Book contents
- The Cambridge Companion to Legal Positivism
- Cambridge Companions to Law
- The Cambridge Companion to Legal Positivism
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Fundamentals
- Part II History
- Part III Central Figures
- Part IV Main Tenets
- Part V Normativity and Values
- Part VI Critique
- Index
- References
Part III - Central Figures
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 January 2021
Book contents
- The Cambridge Companion to Legal Positivism
- Cambridge Companions to Law
- The Cambridge Companion to Legal Positivism
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Fundamentals
- Part II History
- Part III Central Figures
- Part IV Main Tenets
- Part V Normativity and Values
- Part VI Critique
- Index
- References
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.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Companion to Legal Positivism , pp. 201 - 394Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
References
Bentham, J. University College London Library. Bentham Papers. Manuscript boxes i–clxxvi.Google Scholar
Bentham, J. 1945. The Limits of Jurisprudence Defined. Ed. Everett, C. W.. Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Bentham, J. 1970a. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Eds. Burns, J. H. and Hart, H. L. A.. Athlone Press.Google Scholar
Bentham, J. 1977. A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government. Eds. Burns, J. H. and Hart, H. L. A.. Athlone Press.Google Scholar
Bentham, J. 1983a. Chrestomathia. Eds. Smith, M. J. and Burston, W. H.. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bentham, J. 1983b. Deontology together with A Table of the Springs of Action and Article on Utilitarianism. Ed. Goldworth, A.. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bentham, J. 1998. ‘Legislator of the World’: Writings on Codification, Law, and Education. Eds. Schofield, P. and Harris, J.. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bentham, J. 2010. Of the Limits of the Penal Branch of Jurisprudence. Ed. Schofield, P.. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bentham, J. 2012. On the Liberty of the Press, and Public Discussion and Other Legal and Political Writings for Spain and Portugal. Eds. Pease-Watkin, C. and Schofield, P.. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bentham, J. 2016. Preparatory Principles. Eds. Long, D. G. and Schofield, P.. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. 1982. Essays on Bentham: Studies in Jurisprudence and Political Theory. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. 1996. ‘Bentham’s Principle of Utility and Theory of Penal Law’. In Bentham, J.. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Eds. Burns, J. H. and Hart, H. L. A.. Introduction by Rosen, F.. Clarendon Press: lxxix–cxii.Google Scholar
Hume, D. 2007. A Treatise of Human Nature: A Critical Edition. 2 vols. Eds. Norton, D. F. and Norton, M. J.. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Lieberman, D. 1989. The Province of Legislation Determined: Legal Theory in Eighteenth-Century Britain. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Locke, J. 1975. Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Ed. Nidditch, P. H.. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Perry, S. R. 2001. ‘Hart’s Methodological Positivism’. In Coleman, J. (ed.). Hart’s Postscript: Essays on the Postscript to the Concept of Law. Oxford University Press: 311–54.Google Scholar
Schofield, P. 2010. ‘Jeremy Bentham and HLA Hart’s “Utilitarian Tradition in Jurisprudence”’. Jurisprudence 1: 147–67.Google Scholar
References
Bentham, J. 1970. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Eds. Burns, J. H. and Hart, H. L. A.. Athlone Press.Google Scholar
Bentham, J. 1977. A Comment on the Commentaries and a Fragment on Government. Eds. Burns, J. H. and Hart, H. L. A.. Athlone Press.Google Scholar
Bentham, J. 2010. Of the Limits of the Penal Branch of Jurisprudence. Ed. Schofield, P.. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Halpin, A. 2013. ‘Austin’s Methodology? His Bequest to Jurisprudence’. In Freeman, M. and Mindus, P. (eds.). The Legacy of John Austin’s Jurisprudence. Springer: 15–40.Google Scholar
Harrison, F. 1878. ‘The English School of Jurisprudence’. Fortnightly Review 24: 682–703.Google Scholar
