fbpx
Wikipedia

Philosophy of law

April 11, 2024

Philosophy of law is a branch of philosophy that examines the nature of law and law's relationship to other systems of norms, especially ethics and political philosophy.[1][2] It asks questions like "What is law?", "What are the criteria for legal validity?", and "What is the relationship between law and morality?" Philosophy of law and jurisprudence are often used interchangeably, though jurisprudence sometimes encompasses forms of reasoning that fit into economics or sociology.[3][4]

Philosophy of law can be sub-divided into analytical jurisprudence, and normative jurisprudence.[5] Analytical jurisprudence aims to define what law is and what it is not by identifying law's essential features. Normative jurisprudence investigates both the non-legal norms that shape law and the legal norms that are generated by law and guide human action.[5]

Analytical jurisprudence edit

Unlike experimental jurisprudence, which investigates the content of legal concepts using the methods of social science,[6] analytical jurisprudence seeks to provide a general account of the nature of law through the tools of conceptual analysis. The account is general in the sense of targeting universal features of law that hold at all times and places.[7] Whereas lawyers are interested in what the law is on a specific issue in a specific jurisdiction, philosophers of law are interested in identifying the features of law shared across cultures, times, and places. Taken together, these foundational features of law offer the kind of universal definition philosophers are after. The general approach allows philosophers to ask questions about, for example, what separates law from morality, politics, or practical reason.[7] Often, scholars in the field presume that law has a unique set of features that separate it from other phenomena, though not all share the presumption.

While the field has traditionally focused on giving an account of law's nature, some scholars have begun to examine the nature of domains within law, e.g. tort law, contract law, or criminal law. These scholars focus on what makes certain domains of law distinctive and how one domain differs from another. A particularly fecund area of research has been the distinction between tort law and criminal law, which more generally bears on the difference between civil and criminal law.[8]

Several schools of thought have developed around the nature of law, the most influential of which are:

  • Natural moral law theory, which asserts that law is inherent in nature and constitutive of morality, at least in part.[9] On this view, while legislators can enact and even successfully enforce immoral laws, such laws are legally invalid. The view is captured by the maxim: "an unjust law is no law at all", where 'unjust' means 'contrary to the natural law.' Natural law theory has medieval origins in the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, especially in his Treatise on law. In late 20th century, John Finnis revived interest in the theory and provided a modern reworking of it.[10]
  • Legal positivism, which is the view that law depends primarily on social facts.[11] Legal positivism has traditionally been associated with three doctrines: the pedigree thesis, the separability thesis, and the discretion thesis.[2] The pedigree thesis says that the right way to determine whether a directive is law is to look at the directive's source. The thesis claims that it is the fact that the directive was issued by the proper official within a legitimate government, for example, that determines the directive's legal validity—not the directive's moral or practical merits. The separability thesis states that law is conceptually distinct from morality.[2] While law might contain morality, the separability thesis states that "it is in no sense a necessary truth that laws reproduce or satisfy certain demands of morality, though in fact they have often done so."[12] Legal positivists disagree about the extent of the separability thesis. Exclusive legal positivists, notably Joseph Raz, go further than the standard thesis and deny that it is possible for morality to be a part of law at all. The discretion thesis states that judges create new law when they are given discretion to adjudicate cases where existing law underdetermines the result. The earliest proponent of legal positivism was John Austin who was influenced by the writings of Jeremy Bentham in the early 19th century. Austin held that the law is the command of the sovereign backed by the threat of punishment. Contemporary legal positivism has long abandoned this view. In the twentieth century, two positivists had a profound influence on the field: Hans Kelsen and H. L. A. Hart. Kelsen is most influential for his notion of 'grundnorm,' an ultimate and basic legal norm, which some scholars, especially in Europe, accept today.[13] In the Anglophone world, Hart has been the most influential scholar.[14] Hart rejected the earlier claim that sanctions are essential to law and instead argued that law is rule-based. According to Hart, law is a system of primary rules that guide the conduct of law's subjects, and secondary rules that regulate how the primary rules may be changed, identified, and adjudicated. Hart's theory, although widely admired, sparked vigorous debate among late twentieth century philosophers of law including Ronald Dworkin, John Rawls, Joseph Raz, and John Finnis.
  • Legal realism, which asserts that law is the product of decisions made by courts, law enforcement, and attorneys, which are often decided on contradictory or arbitrary grounds. According to legal realism, law is not a rational system of rules and norms. Legal realism is critical of the idea that law has a nature that can be analyzed in the abstract. Instead, legal realists advocate an empirical approach to jurisprudence founded in social sciences and the actual practice of law in the world. For this reason, legal realism has often been associated with the sociology of law. In the United States, legal realism gained prominence in the late 19th century with Oliver Wendell Holmes and John Chipman Grey.[1] Legal realism became influential in Scandinavia in the 20th century with Axel Hägerström.[15]
  • Legal interpretivism, which denies that law is source-based because law necessarily depends on human interpretation that is guided by the moral norms of communities. Given that judges have discretion to adjudicate cases in more than one way, legal interpretivism says that judges characteristically adjudicate in the way that best preserves the moral norms, institutional facts, and social practices of the societies in which they are a part. It is consistent with legal interpretivism that one cannot know whether a society has a legal system in force, or what any of its laws are, until one knows some moral truths about the justifications for the practices in that society. In contrast with legal positivism or legal realism, it is possible for the legal interpretivist to claim that no one in a society knows what its laws are (because no one may know the best justification of its practices.) Legal interpretivism originated with Ronald Dworkin in the late 20th century in his book Law's Empire.

