Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-7drxs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T19:22:21.001Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

19 - The Scope of Legal Positivism: Validity or Interpretation?

from Part IV - Main Tenets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 January 2021

By
Torben Spaak
Edited by
Torben Spaak  and
Patricia Mindus
Torben Spaak
Affiliation:
Stockholms Universitet
Patricia Mindus
Affiliation:
Uppsala Universitet, Sweden
Get access

Summary

Spaak argues that legal positivists need to consider the social thesis in light of an important distinction between two levels of legal thinking, namely, the level of the sources of law (existence) and the level of the interpretation and application of law (content), and that they have good reason to restrict the scope of the social thesis to the level of the sources of law. He argues that by restricting the scope of the social thesis in this way, inclusive legal positivists can avoid having to assume that moral judgements can be true in a non-relative way, that exclusive legal positivists can avoid having to say that judges are creating new law instead of applying pre-existing law, if and insofar as they invoke normative considerations in their interpretation and application of the law, and that both inclusive and exclusive legal positivists can avoid Dworkin’s theoretical disagreement objection.

Keywords

validityinterpretationlegal thinkingsocial thesisseparation of powers
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Companion to Legal Positivism , pp. 443 - 464
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Austin, J. [1832]1998. The Province of Jurisprudence Determined and The Uses of the Study of Jurisprudence. Introduction by Hart, H. L. A.. Hackett.Google Scholar
Bentham, J. [1776]1988. A Fragment on Government: The New Authoritative Edition by J.H. Burns and H.L.A. Hart. With an Introduction by Ross Harrison. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, J. L. 2001. The Practice of Principle. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Coleman, J. L. 2009. ‘Beyond Inclusive Legal Positivism’. Ratio Juris 22: 359–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dworkin, R. [1967]1978. ‘The Model of Rules I’. In Dworkin, R.. Taking Rights Seriously. 2nd ed. Duckworth: 14–45.Google Scholar
Dworkin, R. 1986. Law’s Empire. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Dworkin, R. 2001–2. ‘Thirty Years On’. Harvard Law Review 115: 1655–87.Google Scholar
Fish, S. 1984. ‘Fish v. Fiss’. Stanford Law Review 36: 1325–47.Google Scholar
Fiss, O. 1981–2. ‘Objectivity and Interpretation’. Stanford Law Review 34: 739–63.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. 1958. ‘Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals’. Harvard Law Review 71: 593–629.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. 1961. The Concept of Law. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. 1982. ‘Legal Duty and Obligation’. In Hart, H. L. A.. Essays on Bentham. Oxford University Press: 127–61.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. 1994. The Concept of Law. With a Postscript. 2nd ed. Eds. Bulloch, P. A. and Raz, J.. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Holmes, O. W. 1896–7. ‘The Path of the Law’. Harvard Law Review 10: 457–78.Google Scholar
Kelsen, H. 1960. Reine Rechtslehre [The Pure Theory of Law]. 2nd ed. Österreichische Staatsdruckerei.Google Scholar
Kelsen, H. 1965. ‘Was ist juristischer Positivismus?’ [What Is Legal Positivism?]. Juristenzeitung [Journal for Jurists] 15/16: 465–9.Google Scholar
Kelsen, H. [1934]1994. Reine Rechtslehre. Scientia Verlag.Google Scholar
Kelsen, H. [1945]1999. General Theory of Law and State. Trans. Wedberg, A.. The Lawbook Exchange.Google Scholar
MacCormick, N. 1985–6. ‘A Moralistic Case for A-Moralistic Law?’. Valparaiso University Law Review 20: 1–41.Google Scholar
Moore, M. S. 1985. ‘A Natural Law Theory of Interpretation’. Southern California Law Review 58: 277–398.Google Scholar
Raz, J. 1986. ‘Dworkin: A New Link in the Chain’. California Law Review 74: 1103–19.Google Scholar
Raz, J. 1993. ‘H. L. A. Hart (1907–1992)’. Utilitas 5: 145–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raz, J. [1985]1994. ‘Authority, Law and Morality’. In Raz, J.. Ethics in the Public Domain. Revised ed. Clarendon Press: 210–37.Google Scholar
Raz, J. [1979]2009. ‘Legal Positivism and the Sources of Law’. In Raz, J.. The Authority of Law. 2nd ed. Oxford University Press: 37–52.Google Scholar
Ross, A. 1959. On Law and Justice. University of California Press.Google Scholar
Ross, A. [1961]1998. ‘Validity and the Conflict between Positivism and Natural Law’. In Paulson, S. L. and Paulson, B. Litschewski (eds.). Normativity and Norms: Critical Perspectives on Kelsenian Themes. Clarendon Press: 147–63.Google Scholar
Schauer, F. 1985. ‘Easy Cases’. Southern California Law Review 58: 399–440.Google Scholar
Shapiro, S. J. 2011. Legality. Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Simmonds, N. E. 2002. Central Issues in Jurisprudence: Justice, Law and Rights. 2nd ed. Sweet & Maxwell.Google Scholar
Spaak, T. 2007. Guidance and Constraint: The Action-Guiding Capacity of Theories of Legal Reasoning. Iustus.Google Scholar
Toh, K. 2005. ‘Hart’s Expressivism and His Benthamite Project’. Legal Theory 11: 75–125.Google Scholar
Waluchow, W. J. 1994. Inclusive Legal Positivism. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×