Kramer, M. H. 2013. ‘John Austin on Punishment’. In Green, L. and Leiter, B. (eds.). Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Law vol. 2. Oxford University Press: 103–21.Google Scholar
Lobban, M. 2013. ‘Austin and the Germans’. In Freeman, M. and Mindus, P. (eds.). The Legacy of John Austin’s Jurisprudence. Springer: 255–70.Google Scholar
Maine, H. S. 1861. Ancient Law: Its Connection with the Early History of Society and Its Relation to Modern Ideas. John Murray.Google Scholar
Markby, W. 1871. Elements of Law, Considered with Reference to Principles of General Jurisprudence. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Raz, J. 1980. The Concept of a Legal System: An Introduction to the Theory of a Legal System. 2nd ed. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Salmond, J. W. 1902. Jurisprudence, or the Theory of the Law. 2nd ed. Stevens and Haynes.Google Scholar
Schwarz, A. B. 1934–5. ‘John Austin and the German Jurisprudence of His Time’. Politica 1: 178–99.Google Scholar
References
Anschütz, G. 1926. Die Verfassung des Deutschen Reiches vom 11. August 1919. Ein Kommentar für Wissenschaft und Praxis. 3rd and 4th ed. Stilke.Google Scholar
Anschütz, G. 1933. Die Verfassung des Deutschen Reiches vom 11. August 1919. Ein Kommentar für Wissenschaft und Praxis. 14th ed. Stilke.Google Scholar
Anter, A. 2000. ‘Max Weber und Georg Jellinek. Wissenschaftliche Beziehung, Affinitäten und Divergenzen’. In Paulson, S. L. and Schulte, M. (eds.). Georg Jellinek – Beiträge zu Leben und Werk. Mohr Siebeck: 67–86.Google Scholar
Anter, A. 2004. ‘Modernität und Ambivalenz in Georg Jellineks Staatsdenken’. In Anter, A. (ed.). Die normative Kraft des Faktischen. Das Staatsverständnis Georg Jellineks. Nomos: 37–59.Google Scholar
Anter, A. 2010. ‘Georg Jellinek’. In Voigt, R. and Weiß, U. (eds.). Handbuch Staatsdenker. Franz Steiner: 195–7.Google Scholar
Anter, A. 2016a. ‘Max Weber auf den Spuren Georg Jellineks’. In Brugger, W., Gröschner, R. and Lembcke, O. W. (eds.). Faktizität und Normativität. Georg Jellineks freiheitliche Verfassungslehre. Mohr Siebeck: 39–62.Google Scholar
Breuer, S. 1999. Georg Jellinek und Max Weber. Von der sozialen zur soziologischen Staatslehre. Nomos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court). 2009. ‘Urteil. 30. Juni 2009 – 2 BvE 2, 5/08, 2 BvR 1010, 1022, 1259/08, 182/09’. In Mitglieder des Bundesverfassungsgerichts (eds.). Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts. Volume 123. Mohr Siebeck: 267–437.Google Scholar
Gephart, W. 1993. Gesellschaftstheorie und Recht. Recht im soziologischen Diskurs der Moderne. Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Jacobson, A. and Schlink, B. 2001. Weimar: A Jurisprudence of Crisis. University of California Press.Google Scholar
Jellinek, G. 1872. Die Weltanschauungen Leibniz’ und Schopenhauer’s. Ihre Gründe und ihre Berechtigung. Eine Studie über Optimismus und Pessimismus. Hölder.Google Scholar
Jellinek, G. 1878. Die socialethische Bedeutung von Recht, Unrecht und Strafe. Hölder.Google Scholar
Jellinek, G. 1880. Die rechtliche Natur der Staatenverträge. Ein Beitrag zur juristischen Construction des Völkerrechts. Hölder.Google Scholar
Jellinek, G. 1887. Gesetz und Verordnung. Staatsrechtliche Untersuchungen auf rechtsgeschichtlicher und rechtsvergleichender Grundlage. Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
Jellinek, G. 1895. Die Erklärung der Menschen – und Bürgerrechte. Ein Beitrag zur modernen Verfassungsgeschichte. Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
Jellinek, G. 1898. Das Recht der Minoritäten. Vortrag gehalten in der Juristischen Gesellschaft zu Wien. Hölder.Google Scholar
Jellinek, G. 1901. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of Citizens: A Contribution to Modern Constitutional History. Holt.Google Scholar
Jellinek, G. 1904. Die Erklärung der Menschen – und Bürgerrechte. Ein Beitrag zur modernen Verfassungsgeschichte. 2nd ed. Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
Jellinek, G. 1906. Verfassungsänderung und Verfassungswandlung. Eine staatsrechtlich-politische Abhandlung. Häring.Google Scholar
Jellinek, G. 1909. Regierung und Parlament in Deutschland. Geschichtliche Entwicklung ihres Verhältnisses. Teubner.Google Scholar