In recent years, debates about the nature of law have become increasingly fine-grained. One important debate exists within legal positivism about the separability of law and morality. Exclusive legal positivists claim that the legal validity of a norm never depends on its moral correctness. Inclusive legal positivists claim that moral considerations may determine the legal validity of a norm, but that it is not necessary that this is the case. Positivism began as an inclusivist theory; but influential exclusive legal positivists, including Joseph Raz, John Gardner, and Leslie Green, later rejected the idea.

A second important debate, often called the "Hart–Dworkin debate",[14] concerns the battle between the two most dominant schools in the late 20th and early 21st century, legal interpretivism and legal positivism.

Normative jurisprudence edit

In addition to analytic jurisprudence, legal philosophy is also concerned with normative theories of law. "Normative jurisprudence involves normative, evaluative, and otherwise prescriptive questions about the law."[9] For example, What is the goal or purpose of law? What moral or political theories provide a foundation for the law? Three approaches have been influential in contemporary moral and political philosophy, and these approaches are reflected in normative theories of law:[citation needed]

  • Utilitarianism is the view that laws should be crafted so as to produce the best consequences. Historically, utilitarian thought regarding law is associated with the philosopher Jeremy Bentham. In contemporary legal theory, the utilitarian approach is frequently championed by scholars who work in the law and economics tradition.
  • Deontology is the view that laws should reflect our obligation to preserve the autonomy and rights of others. Historically, deontological thought regarding law is associated with Immanuel Kant, who formulated one particularly prominent deontological theory of law. Another deontological approach can be found in the work of contemporary legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin.
  • Aretaic moral theories such as contemporary virtue ethics emphasize the role of character in morality. Virtue jurisprudence is the view that the laws should promote the development of virtuous characters by citizens. Historically, this approach is associated with Aristotle. Contemporary virtue jurisprudence is inspired by philosophical work on virtue ethics.

There are many other normative approaches to the philosophy of law, including critical legal studies and libertarian theories of law.

Philosophical approaches to legal problems edit

Philosophers of law are also concerned with a variety of philosophical problems that arise in particular legal subjects, such as constitutional law, Contract law, Criminal law, and Tort law. Thus, philosophy of law addresses such diverse topics as theories of contract law, theories of criminal punishment, theories of tort liability, and the question of whether judicial review is justified.

