universalen mathematischen Methode 221 / 3. Die logischen Konzeption der Rechtswissenschaft 224 / 4. Die geometrische Vision der rechtlichen Systembildung 227 / 5. Das Scheitern der Leibnizschen Idee und seine Lehre 230 // LAW AND ITS APPROACH AS A SYSTEM [1975] 233–255: 1. The Logical Structure of Law as a Historical Product 233 / 2. Tendencies of Formal Rationalization in Legal Development 234 / 3. Historical Development of the Approach to Law as a System 239 / 4. Present State of the Attempts at a Logical Reconstruction of Law and Legal Reasoning 243 / 5. Question of the Axiomatic Conception of Law 248 / 6. Heuristic Value of the Approach to Law as a System 250 // LOGIC OF LAW AND JUDICIAL ACTIVITY: A GAP BETWEEN IDEALS, REALITY AND FUTURE PERSPECTIVES [1982] 258–288: 1. Historical Background 259 / 2. Ideals 264 / 3. Reality 270 / 4. Future Perspectives 277 // KELSEN’S PURE THEORY OF LAW – YESTERDAY, TODAY AND TOMORROW [ms] 289–293, THE NATURE OF THE JUDICIAL APPLICATION OF NORMS: SCIENCE- AND LANGUAGE-PHILOSOPHICAL CONSIDERATIONS [ms] 295–314: 1. Presuppositions 295 / 2. The Context of the Application of Norms 300 [2.1 Actualisation in Concrete Meaning 300 / 2.2 Linguistic Undefinedness 304 / 2.3 Lack of Logical Consequence in the Normative Sphere 308] LAW AS EXPERIENCE ON THE SOCIALLY DETERMINED NATURE OF LEGAL REASONING [1971] 317–374: 1. Interrelation of the Creation and Application of Law 317 / 2. The Socially Determined Nature of the Application of Law 332 / 3. The Socially Determined Nature of Legal Reasoning 337 / 4. The Question of Perspectives 363 // TOWARDS THE ONTOLOGICAL FOUNDATION OF LAW: SOME THESES ON THE BASIS OF LUKÁCS’ ONTOLOGY [1983] 375–390, IS LAW A SYSTEM OF ENACTMENTS? [1984] 391–398: 1. Working Models of Law 391 / 2. Senses of ContExtuality in Law 393 / 3. Jurisprudential Approach and Socio-ontological Approach 394 / 4. Conclusions 396 [4.1. Law as Historical Continuum 396 / 4.2.Law as Open System 396 / 4.3. / Law as Complex Phenomenon with Alternative Strategy 396 / 4.4. Law as an Irreversible Process 397 / 4.5. The Genuinely Societal Character of Law 397] // EUROPEAN INTEGRATION AND THE UNIQUENESS OF NATIONAL LEGAL CULTURES [1992] 399–411: 1. The Philosophical Framework 399 / 2. Law as Tradition 403 / 3. European Integration and the Preservation of the Uniqueness of National Legal Orders 407 // INSTITUTIONS AS SYSTEMS: NOTES ON THE CLOSED SETS, OPEN VISTAS OF DEVELOPMENT, AND TRANSCENDENCY OF INSTITUTIONS AND THEIR CONCEPTUAL REPRESENTATIONS [1991] 413–424: I. A Logic of Systems 413 / II. Ideal Types and Historically Concrete Manifestations 416 / III. Ideal Type As A Normative Ideology 418 / IV.Objectivity and Contingency of Systems 420 / V. Limits and Bonds, ConsEquEntiality and Practicability of a System 423 LAW AS HISTORY FROM LEGAL CUSTOMS TO LEGAL FOLKWAYS [1981] 427–436, ANTHROPOLOGICAL JURISPRUDENCE? LEOPOLD POSPÍŠIL AND THE COMPARATIVE STUDY OF LEGAL CULTURES [1985] 437–457: 1. Rule, Fact and Principle in the Concept of Law 438 [a) Abstract rules 439 / b) Abstracts from actual behaviour 439 / c) Principles Upheld by Legal Decisions 440] 2. Attributes of Law 445 [a) Authority 446 / b) Intention of Universal Application 446 / c) Obligatio 447 / d) Sanction 447] 3. Law and its Social Functional Definition 450 [(1) Law is a Global Phenomenon 451 / (2) Law is a Phenomenon Able to Settle Conflicts of Interests 451 / 3) Law is a Phenomenon Prevailing as the Supreme Controlling Factor 452] 4. Conclusion 454 // LAW AS A SOCIAL ISSUE [1985] 459–475: I. The Social Prestige of Law 459 / II. The Social Nature of Law 463 / III. Law and Language in the Service of Social Mediation 466 (1. Passive Mediation and Active Intervention 468 / 2. The Dilemma of the Mediation of Values 472) // LAW AS HISTORY? [1986] 477–484: 1. Understandings of the Term »Law« 477 / 2. Law and History 478 / 3. Law as History 481 // RECHTSKULTUR – DENKKULTUR: EINFÜHRUNG ZUM THEMA [1988] 485–489 Curriculum Vitae 491 / Bibliography 493 // Index 515 / Index of Normative Materials 523 / Index of Names 525

