Critique

Alexy, R. 1992. Begriff und Geltung des Rechts. Alber.Google Scholar

Alexy, R. 1997. Der Beschluß des Bundesverfassungsgerichts zu den Tötungen an der innerdeutschen Grenze vom 24. Oktober 1996. Jungius.Google Scholar

Alexy, R. 1999. ‘A Defence of Radbruch’s Formula’. In Dyzenhaus, D. (ed.). Recrafting the Rule of Law: The Limits of Legal Order. Hart: 15–39.Google Scholar

Alexy, R. 2002. The Argument from Injustice: A Reply to Legal Positivism. Trans. Paulson, B. Litschewski and Paulson, S. L.. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Alexy, R. 2008. ‘On the Nature and the Concept of Law’. Ratio Juris 21: 281–99.CrossRef Google Scholar

Alexy, R. 2018. ‘Gustav Radbruchs Rechtsbegriff’. In von Arnauld, A., Augsberg, I. and Meyer-Pritzl, R. (eds.). 350 Jahre Rechtswissenschaftliche Fakultät der Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel. Mohr Siebeck: 237–49.Google Scholar

Baratta, A. 1959. ‘Relativismus und Naturrecht im Denken Gustav Radbruchs’. Archives for Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy 45: 505–37.Google Scholar

Bix, B. 2011. ‘Radbruch’s Formula and Conceptual Analysis’. American Journal of Jurisprudence 56: 45–57.CrossRef Google Scholar

Borowski, M. 2015. ‘Begriff und Geltung des Rechts bei Gustav Radbruch’. In Borowski, M. and Paulson, S. L. (eds.). Die Natur des Rechts bei Gustav Radbruch. Mohr Siebeck: 229–65.Google Scholar

Borowski, M. 2018. Grundrechte als Prinzipien. 3rd ed. Nomos.CrossRef Google Scholar

Borowski, M. 2019. ‘Radbruch’s Formula and Human Rights’. In La Torre, M., Niglia, L. and Susi, M. (eds.). The Quest for Rights. Edward Elgar: 27–48.Google Scholar

Dreier, H. 1997. ‘Gustav Radbruch und die Mauerschützen’. Juristenzeitung 52: 421–34.Google Scholar

Dreier, H. 2015. ‘Die Radbruchsche Formel – Erkenntnis oder Bekenntnis?’. In Borowski, M. and Paulson, S. L. (eds.). Die Natur des Rechts bei Gustav Radbruch. Mohr Siebeck: 1–22.Google Scholar

Dreier, R. 1981. ‘Bemerkungen zur Rechtserkenntnistheorie’. In Aarnio, A., Niiniluoto, I. and Uusitalo, J. (eds.). Methodologie und Erkenntnistheorie der juristischen Argumentation. Duncker & Humblot: 89–105.Google Scholar

Dreier, R. 1993. ‘Gesetzliches Unrecht im SED-Staat? Am Beispiel des DDR-Grenzgesetzes’. In Haft, F. et al. (eds.). Strafgerechtigkeit. Festschrift für Arthur Kaufmann. C.F. Müller: 57–92.Google Scholar

Dreier, R. 2011. ‘Gustav Radbruchs Rechtsbegriff’. In Mahlmann, M. (ed.). Gesellschaft und Gerechtigkeit. Festschrift für Hubert Rottleuthner. Nomos: 17–44.Google Scholar

Dreier, R. 2015. ‘Kontinuitäten und Diskontinuitäten in der Rechtsphilosophie Radbruchs’. In Borowski, M. and Paulson, S. L. (eds.). Die Natur des Rechts bei Gustav Radbruch. Mohr Siebeck: 183–228.Google Scholar

Dyzenhaus, D. 2010. Hard Cases in Wicked Legal Systems. 2nd ed. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Engisch, K. 1949–50. ‘Gustav Radbruch als Rechtsphilosoph’. Archives for Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy 38: 305–16.Google Scholar

Evers, H.-U. 1956. Der Richter und das unsittliche Gesetz. De Gruyter.CrossRef Google Scholar

Funke, A. 2003. ‘Überlegungen zu Gustav Radbruchs “Verleugnungsformel”’. Archives for Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy 89: 1–16.Google Scholar

Haldemann, F. 2005. ‘Gustav Radbruch vs. Hans Kelsen: A Debate on Nazi Law’. Ratio Juris 18: 162–78.Google Scholar

Hart, H. L. A. 1958. ‘Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals’. Harvard Law Review 74: 593–625.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hoerster, N. 2006. Was ist Recht? C.H. Beck.Google Scholar

Kant, I. 1996. ‘The Conflict of the Faculties’. Trans. Gregor, M. J. and Anchor, R.. In Wood, A. W., di Giovanni, G. and Kant, I. (eds.). Religion and Rational Theology. Cambridge University Press: 233–327.Google Scholar

