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-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:05:05.018Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part I - Fundamentals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 January 2021

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

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Companion to Legal Positivism , pp. 37 - 102
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

References

Cohen, F. 1935. ‘Transcendental Nonsense and the Functional Approach’. Columbia Law Review 35: 809–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dworkin, R. 1977. ‘No Right Answer?’ In Hacker, P. M. S. and Raz, J. (eds.). Law, Morality, and Society: Essays in Honour of H.L.A. Hart. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dworkin, R. 1986. Law’s Empire. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Dworkin, R. 2008. Justice in Robes. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Finnis, J. 2011. Natural Law and Natural Rights. 2nd ed. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gardner, J. 2001. ‘Legal Positivism: 5½ Myths’. American Journal of Jurisprudence 46: 199–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, L. 1999. ‘Positivism and Conventionalism’. Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 12: 35–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, L. 2008. ‘Positivism and the Inseparability of Law and Morals’. New York University Law Review 83: 1035–58.Google Scholar
Green, L. and Adams, T. 2019. ‘Legal Positivism’. In Zalta, E. N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2019/spr2018/entries/legal-positivism.Google Scholar
Greenberg, M. 2014. ‘The Moral Impact Theory of Law’. Yale Law Journal 123: 1288–1342.Google Scholar
Halevy, E. 1934. The Growth of Philosophical Radicalism. Faber.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. 1983 Essays in Jurisprudence and Philosophy. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. 2012. The Concept of Law. 3rd ed. Introduction by Green, L., eds. Bulloch, P. A. and Raz, J.. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Holmes, O. W. 1920. ‘The Path of the Law’. In Holmes, O. W.. Collected Legal Papers. Harcourt, Brace & Howe.Google Scholar
Kelsen, H. 1967. Pure Theory of Law. 2nd ed. Trans. Knight, M.. University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelsen, H. 1945. General Theory of Law and State. Trans. Wedberg, A.. Russell and Russell.Google Scholar
Leiter, B. 2007. Naturalizing Jurisprudence: Essays on Legal Realism and Naturalism in Legal Philosophy. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Llewellyn, K. N. 1931. ‘Some Realism about Realism: Responding to Dean Pound’. Harvard Law Review 44: 1222–1264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Llewellyn, K. N. 1935. ‘Remarks on the Theory of Appellate Decision and the Rules or Canons about How Statutes Are to Be Construed’. Vanderbilt Law Review 3: 395–406.Google Scholar
Murphy, M. C. 2006. Natural Law in Jurisprudence and Politics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. 1969. Ontological Relativity and Other Essays. Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radin, M. 1925. ‘A Theory of Judicial Decision, or How Judges Think’. American Bar Association Journal 11: 357–62.Google Scholar
Raz, J. 1979. The Authority of Law: Essays on Law and Morality. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Raz, J. 2009. Between Authority and Interpretation: On the Theory of Law and Practical Reason. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schauer, F. 1999 ‘Positivism as Pariah’. In George, R. P. (ed.). The Autonomy of Law: Essays on Legal Positivism. Oxford University Press: 31–47.Google Scholar
Waluchow, W. J. 1994. Inclusive Legal Positivism. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