The following paper aims to address the question of the adequacy of Luhmann/Teubner's systemic approach to describe the legal order of "peripheral" (democratic) states under the present historical conditions, that leads to a globalization of the so-called post-industrial society. In the background we may found the major question posited by the meeting where this paper is going to be delivered, that is to say, what kind of relationship has such an approach in socio-legal studies to the critical approach.

Századvég Edition

Through its function, law provides normative prescriptions for human behaviour, i.e. it prohibits certain types of behaviour and permits others in a given situation. The fundamental task of jurisprudence is therefore to clarify the meaning of the interrelationships between normative prescriptions and thus to ensure that there are no contradictions in meaning between the many thousands and tens of thousands of legal norms. Only in this way is it possible that the legal rules to be followed in everyday life fulfil their function and that legal certainty is not endangered. Substantive jurisprudence analyses and develops the totality of legal concepts that ensure the internal conceptual coherence of a field of law and constantly monitors the coherence of the legal norms required for specific life situations. From now on, depending on the different legal concepts to varying degrees, the consistency of the specific legal norms and legal concepts with the general principles of justice is also included in the consideration. This approach thus moves in the dimension of normative conceptual coherence. On a broader level, the philosopher of law does the same when, apart from analysing substantive law, he deals with the content of the principles of justice and their relationship to each other, and from this establishes requirements for the conditions of a just legal order. However, law, although it fulfils its function in a normative dimension, is a social phenomenon like other fields of activity that fulfil a social function, e.g. the economy, art, science, politics, etc., and any legal phenomenon can be studied from the point of view of facticity, just like other social phenomena. This is the essence of the sociological approach to law, which can be formulated in contrast to the approach of theoretical jurisprudence or legal philosophy as a field of analysis of social facticity and causality or effects. For example, while the substantive law of civil law examines a legal regulation on a pledge or surety from the point of view of how these contractual securities fit into the framework of existing contract law as a whole, the sociological approach to law asks how often pledges or sureties are used as contractual securities in everyday contractual practice, from the point of view of the absence of contradictions of meaning. Or which social interests and which social disadvantages have favoured the emergence of this form of pledge and surety in everyday contractual practice, and which social interests would be served by alternative regulations in this area? In the sociology of law, one therefore moves from the normative dimension to the factual dimension, to the dimension of conflicts of interest, social causes and effects, when analysing legal norms and legal phenomena. Looking at sociological studies and the various lines of research in the sociology of law in this approach, one can distinguish between a narrower and a broader understanding of the sociology of law. The sociology of law in the narrower sense still focuses on legal norms like the thematic legal sciences, and it is no coincidence that the sociology of law developed historically in the last decades of the 19th century. The sociology of law in the narrower sense, like the theoretical legal sciences, is concerned with legal norms and legal provisions, but with their actual consistency rather than with normative-conceptual coherence and possible logical contradictions. Or does it ask which social interests and political forces have shaped the legal norms under study and which political forces serve the dominance of which political forces in social struggles and which social groups are subordinated and disadvantaged in power by the legal norms under study?