Notable philosophers of law edit

See also edit

References edit

  1. ^ a b "Philosophy of law". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 2019-05-15.
  2. ^ a b c Himma, Kenneth Einar (2019-05-15). "Philosophy of Law". The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  3. ^ Postema, Gerald J. (2011). "Economic Jurisprudence". In Postema, G.J. (ed.). A Treatise of Legal Philosophy and General Jurisprudence. Springer Netherlands. pp. 181–211. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-8960-1_5. ISBN 9789048189601. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
  4. ^ Kornhauser, Lewis (2017), "The Economic Analysis of Law", in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2017 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved 2019-05-17
  5. ^ a b Marmor, Andrei; Sarch, Alexander (2015), "The Nature of Law", in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2015 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved 2019-05-15
  6. ^ Sommers, Roseanna (2021-07-23). "Experimental jurisprudence". Science. 373 (6553): 394–395. Bibcode:2021Sci...373..394S. doi:10.1126/science.abf0711. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 34437107. S2CID 236179587.
  7. ^ a b Marmor, Andrei; Sarch, Alexander (2015), "The Nature of Law", in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2015 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved 2019-05-21
  8. ^ Edwards, James (2018), "Theories of Criminal Law", in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2018 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved 2019-05-21
  9. ^ a b "Philosophy of Law". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  10. ^ Finnis, John (2016), "Natural Law Theories", in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved 2019-05-17
  11. ^ Green, Leslie (2018), "Legal Positivism", in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2018 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved 2019-05-21
  12. ^ Hart, H. L. A. (1994). The Concept of Law, Second Edition. Oxford University Press. pp. 181–182. ISBN 978-0199644704.
  13. ^ Essays in honor of Hans Kelsen : Celebrating the 90th Anniversary of His Birth. Fred B Rothman & Co. 1971. ISBN 978-0837705286.
  14. ^ a b Shapiro, Scott J. (2007-03-05). "The Hart-Dworkin Debate: A Short Guide for the Perplexed". Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper Series. Rochester, NY. doi:10.2139/ssrn.968657. SSRN 968657.
  15. ^ "The Philosophy of Scandinavian Legal Realism". ResearchGate. Retrieved 2019-05-21.

Further reading edit

  • Plato, Minos (many editions).
  • Plato, Laws (many editions).
  • Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles (many editions).
  • Hadley Arkes, First Things (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1986).
  • Ronald Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1977).
  • Ronald Dworkin, A Matter of Principle (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1986).
  • Ronald Dworkin, Law's Empire (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1986).
  • Ronald Dworkin, Freedom's Law: The Moral Reading of the American Constitution (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1997).
  • Lon L. Fuller, The Morality of Law (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1965).
  • John Chipman Gray, The Nature and Sources of Law (Peter Smith, 1972, reprint).
  • H. L. A. Hart, The Concept of Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961).
  • H. L. A. Hart, Punishment and Responsibility (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968).
  • Sterling Harwood, Judicial Activism: A Restrained Defense (London: Austin & Winfield Publishers, 1996).
  • Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Philosophy of Right (Oxford University Press 1967)
  • Ian Farrell & Morten Ebbe Juul Nielsen, Legal Philosophy: 5 Questions, New York: Automatic Press, April 2007
  • Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., The Common Law (Dover, 1991, reprint).
  • Immanuel Kant, Metaphysics of Morals (Doctrine of Right) (Cambridge University Press 2000, reprint).
  • Hans Kelsen, Pure Theory of Law (Lawbook Exchange Ltd., 2005, reprint).
  • Catharine MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989).
  • Duncan Kennedy, A Critique of Adjudication (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1998).
  • David Lyons, Ethics & The Rule of Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984).
  • David Lyons, Moral Aspects of Legal Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993).
  • Neil MacCormick, Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979).
  • Joseph Raz, The Authority of Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983, reprint).
  • Robert S. Summers, Instrumentalism and American Legal Theory (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1982).
  • Robert S. Summers, Lon Fuller (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1984).
  • Roberto Mangabeira Unger, The Critical Legal Studies Movement (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1986).
  • Jeffrie G. Murphy and Jules L. Coleman, The Philosophy of Law: An Introduction to Jurisprudence (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1989).

External links edit

Library resources about
Philosophy of law
  • Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Philosophy of Law