References

Alfange, D. Jr. 1969. ‘Jeremy Bentham and the Codification of Law’. Cornell Law Review 55: 58–77.Google Scholar
Bentham, J. 1843. ‘Scotch Reform’. In Bowring, J. (ed.). The Works of Jeremy Bentham vol. 5. Tait: 1–54.Google Scholar
Bentham, J. 1988. A Fragment on Government. Ed. Burns, J. H. and Hart, H. L. A.. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bentham, J. 2010. Of the Limits of the Penal Branch of Jurisprudence. Ed. Schofield, P.. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Burazin, L., Himma, K. E. and Roversi, C. (eds.). 2018. Law as an Artifact. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, T. 1996. The Legal Theory of Ethical Positivism. Dartmouth.Google Scholar
Campbell, T. 1998. ‘The Point of Legal Positivism’. King’s College Law Journal 9: 61–78.Google Scholar
Campbell, T. 2000. ‘Democratic Aspects of Ethical Positivism’. In Campbell, T. and Goldsworthy, J. (eds.). Judicial Power, Democracy and Legal Positivism. Dartmouth: 3–24.Google Scholar
Campbell, T. 2004. Prescriptive Legal Positivism: Law, Rights and Democracy. UCL Press.Google Scholar
Celano, B. 2013. ‘Normative Legal Positivism, Neutrality, and the Rule of Law’. In Beltran, J. F., Moreso, J. J. and Papayannis, D. M. (eds.). Neutrality and Theory of Law. Springer: 175–202.Google Scholar
Christie, G. 1973. Jurisprudence: Text and Readings on the Philosophy of Law. West.Google Scholar
Coleman, J. 1982. ‘Negative and Positive Positivism’. Journal of Legal Studies 11: 139–64.Google Scholar
Coleman, J. 2001a. The Practice of Principle: In Defence of a Pragmatist Approach to Legal Theory. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Coleman, J. 2001b. Incorporationism, Conventionality, and the Practical Difference Thesis’. In ed. Coleman, J.. Hart’s Postscript: Essays on the Postscript to the Concept of Law. Oxford University Press: 99–148.Google Scholar
Coyle, S. 2003. ‘Thomas Hobbes and the Intellectual Origins of Legal Positivism’. Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 16: 243–70.Google Scholar
Dickson, J. 2001. Evaluation and Legal Theory. Hart.Google Scholar
Dickson, J. 2004. ‘Methodology in Jurisprudence: A Critical Survey’. Legal Theory 10: 117–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickson, J. 2009. ‘Is Bad Law Still Law? Is Bad Law Really Law?’. In del Mar, M. and Bankowski, Z. (eds.). Law as Institutional Normative Order. Ashgate.Google Scholar
DiFilippo, T. 1972. ‘Jeremy Bentham’s Codification Proposals and Their Place in His Theory’. Buffalo Law Review 22: 239–51.Google Scholar
Dworkin, R. 1986. Law’s Empire. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Dworkin, R. 2002. ‘Thirty Years On’. Harvard Law Review 115: 1655–87.Google Scholar
Dworkin, R. 2006. Justice in Robes. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Dyzenhaus, D. 2010. Hard Cases in Wicked Legal Systems: Pathologies of Legality. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dyzenhaus, D. and Poole, T. (eds.). 2012. Hobbes and the Law. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, M. and Mindus, P. 2013. The Legacy of John Austin’s Jurisprudence. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuller, L. L. 1958. ‘Positivism and Fidelity to Law: A Reply to Professor Hart’. Harvard Law Review 71: 630–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuller, L. L. 1969. The Morality of Law. Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Green, L. 2008. ‘Positivism and the Inseparability of Law and Morals’. New York University Law Review 83: 1035–58.Google Scholar
Green, L. 2016. ‘Duty, Coercion, and Power’. Ratio Juris 29: 164–81.Google Scholar
Harrison, R. 1988. ‘Introduction’. In Harrison, R. and Bentham, J. (eds.). A Fragment on Government. Cambridge: vi–xxiii.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. 1958. ‘Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals’. Harvard Law Review 71: 593–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. 1982. Essays on Bentham: Jurisprudence and Political Theory. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. 2012. The Concept of Law. With an introduction by Green, L.. Eds. Bulloch, P. A. and Raz, J.. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Himma, K. E. 2002. ‘Inclusive Legal Positivism’. In Coleman, J. and Shapiro, S. (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law. Oxford University Press: 125–65.Google Scholar
Kelsen, H. 1967. Pure Theory of Law. Trans. Knight, M.. University of California Press.Google Scholar
Lacey, N. 2004. A Life of H.L.A. Hart: The Nightmare and the Noble Dream. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ladenson, R. 1980. ‘In Defense of a Hobbesian Conception of Law’. Philosophy and Public Affairs 9: 134–59.Google Scholar
Leiter, B. 2007. Naturalizing Jurisprudence: Essays on American Legal Realism and Naturalism in Legal Philosophy. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leiter, B. 2011. ‘The Demarcation Problem in Jurisprudence: A New Case for Scepticism’. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 31: 663–77.Google Scholar
Lyons, F. 1984. ‘Founders and Foundations of Legal Positivism’. Michigan Law Review 82: 722–39.Google Scholar
MacCormick, N. 1985. ‘A Moralistic Case for A-Moralistic Law’. Valparaiso University Law Review 20: 1–37.Google Scholar
Marmor, A. 2002. ‘Exclusive Legal Positivism’. In Coleman, J. and Shapiro, S. (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law. Oxford University Press: 104–24.Google Scholar