Kant, I. [1797]1999. Metaphysical Elements of Justice. First part of the Metaphysics of Morals. Trans. Ladd, J.. 2nd ed. Hackett.Google Scholar

Kelsen, H. 1945. General Theory of Law and State. Trans. Wedberg, A.. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Kelsen, H. [1961]1967. Pure Theory of Law. Trans. Knight, M.. University of California Press.Google Scholar

Kelsen, H. [1934]1992. Introduction to the Problems of Legal Theory. Trans. Paulson, B. Litschewski and Paulson, S. L.. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Müller, I. 1991. Hitler’s Justice: The Courts of the Third Reich. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Neumann, U. 2007. ‘Naturrecht und Positivismus im Denken Gustav Radbruchs. Kontinuitäten und Diskontinuitäten’. In Härle, W. and Vogel, B. (eds.). Vom Rechte, das mit uns geboren ist. Aktuelle Probleme des Naturrechts. Herder: 11–32.Google Scholar

Neumann, U. 2015. ‘Zum Verhältnis von Rechtsgeltung und Rechtsbegriff’. In Borowski, M. and Paulson, S. L. (eds.). Die Natur des Rechts bei Gustav Radbruch. Mohr Siebeck: 129–49.Google Scholar

Paulson, S. L. 2006. ‘On the Background and Significance of Gustav Radbruch’s Post-War Papers’. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 26: 17–40.CrossRef Google Scholar

Paulson, S. L. 2008. ‘Ein ewiger Mythos: Gustav Radbruch als Rechtspositivist’. Juristenzeitung 63: 105–15.Google Scholar

Paulson, S. L. 2015. ‘Zur Kontinuität der nichtpositivistischen Rechtsphilosophie Gustav Radbruchs’. In Borowski, M. and Paulson, S. L. (eds.). Die Natur des Rechts bei Gustav Radbruch. Mohr Siebeck: 151–82.Google Scholar

Radbruch, G. [1914]1993 (RGA vol. 2). Grundzüge der Rechtsphilosophie. Quelle & Meyer. Reprinted in Kaufmann, A. and Radbruch, G. (eds.). Gesamtausgabe or Collected Works vol. 2: Rechtsphilosophie II. C.F. Müller: 9–204.Google Scholar

Radbruch, G. 1924. ‘Die Problematik der Rechtsidee’. Die Dioskuren. Jahrbuch für Geisteswissenschaften 3: 43–50. Reprinted in RGA vol. 2: 460–7.Google Scholar

Radbruch, G. [1932]1973. Rechtsphilosophie. Eds. Wolf, E. and Schneider, H.-P.. 8th ed. Koehler. Reprinted in RGA vol. 2: 206–450.Google Scholar

Radbruch, G. [1932]1950. ‘Legal Philosophy’. Trans. Wilk, K.. In Wilk, K. (ed.). The Legal Philosophies of Lask, Radbruch, and Dabin. Harvard University Press: 47–224.Google Scholar

Radbruch, G. 1934. ‘Le Relativisme dans la Philosophie du Droit’. Archives de Philosophie du Droit et de Sociologie Juridique 4: 105–10.Google Scholar

Radbruch, G. 1937–8. ‘Le But du Droit’. Annuaire de l’Institut de Philosophie du Droit et de Sociologie: 48–59.Google Scholar

Radbruch, G. 1945. ‘Fünf Minuten Rechtsphilosophie’. Rhein-Neckar-Zeitung from 12 September. Reprinted in RGA vol. 3: 78–9.Google Scholar

Radbruch, G. 1946. ‘Gesetzliches Unrecht und übergesetzliches Recht’. Süddeutsche Juristenzeitung 1: 105–8. Reprinted in RGA vol. 3: 83–93.Google Scholar

Radbruch, G. 1947. ‘Gesetz und Recht’. Stuttgarter Rundschau January: 5–6. Reprinted in RGA vol. 3: 96–100.Google Scholar

Radbruch, G. 1948. Vorschule der Rechtsphilosophie. Schubert, H. and Stoltzenburg, J. (eds.). Scherer. Reprinted in RGA vol. 3: 121–227.Google Scholar

Radbruch, G. [1934]1957. ’Der Relativismus in der Rechtsphilosophie’. In Radbruch, G.. Der Mensch im Recht. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: 80–7. Reprinted in RGA vol. 3: 17–22.Google Scholar

Radbruch, G. [1937]1957. ‘Der Zweck des Rechts’. In Radbruch, G.. Der Mensch im Recht. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: 88–104. Reprinted in RGA vol. 3: 39–50.Google Scholar