Jellinek, G. [1894]1911. ‘Die Entstehung der modernen Staatsidee’. In Jellinek, W. (ed.). Ausgewählte Schriften und Reden vol. 2. Häring: 45–63.Google Scholar
Jellinek, G. 2016. Allgemeine Staatslehre und Politik. Vorlesungsmitschrift von Max Ernst Mayer aus dem Sommersemester 1896. Eds. Ziemann, S. and Funke, A.. Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
Jhering, R. V. 1865. Geist des römischen Rechts auf den verschiedenen Stufen seiner Entwicklung 3rd part, vol. 1. Breitkopf und Härtel.Google Scholar
Kant, I. [1786]2011. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Ed. Timmermann, J.. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kelly, D. 2004. ‘Revisiting the Rights of Man: Georg Jellinek on Rights and the State’. Law and History Review 22: 493–529.Google Scholar
Kelsen, H. 1922. Der soziologische und der juristische Staatsbegriff. Eine kritische Untersuchung des Verhältnisses von Staat und Recht. Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
Kelsen, H. 1923. Hauptprobleme der Staatsrechtslehre entwickelt aus der Lehre vom Rechtssatze. 2nd ed. Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
Kelsen, H. 1928. Das Problem der Souveränität und die Theorie des Völkerrechts. Beitrag zu einer Reinen Rechtslehre. 2nd ed. Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
Kelsen, H. 1934. Reine Rechtslehre. Einleitung in die rechtswissenschaftliche Problematik. Deuticke.Google Scholar
Kempter, K. 1998. Die Jellineks 1820–1955. Eine familienbiographische Studie zum deutschjüdischen Bürgertum. Droste.Google Scholar
Kersten, J. 2001. ‘Mehrheit und Minderheit im Minoritätenstaat. Georg Jellineks rechtspolitische Schriften 1885 bis 1906 als Beitrag zum Verhältnis von Staatsrechtslehre und Politik im Spätkonstitutionalismus und darüber hinaus’. Der Staat 40: 221–42.Google Scholar
Kersten, J. 2004. ‘Warum Georg Jellinek? Jellinek und die Staats – Staats- und Europarechtslehre der Gegenwart’. In Anter, A. (ed.). Die normative Kraft des Faktischen. Das Staatsverständnis Georg Jellineks. Nomos: 175–199.Google Scholar
Kersten, J. 2011. ‘Georg Jellineks System. Eine Einleitung’. In Jellinek, G.. System der subjektiven öffentlichen Rechte. 2nd ed. (1905). Ed. Kersten, J.. Mohr Siebeck: *7–*52.Google Scholar
Kersten, J. 2018. ‘Georg Jellinek (1851–1911)’. In Häberle, P., Kilian, M. and Wolff, H. (eds.). Staatsrechtslehrer des 20. Jahrhunderts. Deutschland – Österreich – Schweiz. 2nd ed. Walter de Gruyter: 77–86.Google Scholar
Kirste, S. 2016. ‘Verfassung und Verfassungswandel bei Georg Jellinek’. In Brugger, W., Gröschner, R. and Lembcke, O. W. (eds.). Faktizität und Normativität. Georg Jellineks freiheitliche Verfassungslehre. Mohr Siebeck: 209–35.Google Scholar
Laband, P. 1880. Rede über die Bedeutung der Rezeption des Römischen Rechts für das deutsche Staatsrecht. Heitz.Google Scholar
Laband, P. 1887. ‘S. Brie. Theorie der Staatenverbindungen. 1886’ (Book Review). Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts 2: 311–20.Google Scholar
Laband, P. 1895. Die Wandlungen der deutschen Reichsverfassung. Vortrag gehalten in der gehe-Stiftung zu Dresden am 16. März 1895. Zahn & Jaensch.Google Scholar
Laband, P. 1907. ‘Die geschichtliche Entwicklung der Reichsverfassung seit der Reichsgründung’. Jahrbuch des öffentlichen Rechts 1: 1–46.Google Scholar
Lepsius, O. 2000. ‘Georg Jellinek‘s Methodenlehre im Spiegel der zeitgenössischen Erkenntnistheorie’. In Paulson, S. L. and Schulte, M. (eds.). Georg Jellinek – Beiträge zu Leben und Werk. Mohr Siebeck: 309–43.Google Scholar
Pauly, W. 1993. Der Methodenwandel im deutschen Spätkonstitutionalismus. Ein Beitrag zur Entwicklung und Gestalt der Wissenschaft vom Öffentlichen Recht im 19. Jahrhundert. Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
Pauly, W. 2000. ‘Jellinek’s System der subjektiven öffentlichen Rechte’. In Paulson, S. L. and Schulte, M. (eds.). Georg Jellinek – Beiträge zu Leben und Werk. Mohr Siebeck: 227–44.Google Scholar
Radbruch, G. [1946]2006. ‘Lawlessness and Supra-Statutory Law’. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 26: 1–11.Google Scholar
Schönberger, C. 1998. Das Parlament im Anstaltsstaat. Zur Theorie parlamentarischer Repräsentation in der Staatsrechtslehre des Kaiserreichs (1871–1918). Klostermann.Google Scholar