Marmor, A. 2006. ‘Legal Positivism: Still Descriptive and Morally Neutral’. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 26: 683–704.Google Scholar
Morison, W. L. 1982. John Austin. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Murphy, M. 1995. ‘Was Hobbes a Legal Positivist?’. Ethics. 105: 846–73.Google Scholar
Murphy, L. 2001. ‘The Political Question of the Concept of Law’. In Coleman, J. (ed.). Hart’s Postscript: Essays on the Postscript to the Concept of Law. Oxford University Press: 371–409.Google Scholar
Perry, S. 1995. ‘Interpretation and Methodology in Legal Theory’. In Marmor, A. (ed.). Law and Interpretation: Essays in Legal Philosophy. Clarendon Press: 97–136.Google Scholar
Perry, S. 2001. ‘Hart’s Methodological Positivism’. In Coleman, J. (ed.). Hart’s Postscript: Essays on the Postscript to the Concept of Law. Oxford University Press: 311–354.Google Scholar
Postema, G. J. 1986. Bentham and the Common Law Tradition. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Postema, G. J. (ed.). 2002. Bentham: Moral, Political and Legal Philosophy. Dartmouth.Google Scholar
Postema, G. J. 2012. ‘Legal Positivism: Early Foundations’. In Marmor, A. (ed.). The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Law. Routledge: 31–47.Google Scholar
Powers, W. Jr. 1985. ‘Book Review’. Duke Law Journal: 221–36.Google Scholar
Priel, D. 2007. ‘Evaluating Descriptive Jurisprudence’. American Journal of Jurisprudence 52: 139–58.Google Scholar
Raz, J. 1979. The Authority of Law: Essays on Law and Morality. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Raz, J. 1985. ‘Authority, Law and Morality’. The Monist 68: 295–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raz, J. 2005. ‘Can There Be a Theory of Law?’. In Golding, M. P. and Edmundson, W. A. (eds.). The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory. Blackwell: 324–42.Google Scholar
Riley, P. 2009. ‘The Legal Philosophy of Thomas Hobbes’. In Pattaro, E., Canale, D., Grossi, P., Hofmann, H. and Riley, P. (ed.). A Treatise of Legal Philosophy and General Jurisprudence vol. 9. Springer: 379–401.Google Scholar
Rodriguez-Blanco, V. 2006. ‘The Methodological Problem in Legal Theory: Normative and Descriptive Jurisprudence Revisited’. Ratio Juris 19: 26–54.Google Scholar
Rumble, W. E. 2005. Doing Austin Justice: The Reception of John Austin’s Philosophy of Law in Nineteenth-Century England. Continuum.Google Scholar
Rundle, K. 2012. Forms Liberate: Reclaiming the Jurisprudence of Lon L. Fuller. Hart.Google Scholar
Schauer, F. 1993. ‘Constitutional Positivism’. Connecticut Law Review 25: 797–828.Google Scholar
Schauer, F. 2004. ‘The Limited Domain of the Law’. Virginia Law Review 90: 1909–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schauer, F. 2005. ‘The Social Construction of the Concept of Law: A Reply to Julie Dickson’. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 25: 493–501.Google Scholar
Schauer, F. 2011. ‘Positivism before Hart’. Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 24: 455–71.Google Scholar
Schauer, F. 2013. ‘Hart’s Anti-Essentialism’. In Duarte d’Almeida, L., Edwards, J. and Dolcetti, A. (eds.). Reading H.L.A. Hart’s ‘The Concept of Law’. Hart: 237–46.Google Scholar
Schauer, F. 2015a. ‘The Path-Dependence of Legal Positivism’. Virginia Law Review 101: 957–81.Google Scholar
Schauer, F. 2015b. The Force of Law. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Schauer, F. 2017. ‘Jeremy Bentham, Tom Campbell, and the Normative Positivist Tradition’. Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy. 42: 204–13.Google Scholar
Schauer, F. 2018. ‘Law as a Malleable Artifact’. In Burazin, L., Himma, K. E. and Roversi, C. (eds.). Law as an Artifact. Oxford University Press: 29–43.Google Scholar
Schofield, P. 2013. ‘The Legal and Political Legacy of Jeremy Bentham’. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 9: 51–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, S. 2011. Legality. Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shiner, R. A. 1992. Norm and Nature: The Movements of Legal Thought. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Spaak, T. 2016. ‘Schauer’s Anti-Essentialism’. Ratio Juris 29: 182–214.Google Scholar
Steintrager, J. 1977. Bentham. Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Summers, R. 1985. Lon L. Fuller. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Symposium. 1989. ‘The Works of Joseph Raz’. Southern California Law Review 62: 731–1235.Google Scholar
Tasioulas, J. 2013. ‘Hart on Justice and Morality’. In Duarte d’Almeida, L., Edwards, J. and Dolcetti, A. (eds.). Reading H.L.A. Hart’s The Concept of Law. Hart: 155–76.Google Scholar
Tinturé, M. K. 2013. ‘Concept and Purpose in Legal Theory: How to “Reclaim” Fuller’. American Journal of Jurisprudence 58: 75–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waldron, J. 2001. ‘Normative or Ethical Positivism’. In Coleman, J. (ed.). Hart’s Postscript: Essays on the Postscript to the Concept of Law. Oxford University Press: 410–34.Google Scholar
Walton, K. 2013. ‘Jurisprudential Methodology: Is Pure Interpretation Possible?’. In Beltran, J. F., Moreso, J. J. and Papayannis, D. M. (eds.). Neutrality and Theory of Law. Springer: 255–73.Google Scholar
Waluchow, W. J. 1994. Inclusive Legal Positivism. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