2014

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND PHILOSOPHY OF LAW IN CENTRAL & EASTERN EUROPE: A SKETCH OF HISTORY [1999] 11–21 // PHILOSOPHISING ON LAW IN THE TURMOIL OF COMMUNIST TAKEOVER IN HUNGARY (TWO PORTRAITS, INTERWAR AND POSTWAR: JULIUS MOÓR & ISTVÁN LOSONCZY) [2001–2002] 23–39: Julius Moór 23 / István Losonczy 29 // ON THE SURVIVAL OF ILMAR TAMMELO’S LETTER AND MANUSCRIPT ADDRESSED TO PROFESSOR MOÓR [2009] 41–44 // PROFESSIONAL DISTRESS AND SCARCITY: ALEXANDER HORVÁTH AND THE LEGACY OF NATURAL LAW IN HUNGARY [2005] 45–50 // HUNGARIAN LEGAL PHILOSOPHY IN THE 20TH CENTURY [2011] 51–72: I. The Pre-war Period [1. Bódog (Felix) Somló (1871–1920) 52] / II. The Inter-war Period [2. Gyula (Julius) Moór (1888–1950) 54 / 3. Barna Horváth (1896–1973) 55 / 4. József Szabó (1909–1992) 57 / 5. István Bibó (1911–1979) 58 / 6. Tibor Vas (1911–1983) 59 / 7. István Losonczy (1918–1980) 60] III. The Post-war Period (Communism) 61 [8. Imre Szabó (1912–1991) 62 / 9. Vilmos Peschka (1929–2006) 63 / 10. Kálmán Kulcsár (1928–2010) 65] IV. Contemporary Trends and Perspectives 66 [11. Csaba Varga (b. 1941) 66 / 12. András Sajó (b. 1949) 69 / 13. Béla Pokol (b. 1950) 70] V. Our Understanding of the Law Today 71 AN IMPOSED LEGACY LOOKING BACK [1999] 75–94: 1. On Ideologies and Marxism in general 75 / 2. Life of an Intellectual in Communism 79 / 3. On Marxism and its Socialist Cultivation in Particular 82 / 4. Legal Philosophising [4.1. Approaches to Law 87 / 4.2. Arriving at a Legal Ontology 91] 5. Conclusion 94 // LEGAL PHILOSOPHY OF THE MARXISM OF SOCIALISM: HUNGARIAN OVERVIEW IN AN INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE [2003] 95–151: I. Development and Balance of Marxist Philosophising on Law in Hungary [1. Preliminaries (until 1948) 96 / 2. Stalinism (from the Soviet Occupation on) {a) Liquidation of the »Residues« 98 / b) Soviet-type Uniformisation [Gleichschaltung] 99 / c) Denial of the Past, with a Dual Effect 99 / d) »Socialist Legality«, Drawn from the Progressive Past of Western Europe 103 / e) Search for the Germs of Scholarly Evolution 103} 3. Institutionalisation Accompanied by Relaxation (from the 1960s) [a) Epigonism Becoming the Scholarly Ideal 104 / b) Stalinism in a Critical Self-perspective 105 / c) Disciples Diversified Launching their own Trends 107 / d) Comparatism 110 / e) (Re)discovery of the Western Legal Philosophy as a Competitor 112 / f) A Leading Mediatory Role within the »Socialist World Order« 114} 4. Disintegration (in the 1980s) {a) Attempt at Laying New Foundations for Marxism with Epigonism Exhausted 115 / b) Competitive Trends Becoming Exclusive 115 / c) Western Legal Philosophy Acknowledged as a Fellow-traveller within the Socialist Orbit Proper 116 / d) Hungarian Legal Theory Transforming into a National Corpus 118 / e) The Practical Promotion of Some Balance 119} 5. End-game for a Substitute State Religion (in the 1990s) 120] II. Marxist Legal Philosophising in an International Perspective [Ad 1: To the Preliminaries 122 / Ad 2: To Stalinism 124 / Ad 3: To Institutionalisation Accompanied by Relaxation {a) Late Separation from Vishinskiy’s Theory 125 / b) From Ideological Self-closure to an Apparently Scholarly Openness 127 / c) From Political Ideology to Genuine Scholarship 130 / d) International Recognition of Socialist Jurisprudence as an Independent Trend 135 / e) Together with Western Trends 137} Ad 4: To Disintegration {a) Loss of Attraction as Mere Epigonism 139 / b) Exclusivity of Competing Trends 139 / c) Fellowship with »Bourgeois« Trends 140 / d) An own Trend, Internationally Recognised 141 / e) A yet Progressive Role 142} Ad 5: To the Present state 143] III. A Temporary Balance 145 // AUTONOMY AND INSTRUMENTALITY OF LAW IN A SUPERSTRUCTURAL PERSPECTIVE [1986] 151–175: 1. The Strange Fate of Concepts 151 / I. A Relational Category 2. Basis and Superstructure: The Genuine Meaning 154 / 3. Exerting Social Influence as a Conceptual Minimum 156 / 4. Relationships within the Prevailing Totality 158 / 5. Attempts at Interpretation in Hungary 159 / 6. The Lukácsian Stand 162 / 7. Lukács’s Recognitions 168 / 8. Some Criticism 169 / II. The Law’s Understanding 171 / 9. Law Interpreted as Superstructure 171 / 10. Conclusions Drawn for the Law’s Understanding 173 // LEGAL THEORY IN TRANSITION (A PREFACE FROM HUNGARY) [2000] 177–186 // DEVELOPMENT OF THEORETICAL LEGAL THOUGHT IN HUNGARY AT THE TURN OF THE MILLENNIUM [2006] 187–215: 1. International Environment 188 / 2. The Situation in Hungary 190 / 3. Outlook I: The Historical-comparative Study of Legal Cultures and of the Lawyerly Way of Thinking 203 / 4. Outlook II: The Paradigmatic Enigma of the Transition to Rule of Law 207 / 5. Incongruity in Practice 213 / 6. Perspectives 214 TWENTIETH CENTURY CONTEMPORANEITY CHANGE OF PARADIGMS IN LEGAL RECONSTRUCTION: CARL SCHMITT AND THE TEMPTATION TO FINALLY REACH A SYNTHESIS [2002] 219–234: 1. Dangers of Intellectualism 219 / 2. Schmitt in Facts 221 / 3. Schmitt and Kelsen 222 / 4. On Bordering Conditions 226 / 5. With Kelsen in Transubstantiation 230 / 6. Polarisation as the Path of Theoretical Development 232 // KELSENIAN DOCUMENTS IN HUNGARY: CHAPTERS ON CONTACTS, INCLUDING THE GENESIS OF AUTOBIOGRAPHY [2006] 235–243: 1. Preludes 235 / 2. The Search for Moór’s Bequeath 235 / 3. Moór’s Collegiality 238 / 4. Bibó as a Disciple Translating 241 // THE »HART-PHENOMENON« [2002] 245–267: I. The Hart-miracle 246 [1. The Scene of Britain at the Time 247 / 2. The Personal Career 250 / 3. The Opus’ Career 252 / 4. Verbal Sociologism 255 / 5. Growing into the British Pattern 259] II. The Hart-phenomenon 260 [6. Origination of a Strange Orthodoxy 261 / 7. Mastering Periods of the 20th Century 263 / 8. Raising the Issue of Reception in Hungary 365] // LITERATURE? A SUBSTITUTE FOR LEGAL PHILOSOPHY? [2007] 269–287: 1. The Enigma of Law and its Study 269 / 2. “Law and Literature” 271 / 3. Varieties of “Law and Literature” 274 / 4. The German Study of Artistic Representations 280 / 5. Some Literary Reconsiderations 285 / 6. Conclusion 287 APPENDIX: THE PHILOSOPHY OF TEACHING LEGAL PHILOSOPHY IN HUNGARY [2007] 291–320: I. Why and How to Philosophise in Law? 291 / II. The State of Teaching Legal Philosophy 294 / III. The Philosophy of Teaching Legal Philosophy 296 / IV. Programme at the Catholic University of Hungary 300 [1. Graduate Studies 300 {a) Basic Subjects 301 / b) Facultative Seminars 305 / c) Closing Subjects 309 / d) Written Memoranda and the Thesis 312} 2. Postgraduate Studies 313 / 3. Conclusion 317] V. Perspectives 318 Index of Subjects 321 / Index of Normative Materials 328 / Index of Names 329