Schönberger, C. 2000. ‘Ein Liberaler zwischen Staatswille und Volkswille. Georg Jellinek und die Krise des staatsrechtlichen Positivismus um die Jahrhundertwende’. In Paulson, S. L. and Schulte, M. (eds.). Georg Jellinek – Beiträge zu Leben und Werk. Mohr Siebeck: 3–323.Google Scholar
Stolleis, M. 1999. Geschichte des öffentlichen Rechts in Deutschland vol 2. C.H. Beck.Google Scholar
Stolleis, M. 2000. ‘Georg Jellineks Beitrag zur Entwicklung der Menschen – und Bürgerrechte’. In Paulson, S. L. and Schulte, M. (eds.). Georg Jellinek – Beiträge zu Leben und Werk. Mohr Siebeck: 103–16.Google Scholar
Weber, M. [1919]1946. ‘Politics as a Vocation’. In Gerth, H. H. and Wright Mills, C. (eds.). From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. Oxford University Press: 77–128.Google Scholar
Wolff, H. A. 2000. ‘Verfassungswandel und ungeschriebenes Verfassungsrecht im Werke Georg Jellineks’. In Paulson, S. L. and Schulte, M. (eds.). Georg Jellinek – Beiträge zu Leben und Werk. Mohr Siebeck: 133–53.Google Scholar
Ziemann, S. and Funke, A. 2016. ‘Einleitung: Zur Archäologie eines juristischen Klassikers’. In Jellinek, G.. Allgemeine Staatslehre und Politik. Eds. Ziemann, S. and Funke, A.. Mohr Siebeck. XIII–XXXIV.Google Scholar
References
Baker, G. P. and Hacker, P. M. S. 1984. Frege: Logical Excavations. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bix, B. 2016. ‘Kelsen in the United States: Still Misunderstood’. In Telman, J. (ed.). Hans Kelsen in America. Springer Verlag: 17–29.Google Scholar
Brockhaus, R. R. 1991. ‘Realism and Psychologism in 19th Century Logic’. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 51: 493–524.Google Scholar
Cotterrell, R. 1999. Émile Durkheim: Law in a Moral Domain. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Delacroix, S. 2004. ‘Hart’s and Kelsen’s Concepts of Normativity Contrasted’. Ratio Juris 17: 501–20.Google Scholar
Durkheim, É. 2013. The Rules of Sociological Method and Selected Texts on Sociology and Its Method. 2nd ed. Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Edel, G. 1988. Von der Vernunftkritik zur Erkenntnislogik: Die Entwicklung der theoretischen Philosophie Hermann Cohens. Alber.Google Scholar
Edel, G. 1998. ‘The Hypothesis of the Basic Norm: Hans Kelsen and Hermann Cohen’. In Paulson, S. and Paulson, B. (eds.). Normativity and Norms: Critical Perspectives on Kelsenian Themes. Clarendon Press: 195–220.Google Scholar
Edmundson, W. 2004. ‘State of the Art: The Duty to Obey the Law’. Legal Theory 10: 215–59.Google Scholar
Enoch, D. 2011a. Taking Morality Seriously: A Defense of Robust Realism. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Enoch, D. 2011b. ‘Reason-Giving and the Law’. In Green, L. and Leiter, B. (eds.). Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Law vol. 1. Oxford University Press: 1–38.Google Scholar
Frege, G. 1984a. The Foundations of Arithmetic. 2nd ed. Trans. Austin, J.. Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Frege, G. 1984b. ‘Thoughts’. In McGuinness, B. (ed.). Collected Papers on Mathematics, Logic, and Philosophy. Trans Black, M. et al. Basil Blackwell: 351–72.Google Scholar
Gardner, J. 2001. ‘Legal Positivism: 5½ Myths’. American Journal of Jurisprudence 46: 199–227.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. 2019. ‘Legal Positivism’. In Zalta, E. N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/legal-positivism/.Google Scholar
Green, M. S. 2003. ‘Hans Kelsen and the Logic of Legal Systems’. Alabama Law Review 54: 365–413.Google Scholar
Green, M. S. 2016. ‘Marmor’s Kelsen’. In Telman, J. (ed.). Hans Kelsen in America. Springer Verlag: 45–84.Google Scholar
Green, M. S. 2018. ‘Legal Monism: An American History’. In Bezemek, C., Potacs, M. and Somek, A. (eds.). Vienna Lectures on Legal Philosophy. Hart: 23–48.Google Scholar
Greenberg, M. 2006. ‘Hartian Positivism and Normative Facts: How Facts Make Law II’. In Hershovitz, S. (ed.). Exploring Law’s Empire: The Jurisprudence of Ronald Dworkin. Oxford University Press: 265–90.Google Scholar
Greenberg, M. 2014. ‘The Moral Impact Theory of Law’. Yale Law Journal 123: 1288–1342.Google Scholar
Jackson, F. and Pettit, P. 1992. ‘Structural Explanation in Social Theory’. In Charles, D. and Lennon, K. (eds.). Reduction, Explanation, and Realism. Clarendon Press: 97–131.Google Scholar