Radbruch, G. 1999. ‘Nachwort-Entwurf’. In Dreier, R. and Paulson, S. L. (eds.). Rechtsphilosophie. Studienausgabe. C.F. Müller: 193–208. Reprinted in RGA vol. 2: 25–39.Google Scholar

Radbruch, G. 2003. Rechtsphilosophische Tagesfragen. Eds. Adachi, H. and Teifke, N.. Nomos.Google Scholar

Radbruch, G. 2006a. ‘Five Minutes of Legal Philosophy’. Trans. Paulson, B. Litschewski and Paulson, S. L.. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 26: 13–15.CrossRef Google Scholar

Radbruch, G. 2006b. ‘Statutory Lawlessness and Supra-Statutory Law’. Trans. Paulson, B. Litschewski and Paulson, S.L.. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 26: 1–11.Google Scholar

Schröder, J. 2005. ‘Gab es im deutschen Kaiserreich einen Gesetzespositivismus?’. In Baumann, W. et al. (eds.). Gesetz, Recht, Rechtsgeschichte. Festschrift für Gerhard Otte. Sellier: 571–9.Google Scholar

Seidel, K. 1999. Rechtsphilosophische Aspekte der ‘Mauerschützen’-Prozesse. Duncker & Humblot.CrossRef Google Scholar

Spaak, T. 2009. ‘Meta-ethics and Legal Theory: The Case of Gustav Radbruch’. Law and Philosophy 28: 261–90.Google Scholar

Waldron, J. 1996. ‘Kant’s Legal Positivism’. Harvard Law Review 109: 1535–66.Google Scholar

Wiegandt, M.-A. 2004. Unrichtiges Recht. Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar

Barnard, C. I. 1938/1942. The Functions of the Executive. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Barzun, C. L. 2017. ‘Jerome Frank, Lon Fuller, and a Romantic Pragmatism’. Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities 29: 129–76.Google Scholar

Berman, H. J. 1956. On the Teaching of Law in the Liberal Arts Curriculum. Foundation Press.Google Scholar

Chase, W. C. 1982. The American Law School and the Rise of Administrative Government. University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar

De Tocqueville, A. 1988. Democracy in America. Harper Perennial.Google Scholar

Fuller, L. 1930–1/1967. Legal Fictions. Illinois Law Review 25/Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Fuller, L. 1934. ‘American Legal Realism’. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 82: 429–62.Google Scholar

Fuller, L. 1939. ‘Williston on Contracts’. North Carolina Law Review 18: 1–15.Google Scholar

Fuller, L. 1940/1966. The Law in Quest of Itself. Northwestern University Press/Beacon Press.Google Scholar

Fuller, L. 1946. ‘Reason and Fiat in Case Law’. Harvard Law Review 59: 376–95.Google Scholar

Fuller, L. 1948. ‘What the Law Schools Can Contribute to the Making of Lawyers’. In Education for Professional Responsibility. Carnegie Press.Google Scholar

Fuller, L. 1949a. ‘The Place and Uses of Jurisprudence in the Law School Curriculum’. Journal of Legal Education 1: 495–507.Google Scholar

Fuller, L. 1949b. The Problems of Jurisprudence. Temporary ed. Foundation Press.Google Scholar

Fuller, L. 1955a. ‘Freedom: A Suggested Analysis’. Harvard Law Review 68: 1305–25.Google Scholar

Fuller, L. 1955b. ‘The Philosophy of Codes of Ethics’. Electrical Engineering 74: 916–18.CrossRef Google Scholar

Fuller, L. 1958. ‘Positivism and Fidelity to Law: A Reply to Professor Hart’. Harvard Law Review 71: 630–72.Google Scholar

Fuller, L. 1965. ‘Irrigation and Tyranny’. Stanford Law Review 17: 1021–42.Google Scholar

Fuller, L. 1969. The Morality of Law. Revised ed. Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Fuller, L. 1970. ‘Jurisprudence’. Encyclopedia Britannica. 14th ed.Google Scholar

Fuller, L. 2001a. ‘Human Interaction and the Law’. In Winston, K. (ed.) The Principles of Social Order: Selected Essays of Lon L. Fuller. Revised ed. Hart Publishing: 211–48.Google Scholar

Fuller, L. 2001b. ‘The Lawyer as an Architect of Social Structures’. In Winston, K. (ed.) The Principles of Social Order: Selected Essays of Lon L. Fuller. Revised ed. Hart Publishing: 264–70.Google Scholar

Fuller, L. 2001c. ‘On Legal Education’. In Winston, K. (ed.) The Principles of Social Order: Selected Essays of Lon L. Fuller. Revised ed. Hart Publishing: 271–81.Google Scholar