April 11, 2024
philosophy, branch, philosophy, that, examines, nature, relationship, other, systems, norms, especially, ethics, political, philosophy, asks, questions, like, what, what, criteria, legal, validity, what, relationship, between, morality, jurisprudence, often, u. Philosophy of law is a branch of philosophy that examines the nature of law and law s relationship to other systems of norms especially ethics and political philosophy 1 2 It asks questions like What is law What are the criteria for legal validity and What is the relationship between law and morality Philosophy of law and jurisprudence are often used interchangeably though jurisprudence sometimes encompasses forms of reasoning that fit into economics or sociology 3 4 Philosophy of law can be sub divided into analytical jurisprudence and normative jurisprudence 5 Analytical jurisprudence aims to define what law is and what it is not by identifying law s essential features Normative jurisprudence investigates both the non legal norms that shape law and the legal norms that are generated by law and guide human action 5 Contents 1 Analytical jurisprudence 2 Normative jurisprudence 3 Philosophical approaches to legal problems 4 Notable philosophers of law 5 See also 6 References 7 Further reading 8 External linksAnalytical jurisprudence editUnlike experimental jurisprudence which investigates the content of legal concepts using the methods of social science 6 analytical jurisprudence seeks to provide a general account of the nature of law through the tools of conceptual analysis The account is general in the sense of targeting universal features of law that hold at all times and places 7 Whereas lawyers are interested in what the law is on a specific issue in a specific jurisdiction philosophers of law are interested in identifying the features of law shared across cultures times and places Taken together these foundational features of law offer the kind of universal definition philosophers are after The general approach allows philosophers to ask questions about for example what separates law from morality politics or practical reason 7 Often scholars in the field presume that law has a unique set of features that separate it from other phenomena though not all share the presumption While the field has traditionally focused on giving an account of law s nature some scholars have begun to examine the nature of domains within law e g tort law contract law or criminal law These scholars focus on what makes certain domains of law distinctive and how one domain differs from another A particularly fecund area of research has been the distinction between tort law and criminal law which more generally bears on the difference between civil and criminal law 8 Several schools of thought have developed around the nature of law the most influential of which are Natural moral law theory which asserts that law is inherent in nature and constitutive of morality at least in part 9 On this view while legislators can enact and even successfully enforce immoral laws such laws are legally invalid The view is captured by the maxim an unjust law is no law at all where unjust means contrary to the natural law Natural law theory has medieval origins in the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas especially in his Treatise on law In late 20th century John Finnis revived interest in the theory and provided a modern reworking of it 10 Legal positivism which is the view that law depends primarily on social facts 11 Legal positivism has traditionally been associated with three doctrines the pedigree thesis the separability thesis and the discretion thesis 2 The pedigree thesis says that the right way to determine whether a directive is law is to look at the directive s source The thesis claims that it is the fact that the directive was issued by the proper official within a legitimate government for example that determines the directive s legal validity not the directive s moral or practical merits The separability thesis states that law is conceptually distinct from morality 2 While law might contain morality the separability thesis states that it is in no sense a necessary truth that laws reproduce or satisfy certain demands of morality though in fact they have often done so 12 Legal positivists disagree about the extent of the separability thesis Exclusive legal positivists notably Joseph Raz go further than the standard thesis and deny that it is possible for morality to be a part of law at all The discretion thesis states that judges create new law when they are given discretion to adjudicate cases where existing law underdetermines the result The earliest proponent of legal positivism was John Austin who was influenced by the writings of Jeremy Bentham in the early 19th century Austin held that the law is the command of the sovereign backed by the threat of punishment Contemporary legal positivism has long abandoned this view In the twentieth century two positivists had a profound influence on the field Hans Kelsen and H L A Hart Kelsen is most influential for his notion of grundnorm an ultimate and basic legal norm which some scholars especially in Europe accept today 13 In the Anglophone world Hart has been the most influential scholar 14 Hart rejected the earlier claim that sanctions are essential to law and instead argued that law is rule based According to Hart law is a system of primary rules that guide the conduct of law s subjects and secondary rules that regulate how the primary rules may be changed identified and adjudicated Hart s theory although widely admired sparked vigorous debate among late twentieth century philosophers of law including Ronald Dworkin John Rawls Joseph Raz and John Finnis Legal realism