Kelsen, H. 1911. Hauptprobleme der Staatsrechtslehre: Entwickelt aus der Lehre vom Rechtssatz. Mohr.Google Scholar
Kelsen, H. 1921. ‘Das Verhältnis von Staat und Recht im Lichte der Erkenntniskritik’. Zeitschrift für öffentliches Recht 2: 453–510.Google Scholar
Kelsen, H. 1922a. ‘Der Begriff des Staates und die Sozialpsychologie’. Imago 8: 97–141.Google Scholar
Kelsen, H. 1945. General Theory of Law and State. Trans. Wedberg, A.. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kelsen, H. 1967. Pure Theory of Law. 2nd ed. Trans. Knight, M.. University of California Press.Google Scholar
Kelsen, H. 1981. ‘On the Basis of Legal Validity’. Trans. Paulson, S.. American Journal of Jurisprudence 26: 178–89.Google Scholar
Kelsen, H. 1992. Introduction to the Problems of Legal Theory. Trans. Paulson, B. and Paulson, S.. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Paulson, S. L. 1975. ‘Review: Constraints on Legal Norms: Kelsen’s View in the Essays’. University of Chicago Law Review 42: 768–86.Google Scholar
Paulson, S. L. 1992. ‘Kelsen’s Legal Theory: The Final Round’. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 12: 265–74.Google Scholar
Paulson, S. L. 1993. ‘Continental Normativism and Its British Counterpart: How Different Are They?’. Ratio Juris 6: 227–44.Google Scholar
Paulson, S. L. 1998. ‘Four Phases in Hans Kelsen’s Legal Theory? Reflections on a Periodization’. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 18: 153–66.Google Scholar
Paulson, S. L. 1999. ‘Arriving at a Defensible Periodization of Hans Kelsen’s Legal Theory’. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 19: 351–65.Google Scholar
Paulson, S. L. 2000. ‘The Weak Reading of Authority in Hans Kelsen’s Pure Theory of Law’. Law and Philosophy 19: 131–71.Google Scholar
Paulson, S. L. 2001. ‘Hans Kelsen’s Doctrine of Imputation’. Ratio Juris 14: 47–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paulson, S. L. 2005. ‘Some Issues in the Exchange between Kelsen and Kaufmann’. Scandinavian Studies in Law 48: 269–90.Google Scholar
Paulson, S. L. 2012. ‘A “Justified Normativity” Thesis in Hans Kelsen’s Pure Theory of Law? Rejoinders to Robert Alexy and Joseph Raz’. In Klatt, M. (ed.). Institutionalized Reason: The Jurisprudence of Robert Alexy. Oxford University Press: 61–111.Google Scholar
Paulson, S. L. 2013. ‘The Great Puzzle: Kelsen’s Basic Norm’. In Duarte d’Almeida, L., Gardner, J. and Green, L. (eds.). Kelsen Revisited: New Essays on the Pure Theory of Law. Hart: 43–62.Google Scholar
Pavlakos, G. 2018. ‘Kelsenian Imputation and the Explanation of Legal Norms’. Revus 37: 47–56. https://journals.openedition.org/revus/4808.Google Scholar
Pavlakos, G. Forthcoming. ‘A Non-naturalist Account of Law’s Place in Reality’. In Brozek, B., Hage, J. and Vincent, N. (eds.). Law and Mind. A Survey of Law and the Cognitive Sciences. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Plunkett, D. 2012. ‘A Positivist Route for Explaining How Facts Make Law’. Legal Theory 18: 139–207.Google Scholar
Poma, A. 1997. The Critical Philosophy of Hermann Cohen. Trans. Denton, J.. SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, A. 1982. ‘Joseph Raz on Kelsen’s Basic Norm’. American Journal of Jurisprudence 27: 46–63.Google Scholar
References
Coleman, J. 1982. ‘Negative and Positive Positivism’. Journal of Legal Studies 11: 139–64.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. 2013. ‘Answers to Eight Questions’. In Duarte d’Almeida, L., Edwards, J. and Dolcetti, A. (eds.). Reading HLA Hart’s The Concept of Law. Hart: 279–97.Google Scholar
Kramer, M. 2013. ‘In Defense of Hart’. In Waluchow, W. and Sciaraffa, S. (eds.). Philosophical Foundations of the Nature of Law. Oxford University Press: 22–50.Google Scholar
Kramer, M. 2017. ‘There’s Nothing Quasi about Quasi-Realism’. Journal of Ethics 21: 185–212.Google Scholar
Lamond, G. 2013. ‘The Rule of Recognition and the Foundations of a Legal System’. In Duarte d’Almeida, L., Edwards, J. and Dolcetti, A. (eds.). Reading HLA Hart’s The Concept of Law. Hart: 97–122.Google Scholar
References
Austin, J. 1885. Lectures on Jurisprudence, or The Philosophy of Positive Law. 5th ed. Murray & Sons.Google Scholar
Bobbio, N. 1934a. Scienza e tecnica del diritto. Istituto Giuridico della R. Università.Google Scholar