Gdansk University Press - Wolters Kluwer, 2016

University studies mean the critical reading of texts, and also reflection. The latter should be stimulated by lectures and tutorials, and by discussion. In an attempt to meet the needs of students, we offer here a handbook for the study of the philosophy of law. An innovative idea underlies this handbook – teaching an aspect of law through questions and answers. It is based on a philosophical approach to the study of law. We have proceeded from a position that the subject of philosophy of law may be dealt with in five sections. These are: (I) methodology; (II) people; (III) approaches; (IV) concepts; and (V) hard cases. The contents of our book reflects this division into parts. At the outset, however, we must mention some reservations. First, this handbook considers problems of contemporary philosophy of law, but it is by no means a handbook of the history of philosophy of law. Second, this handbook has a module-based organization. In the future, it will be possible to change these modules as required. Thus, it is an open-ended offering, which will certainly - and this was part of the project from the start - be subject to further changes, supplements, and modifications in subsequent editions.

SEEU Review

The aim of the paper is to present a brief insight into the significant works and views of the German sociologists Niklas Luhmann and Jűrgen Habermas on the role of law in regulating human relations in society. Educated as a lawyer, Niklas Luhmann in the late academic career was under the influence of the American sociologist Talcott Parsons. Niklas Luhmann later, under the influence of the American sociologist Talcott Parsons, he built a sociological theoretical system called the systems theory. On the other side, Jűrgen Habermas was a philosopher and sociologist, highly influenced by the Frankfurt school of sociology. According to Luhmann‘s systems theory, the social reality and the separate aspects of the social life are part of a deeper system called society, and in relation to the same they are set as subsystems. Social systems are divided into allopoietic and autopoietic. One of the significant axioms of Luhmann’s theory is that the largest number of systems tends to simplify ...

Acta Juridica Hungarica

In the study the legal system is conteptualized as a meaning system which contains the text layer, the layer of the legal dogmatics, the layer of judicial precedents and in some modern legal system the layer of the constitutional tights is added to these. The study outlines the connections among these layers of law comparing the continental legal systems rooted in the Roman law to the common law systems. With this concept of law the study analyses the history of legal theory and makes a typology of the tightening concepts of law which emphasize only one layer of the law. For example, for the French ecole de l'exégèse in the 19. century the law was only the text, for the German Bergiffsjurisprudenz the law was the layer of the legal doctrines, or for the legal realists the law was the judge made law; and newly for Ronald Dworkin and his followers the law is identified as the layer of the constitutional rights first of all.

2006