which asserts that law is the product of decisions made by courts law enforcement and attorneys which are often decided on contradictory or arbitrary grounds According to legal realism law is not a rational system of rules and norms Legal realism is critical of the idea that law has a nature that can be analyzed in the abstract Instead legal realists advocate an empirical approach to jurisprudence founded in social sciences and the actual practice of law in the world For this reason legal realism has often been associated with the sociology of law In the United States legal realism gained prominence in the late 19th century with Oliver Wendell Holmes and John Chipman Grey 1 Legal realism became influential in Scandinavia in the 20th century with Axel Hagerstrom 15 Legal interpretivism which denies that law is source based because law necessarily depends on human interpretation that is guided by the moral norms of communities Given that judges have discretion to adjudicate cases in more than one way legal interpretivism says that judges characteristically adjudicate in the way that best preserves the moral norms institutional facts and social practices of the societies in which they are a part It is consistent with legal interpretivism that one cannot know whether a society has a legal system in force or what any of its laws are until one knows some moral truths about the justifications for the practices in that society In contrast with legal positivism or legal realism it is possible for the legal interpretivist to claim that no one in a society knows what its laws are because no one may know the best justification of its practices Legal interpretivism originated with Ronald Dworkin in the late 20th century in his book Law s Empire In recent years debates about the nature of law have become increasingly fine grained One important debate exists within legal positivism about the separability of law and morality Exclusive legal positivists claim that the legal validity of a norm never depends on its moral correctness Inclusive legal positivists claim that moral considerations may determine the legal validity of a norm but that it is not necessary that this is the case Positivism began as an inclusivist theory but influential exclusive legal positivists including Joseph Raz John Gardner and Leslie Green later rejected the idea A second important debate often called the Hart Dworkin debate 14 concerns the battle between the two most dominant schools in the late 20th and early 21st century legal interpretivism and legal positivism Normative jurisprudence editIn addition to analytic jurisprudence legal philosophy is also concerned with normative theories of law Normative jurisprudence involves normative evaluative and otherwise prescriptive questions about the law 9 For example What is the goal or purpose of law What moral or political theories provide a foundation for the law Three approaches have been influential in contemporary moral and political philosophy and these approaches are reflected in normative theories of law citation needed Utilitarianism is the view that laws should be crafted so as to produce the best consequences Historically utilitarian thought regarding law is associated with the philosopher Jeremy Bentham In contemporary legal theory the utilitarian approach is frequently championed by scholars who work in the law and economics tradition Deontology is the view that laws should reflect our obligation to preserve the autonomy and rights of others Historically deontological thought regarding law is associated with Immanuel Kant who formulated one particularly prominent deontological theory of law Another deontological approach can be found in the work of contemporary legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin Aretaic moral theories such as contemporary virtue ethics emphasize the role of character in morality Virtue jurisprudence is the view that the laws should promote the development of virtuous characters by citizens Historically this approach is associated with Aristotle Contemporary virtue jurisprudence is inspired by philosophical work on virtue ethics There are many other normative approaches to the philosophy of law including critical legal studies and libertarian theories of law Philosophical approaches to legal problems editPhilosophers of law are also concerned with a variety of philosophical problems that arise in particular legal subjects such as constitutional law Contract law Criminal law and Tort law Thus philosophy of law addresses such diverse topics as theories of contract law theories of criminal punishment theories of tort liability and the question of whether judicial review is justified Notable philosophers of law editPlato Aristotle Thomas Aquinas Francis Bacon John Locke Francisco Suarez Francisco de Vitoria Hugo Grotius John Austin legal philosophy Frederic Bastiat Evgeny Pashukanis Jeremy Bentham Emilio Betti Norberto Bobbio Antonio Castanheira Neves Jules Coleman Ronald Dworkin Francesco D Agostino Francisco Elias de Tejada y Spinola Carlos Cossio Miguel Reale John Finnis Lon L Fuller Leslie Green Robert P George Germain Grisez H L A Hart Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr Alf Ross Tony Honore Rudolf Jhering Johann Gottlieb Fichte Hans Kelsen Joel Feinberg David Lyons Robert Alexy Reinhold Zippelius Neil MacCormick William E May Martha Nussbaum Gustav Radbruch Joseph Raz Jeremy Waldron Friedrich Carl von Savigny Robert Summers Roberto Unger Catharine MacKinnon John Rawls Pierre Schlag Robin West Carl Schmitt Jurgen Habermas Carlos Santiago Nino Geoffrey Warnock Scott J Shapiro Shen Buhai Shang Yang Han Fei Zhu XiSee also edit nbsp Philosophy portal nbsp Law portalLegal maxim Critical legal studies Critical