Bobbio, N. [1934b]2018. L’indirizzo fenomenologico nella filosofia del diritto. Ed. Di Lucia, P.. Giappichelli.Google Scholar
Bobbio, N. 1950a. ‘Scienza del diritto e analisi del linguaggio’. In Bobbio, N.. 2011. Saggi sulla scienza giuridica. Giappichelli: 1–31.Google Scholar
Bobbio, N. 1954. ‘Sul ragionamento dei giuristi’. In Bobbio, N.. 2011. Saggi sulla scienza giuridica. Giappichelli: 33–46.Google Scholar
Bobbio, N. 1967a. ‘Essere e dover essere nella scienza giuridica’. In Bobbio, N.. 2011. Saggi sulla scienza giuridica. Giappichelli: 117–42.Google Scholar
Bobbio, N. 1967b. ‘Intervento’. In AA.VV. 1967. Tavola rotonda sul positivismo giuridico. Giuffrè: 69–73.Google Scholar
Bobbio, N. 1992. ‘Autobiografia intellettuale’. In Bobbio, N.. 1996. De senectute e altri scritti autobiografici. Ed. Polito, P.. Einaudi: 121–41.Google Scholar
Bobbio, N. 1994. ‘Diritto e potere’. In Bobbio, N.. 1996. De senectute e altri scritti autobiografici. Ed. Polito, P.. Einaudi: 154–62.Google Scholar
Chiassoni, P. 2011. ‘Constitutionalism out of a Positivist Mind Cast: The Garantismo Way’. Res Publica 17(4): 327–42.Google Scholar
Chiassoni, P. 2013. Positivismo giuridico. Una investigazione analitica. Mucchi Editore.Google Scholar
Chiassoni, P. 2016. Da Bentham a Kelsen. Sei capitoli per una storia della filosofia analitica del diritto. Giappichelli.Google Scholar
Comanducci, P. 2003. ‘Formas de (neo)constitucionalismo: un análisis metateórico’. Isonomía 2003: 75–98.Google Scholar
Duke, G. and George, R. P. (eds.) 2017. The Cambridge Companion to Natural Law Jurisprudence. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Guastini, R. 2011. ‘Bobbio sulla scienza giuridica. Introduzione alla lettura’. In Bobbio, N.. 2011. Saggi sulla scienza giuridica. Giappichelli: ix–xxii.Google Scholar
Hahn, H., Neurath, O. and Carnap, R. 1929. Wissenschaftliche Weltauffassung. Die Wiener Kreis. Trans. La concezione scientifica del mondo. Il Circolo di Vienna. Laterza.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. 1958. ‘Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals’. In Hart, H. L. A.. 1983. Essays in Jurisprudence and Philosophy. Clarendon Press: 49–87.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. 1961. The Concept of Law. With a Postscript. 3rd ed. Introduction Green, L.. Eds. Bulloch, P. A. and Raz, J.. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. 1967. ‘Legal Positivism’. In Edwards, P. (ed.). The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Macmillan. Losano, M. G. 2018. Norberto Bobbio. Una biografia culturale. Carocci.Google Scholar
Neurath, O. 1931–2. ‘Soziologie im Physikalismus’. Trans. Sociologia e fisicalismo. In Neurath, O.. 1968. Sociologia e neopositivismo. Introduction and trans. Statera, G.. Ubaldini: 17–53. Olivecrona, K. 1971. Law as Fact. 2nd ed. Stevens & Sons.Google Scholar
Perry, S. R. 2001. ‘Hart’s Methodological Positivism’. In Coleman, J. (ed.). Hart’s Postscript: Essays on the Postscript to the Concept of Law. Oxford University Press: 311–54.Google Scholar
Pufendorf, S. 1673. De officio hominis et civis juxta legem naturalem libri duo [On the Duty of Man and Citizen According to Natural Law]. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Redazione Reset and Ocone, C. (eds.). 2003. Bobbio ad uso di amici e nemici. Marsilio.Google Scholar
Ross, A. 1961/1999. ‘Validity and the Conflict between Legal Positivism and Natural Law’. In Paulson, S. and Paulson, B. Litschewski (eds.). Normativity and Norms. Critical Perspectives on Kelsenian Themes. Clarendon Oxford: ch. 7.Google Scholar
Scarpelli, U. 1965. Cos’è il positivismo giuridico. Eds. and introduction Catania, A. and Jori, M.. Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane.Google Scholar
Scarpelli, U. 1967. ‘Risposta’. In AA.VV. 1967. Tavola rotonda sul positivismo giuridico. Giuffrè: 77–86.Google Scholar
Vitale, E. (ed.) 2010. Norberto Bobbio e Alessandro Passerin d’Entrèves. Profili intellettuali a confronto. Giappichelli.Google Scholar
References
Alexy, R. 2002. The Argument from Injustice: A Reply to Legal Positivism. Trans. Paulson, S. L. and Paulson, B. L.. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Alexy, R. 2007. ‘An Answer to Joseph Raz’. In Pavlakos, G. (ed.). Law, Rights, and Discourse. Hart: 37–55.Google Scholar