References

Cohen, F. 1935. ‘Transcendental Nonsense and the Functional Approach’. Columbia Law Review 35: 809–49.Google Scholar
Frank, J. 1930. Law and the Modern Mind. Brentano’s.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. 1983. ‘Scandinavian Realism’. In Essays in Jurisprudence and Philosophy. Oxford University Press: 161–9.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. 2012. The Concept of Law. 3rd ed. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Holmes, O. W. 1897. ‘The Path of the Law’. Harvard Law Review 10: 457–78.Google Scholar
Hutcheson, J. C. 1929. ‘The Judgment Intuitive: The Function of the “Hunch” in Judicial Decisions’. Cornell Law Quarterly 14: 274–88.Google Scholar
Jackson, F. 1998. From Metaphysics to Ethics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leiter, B. 2001. ‘Legal Realism and Legal Positivism Reconsidered’. Ethics 111: 278–301.Google Scholar
Leiter, B. 2007. Naturalizing Jurisprudence. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leiter, B. 2009. ‘Explaining Theoretical Disagreement’. University of Chicago Law Review 76: 1215–50.Google Scholar
Leiter, B. 2012. ‘In Praise of Realism (and Against “Nonsense” Jurisprudence)’. Georgetown Law Journal 100: 865–93.Google Scholar
Leiter, B. 2015. ‘Normativity for Naturalists’. Philosophical Issues: A Supplement to Nous 25: 64–79.Google Scholar
Leiter, B. and Etchemendy, M. 2017. ‘Naturalism in Legal Philosophy’. In Zalta, E. N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/lawphil-naturalism/.Google Scholar
Llewellyn, K. 1930a. The Bramble Bush. Oceana Publications.Google Scholar
Llewellyn, K. 1930b. ‘A Realistic Jurisprudence: The Next Step’. Columbia Law Review 30: 431–65.Google Scholar
Llewellyn, K. 1931. ‘Some Realism about Realism: Responding to Dean Pound’. Harvard Law Review 44: 1222–64.Google Scholar
Llewellyn, K. 1950. ‘Remarks on the Theory of Appellate Decision and the Rules or Canons about How Statutes Are to Be Construed’. Vanderbilt Law Review 3: 395–406.Google Scholar
Llewellyn, K. 1960. The Common Law Tradition. Little, Brown & Co.Google Scholar
Mindus, P. 2009. A Real Mind: The Life and Work of Axel Hägerström. Springer.Google Scholar
Oliphant, H. 1928. ‘A Return to Stare Decisis’. American Bar Association Journal 14: 71–6.Google Scholar
Olivecrona, K. 1971. Law as Fact. 2nd ed. Stevens & Sons.Google Scholar
Radin, M. 1930. ‘Statutory Interpretation’. Harvard Law Review 43: 863–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radin, M. 1942. ‘In Defense of Unsystematic Science of Law’. The Yale Law Journal 51: 1269–79.Google Scholar
Raz, J. 1985. ‘Authority, Law, and Morality’. The Monist 68: 295–324.Google Scholar
Raz, J. 1986. The Morality of Freedom. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ross, A. 1959. On Law and Justice. University of California Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, S. 1998. ‘On Hart’s Way Out’. Legal Theory 4: 469–507.Google Scholar
Spaak, T. 2009. ‘Karl Olivecrona on Judicial Lawmaking’. Ratio Juris 22: 483–98.Google Scholar
Spaak, T. 2011. ‘Karl Olivecrona’s Legal Philosophy: A Critical Appraisal’. Ratio Juris 24: 156–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toh, K. 2005. ‘Hart’s Expressivism and His Benthamite Project’. Legal Theory 11: 75–123.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] 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
×