rationalism Constitutional economics Experimental jurisprudence Indeterminacy debate in legal theory Judicial activism Jurisprudence Justice Law Law and economics Law and literature Legal formalism Interpretivism legal Legal positivism Legal realism Libertarian theories of law Natural law Philosophy theology and fundamental theory of Catholic canon law Rule of law Rule according to higher law Virtue jurisprudence Mens rea Actus reusReferences edit a b Philosophy of law Encyclopedia Britannica Retrieved 2019 05 15 a b c Himma Kenneth Einar 2019 05 15 Philosophy of Law The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy Postema Gerald J 2011 Economic Jurisprudence In Postema G J ed A Treatise of Legal Philosophy and General Jurisprudence Springer Netherlands pp 181 211 doi 10 1007 978 90 481 8960 1 5 ISBN 9789048189601 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a work ignored help Kornhauser Lewis 2017 The Economic Analysis of Law in Zalta Edward N ed The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Fall 2017 ed Metaphysics Research Lab Stanford University retrieved 2019 05 17 a b Marmor Andrei Sarch Alexander 2015 The Nature of Law in Zalta Edward N ed The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Fall 2015 ed Metaphysics Research Lab Stanford University retrieved 2019 05 15 Sommers Roseanna 2021 07 23 Experimental jurisprudence Science 373 6553 394 395 Bibcode 2021Sci 373 394S doi 10 1126 science abf0711 ISSN 0036 8075 PMID 34437107 S2CID 236179587 a b Marmor Andrei Sarch Alexander 2015 The Nature of Law in Zalta Edward N ed The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Fall 2015 ed Metaphysics Research Lab Stanford University retrieved 2019 05 21 Edwards James 2018 Theories of Criminal Law in Zalta Edward N ed The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Fall 2018 ed Metaphysics Research Lab Stanford University retrieved 2019 05 21 a b Philosophy of Law Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy Finnis John 2016 Natural Law Theories in Zalta Edward N ed The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Winter 2016 ed Metaphysics Research Lab Stanford University retrieved 2019 05 17 Green Leslie 2018 Legal Positivism in Zalta Edward N ed The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Spring 2018 ed Metaphysics Research Lab Stanford University retrieved 2019 05 21 Hart H L A 1994 The Concept of Law Second Edition Oxford University Press pp 181 182 ISBN 978 0199644704 Essays in honor of Hans Kelsen Celebrating the 90th Anniversary of His Birth Fred B Rothman amp Co 1971 ISBN 978 0837705286 a b Shapiro Scott J 2007 03 05 The Hart Dworkin Debate A Short Guide for the Perplexed Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper Series Rochester NY doi 10 2139 ssrn 968657 SSRN 968657 The Philosophy of Scandinavian Legal Realism ResearchGate Retrieved 2019 05 21 Further reading editPlato Minos many editions Plato Laws many editions Thomas Aquinas Summa Contra Gentiles many editions Hadley Arkes First Things Princeton New Jersey Princeton University Press 1986 Ronald Dworkin Taking Rights Seriously Cambridge Massachusetts Harvard University Press 1977 Ronald Dworkin A Matter of Principle Cambridge Massachusetts Harvard University Press 1986 Ronald Dworkin Law s Empire Cambridge Massachusetts Harvard University Press 1986 Ronald Dworkin Freedom s Law The Moral Reading of the American Constitution Cambridge Massachusetts Harvard University Press 1997 Lon L Fuller The Morality of Law New Haven CT Yale University Press 1965 John Chipman Gray The Nature and Sources of Law Peter Smith 1972 reprint H L A Hart The Concept of Law Oxford Oxford University Press 1961 H L A Hart Punishment and Responsibility Oxford Oxford University Press 1968 Sterling Harwood Judicial Activism A Restrained Defense London Austin amp Winfield Publishers 1996 Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel Philosophy of Right Oxford University Press 1967 Ian Farrell amp Morten Ebbe Juul Nielsen Legal Philosophy 5 Questions New York Automatic Press April 2007 Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr The Common Law Dover 1991 reprint Immanuel Kant Metaphysics of Morals Doctrine of Right Cambridge University Press 2000 reprint Hans Kelsen Pure Theory of Law Lawbook Exchange Ltd 2005 reprint Catharine MacKinnon Toward a Feminist Theory of the State Cambridge Harvard University Press 1989 Duncan Kennedy A Critique of Adjudication Cambridge Massachusetts Harvard University Press 1998 David Lyons Ethics amp The Rule of Law Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1984 David Lyons Moral Aspects of Legal Theory Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1993 Neil MacCormick Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory Oxford Oxford University Press 1979 Joseph Raz The Authority of Law Oxford Oxford University Press 1983 reprint Robert S Summers Instrumentalism and American Legal Theory Ithaca NY Cornell University Press 1982 Robert S Summers Lon Fuller Stanford CA Stanford University Press 1984 Roberto Mangabeira Unger The Critical Legal Studies Movement Cambridge Massachusetts Harvard University Press 1986 Jeffrie G Murphy and Jules L Coleman The Philosophy of Law An Introduction to Jurisprudence Boulder CO Westview Press 1989 External links editLibrary resources about Philosophy of law Resources in your library Resources in other libraries Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy Philosophy of Law Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Philosophy of law amp oldid 1210655210, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,

article

, read, download, free, free download, mp3, video, mp4, 3gp, jpg, jpeg, gif, png, picture, music, song, movie, book, game, games.