Austin, J. [1832]1995. The Province of Jurisprudence Determined. Ed. Rumble, W. E.. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Celano, B. 2013. ‘Normative Legal Positivism, Neutrality, and the Rule of Law’. In Beltrán, J. F., Moreso, J. J. and Papayannis, D. M. (eds.). Neutrality and Theory of Law. Springer: 175–202.Google Scholar
Coleman, J. L. 1998a. ‘Incorporationism, Conventionality, and the Practical Difference Thesis’. Legal Theory 4: 381–425.Google Scholar
Coleman, J. L. 1998b. ‘Second Thoughts and Other First Impressions’. In Bix, B. (ed.). Analyzing Law. Oxford University Press: 257–322.Google Scholar
Duarte d’Almeida, L. 2011. ‘Legal Statements and Normative Language’. Law and Philosophy 30: 167–99.Google Scholar
Duarte d’Almeida, L. and Edwards, J. 2014. ‘Some Claims about Law’s Claims’. Law and Philosophy 33: 725–46.Google Scholar
Dworkin, R. 1983. ‘A Reply by Ronald Dworkin’. In Cohen, M. (ed.). Ronald Dworkin and Contemporary Jurisprudence. Rowman & Allanheld: 247–300.Google Scholar
Endicott, T. 2003. ‘Raz on Gaps: The Surprising Part’. In Meyer, L. H., Paulson, S. L. and Pogge, T. W. (eds.). Rights, Culture, and the Law. Oxford University Press: 99–115.Google Scholar
Finnis, J. 2000. ‘On the Incoherence of Legal Positivism’. Notre Dame Law Review 75: 1597–1611.Google Scholar
Finnis, J. 2002. ‘Natural Law: The Classical Tradition’. In Coleman, J. and Shapiro, S. (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law. Oxford University Press: 1–60.Google Scholar
Finnis, J. 2011. Philosophy of Law: Collected Essays vol. IV. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Finnis, J. 2020. ‘Natural Law Theories’. In Zalta, E. N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-theories/.Google Scholar
Green, L. 2003. ‘Legal Positivism’. In Zalta, E. N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/legal-positivism/.Google Scholar
Green, L. 2008. ‘Positivism and the Inseparability of Law and Morals’. New York University Law Review 83: 1035–58.Google Scholar
Greenberg, M. 2011. ‘The Standard Picture and Its Discontents’. In Green, L. and Leiter, B. (eds.). Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Law vol. I. Oxford University Press: 39–106.Google Scholar
Greenberg, M. 2014. ‘The Moral Impact Theory of Law’. Yale Law Journal 123: 1288–1342.Google Scholar
Greenberg, M. 2017. ‘The Moral Impact Theory, the Dependence View and Natural Law. In Duke, G. and George, R. P. (eds.). The Cambridge Companion to Natural Law Jurisprudence. Cambridge University Press: 275–313.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. 1958. ‘Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals’. Harvard Law Review 71: 593–629.Google 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
Kramer, M.H. 1999. In Defense of Legal Positivism: Law Without Trimmings. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kramer, M. H. 2004. ‘On the Separability of Law and Morality’. Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 17: 315–35.Google Scholar
Leiter, B. 1998. ‘Realism, Hard Positivism, and Conceptual Analysis’. Legal Theory 4: 533–47.Google Scholar
MacCormick, N. 2007. ‘Why Law Makes No Claims’. In Pavlakos, G. (ed.). Laws, Rights, and Discourse. Hart: 59–67.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
Murphy, M. C. 2013. ‘The Explanatory Role of the Weak Natural Law Thesis. In Waluchow, W. and Sciaraffa, S. (eds.) Philosophical Foundations of the Nature of Law. Oxford University Press: 3–21.Google Scholar
Murphy, M. C. 2015. ‘Two Unhappy Dilemmas for Natural Law Jurisprudence’. American Journal of Jurisprudence 60: 121–41.Google Scholar
Perry, S. R. 1987. ‘Judicial Obligation, Precedent, and the Common Law’. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 7: 215–57.Google Scholar
Perry, S. R. 1995. ‘Interpretation and Methodology in Legal Theory’. In Marmor, A. (ed.). Law and Interpretation. Oxford University Press: 97–135.Google Scholar
Postema, G. J. 2011. Legal Philosophy in the Twentieth Century: The Common Law World. Springer.Google Scholar
Radbruch, G. 2006. ‘Statutory Lawlessness and Supra-Statutory Law’. Trans. Paulson, B. L. and Paulson, S. L.. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 26: 1–11.Google Scholar
Raz, J. 1983. ‘Legal Principles and the Limits of Law’. In Cohen, M. (ed.). Ronald Dworkin and Contemporary Jurisprudence. Rowman & Allanheld: 73–87.Google Scholar
Raz, J. 2003. ‘Comments and Responses’. In Meyer, L. H., Paulson, S. L. and Pogge, T. W. (eds.). Rights, Culture, and the Law. Oxford University Press: 253–73.Google Scholar
Raz, J. 2006. ‘The Problem of Authority: Revisiting the Service Conception’. Minnesota Law Review 90: 1003–44.Google Scholar
Raz, J. 2007. ‘The Argument from Justice, or How Not to Reply to Legal Positivism’. In Pavlakos, G. (ed.). Law, Rights and Discourse. Hart: 17–35.Google Scholar
Toh, K. 2007. ‘Raz on Detachment, Acceptance and Describability’. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 27: 403–27.Google Scholar
References
Alchourrón, C. A. and Bulygin, E. 1981. ‘The Expressive Conception of Norms’. In Bulygin, E. 2015: 146–70.Google Scholar
Alchourrón, C. A. and Bulygin, E. 1988. ‘Perils of Level Confusions in Normative Discourse: A Replay to K. Opalek and J. Wolenski’. Rechtstheorie 19: 230–7.Google Scholar
Alchourrón, C. A. and Bulygin, E. 1973/89. ‘Von Wright on Deontic Logic and the Philosophy of Law’. In Bulygin, E. 2015: 88–116.Google Scholar
Alchourrón, C. A. and Bulygin, E. 1991. Análisis Lógico y Derecho. Centro de Estudios Constitucionales.Google Scholar
Alchourrón, C. A. and Bulygin, E. 1992. ‘Limits of Logic and Legal Reasoning’. In Bulygin, E. 2015: 252–71.Google Scholar
Bulygin, E. 1980. ‘Kant y la Filosofía del derecho contemporánea’. Alchourrón, C. A. and Bulygin, E. 1991: 371–82.Google Scholar
Bulygin, E. 1981. ‘Legal Statements and Positivism: A Reply to Joseph Raz’. In Bulygin, E. 2015: 136–45.Google Scholar
Bulygin, E. 1982. ‘Norms, Normative Propositions and Legal Statements’. In Bulygin, E. 2015: 188–206.Google Scholar
Bulygin, E. 1990. ‘An Antinomy in Kelsen’s Legal Theory of Law’. In Bulygin, E. 2015: 235–51.Google Scholar
Bulygin, E. 1992. ‘Sull’interpretazione giuridica’. In Comanducci, P. and Guastini, R. (eds.). Analisi e diritto 1992. Ricerche di giurisprudenza analitica. Giappichelli: 11–30.Google Scholar
Bulygin, E. 1995: ‘Cognition and Interpretation of Law’. In Gianformaggio, L. and Paulson, S. (eds.). Cognition and Interpretation of Law. Giappichelli: 11–35.Google Scholar
Bulygin, E. 1999b. ‘True and False statements in Normative Discourse’. In Egidi, R. (ed.). In Search of a New Humanism: The Philosophy of Henrik von Wright. Kluwer: 183–91.Google Scholar
Bulygin, E. 2005. ‘The Problem of Legal Validity in Kelsen’s Pure Theory of Law’. In Bulygin, E. 2015: 311–23.Google Scholar
Bulygin, E. 2007a. ‘Raz y la teoría del derecho. Comentarios sobre ¿Puede haber una teoría del derecho? de Joseph Raz’. In Raz, J., Alexy, R., and Bulygin, E.. Una discusión sobre la teoría del derecho. Marcial Pons: 99–110.Google Scholar
Bulygin, E. 2007b. ‘María Cristina Redondo sobre distintos tipos de positivismo’. In Moreso, J. J. and Redondo, C. (eds.) Un dialogo con la teoría del derecho de Eugenio Bulygin. Marcial Pons: 201–3.Google Scholar
Bulygin, E. 2015. Essays in Legal Philosophy. Eds. Bernal, C., Huerta, C., Mazzarese, T., Moreso, J. J., Navarro, P. E. and Paulson, S. L.. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Coleman, L. and Leiter, B. 1996. ‘Legal Positivism’. In Patterson, D. (ed.). A Companion to Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory. Blackwell: 241–60.Google Scholar
Dworkin, R. 1977. ‘The Model of Rules II’. In Dworkin, R.. Taking Rights Seriously. Harvard University Press: 46–80.Google Scholar
Navarro, P. 2015. ‘Normative Systems and Legal Positivism’. In Bulygin, E. 2015: 1–21.Google Scholar
Nino, C. S. 1978. ‘Some Confusions Surrounding Kelsen’s Concept of Validity’. ARSP 64: 357–77.Google Scholar
Raz, J. 2004. ‘Can There Be a Theory of Law?’ in Raz, J.. 2009. Between Authority and Interpretation: On the Theory of Law and Practical Reason. Oxford University Press: 17–46.Google Scholar
Rodríguez, J. 2007. ‘Un breve balance de la teoría de los sistemas normativos’. In Moreso, J. J. and Redondo, M. C. (eds.). Un diálogo con la teoría del derecho de Eugenio Bulygin. Marcial Pons: 81–8.Google Scholar
Ross, A. 1961. ‘Validity and the Conflict of Legal Positivism and Natural Law’. Revista jurídica de Buenos Aires IV: 46–93.Google Scholar
Schauer, F. 1998. ‘Positivism through Thick and Thin’. In Bix, B. (ed.). Analyzing Law: New Essays in Legal Theory. Clarendon Press: 65–78.Google Scholar