Gilson, E. 1925. Saint Thomas D’Aquin. 2nd ed. Librairie Victor Lecoffre.Google Scholar

Hayek, F. 1952. The Counter-Revolution of Science. Free Press.Google Scholar

Hume, D. 1739/1888. A Treatise of Human Nature. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Llewellyn, K. N. and Hoebel, E. A. 1941. The Cheyenne Way. University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar

Maine, H. S. 1861/1963. Ancient Law. Beacon Press.Google Scholar

Ross, D. 1979. ‘The Development of the Social Sciences’. In Oleson, A. and Voss, J. (eds.). The Organization of Knowledge in Modern America, 1860–1920. Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar

Rundle, K. 2012. Forms Liberate: Reclaiming the Jurisprudence of Lon L Fuller. Hart Publishing.Google Scholar

Von Mises, R. 1951. Positivism: A Study in Human Understanding. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Wilson, D. J. 1990. Science, Community, and the Transformation of American Philosophy, 1860–1930. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Winston, K. 1988. ‘Is/Ought Redux: The Pragmatist Context of Lon Fuller’s Conception of Law’. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 8: 329–49.Google Scholar

Winston, K. 1999. ‘Three Models for the Study of Law’. In Witteveen, W. J. and van der Burg, W. (eds.). Rediscovering Fuller. Amsterdam University Press: 51–77.Google Scholar

Winston, K. (ed.) 2001. The Principles of Social Order: Selected Essays of Lon L. Fuller. Revised ed. Hart Publishing.Google Scholar

Winston, K. 2005. ‘The Internal Morality of Chinese Legalism’. Singapore Journal of Legal Studies: 313–47.Google Scholar

Coleman, J. L. 1988. ‘Negative and Positive Positivism’. In Coleman, J.. Markets, Morals and the Law. Cambridge University Press: 3–27.Google Scholar

Coleman, J. L. 2001. The Practice of Principle: In Defense of a Pragmatist Approach to Legal Theory. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Coleman, J. L. and Simchen, O. 2003. ‘Law’. Legal Theory 1(1): 1–41.Google Scholar

Condren, C. 2014. The Status and Appraisal of Classic Texts. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Dewey, J. 1924. ‘Logical Method and Law’. Cornell Law Quarterly 10: 17–27.Google Scholar

Dworkin, R. 1967. ‘The Model of Rules I’. University of Chicago Law Review 35(1): 14–46.Google Scholar

Dworkin, R. 1977. The Philosophy of Law. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Dworkin, R. 1978. Taking Rights Seriously. Harvard University Press.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. 2008. Justice in Robes. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Dworkin, R. 2011. Justice for Hedgehogs. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Gavison, R. 1987. ‘Comment’ [on Dworkin, ‘Legal Theory and the Problem of Sense’]. In Gavison, R. (ed.). Issues in Contemporary Legal Philosophy: The Influence of H.L.A. Hart. Clarendon Press: 21–34.Google Scholar

Guest, S. 2012. Ronald Dworkin. 3rd ed. Stanford Law Books.Google Scholar

Harman, G. and Thomson, J. 1996. Moral Relativism and Moral Objectivity. Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Hart, H. L. A. 1955. ‘Theory and Definition in Jurisprudence’. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Suppl. 29: 259–64.Google Scholar

Hart, H. L. A. 1958. ‘Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals’, Harvard Law Review 71: 606–12.Google Scholar

Hart, H. L. A. 1977. ‘American Jurisprudence through English Eyes: The Nightmare and the Noble Dream’. Sibley Lecture Series. 33: 137–41. http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1032&context=lectures_pre_arch_lectures_sibley.Google Scholar

Hart, H. L. A. 1982. ‘Legal Duty and Obligation’. In Hart, H. L. A.. Essays on Bentham. Oxford University Press: 147–53.Google Scholar

Hart, H. L. A. 1983. ‘Law in the Perspective of Philosophy’ in Hart, H.L.A.. Essays in Jurisprudence and Philosophy. Clarendon Press: 153–8.Google Scholar

Hart, H. L. A. 2012. The Concept of Law. 3rd ed. Introduction by Green, L., eds. Raz, J. and Bulloch, P.. Oxford University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hart, H. M. and Sacks, A. M. 1994. The Legal Process: Basic Problems in the Making and Application of Law. Eds. Eskridge, W. N. and Frickey, P. P.. Foundation Press.Google Scholar

Leiter, B. 2009. ‘Explaining Theoretical Disagreement’. University of Chicago Law Review 76: 1215–50.Google Scholar

Liptak, A. 2013. ‘Ronald Dworkin, Scholar of the Law, Is Dead at 81: Dworkin Came to Oxford from the Yale Law School’. New York Times. www.nytimes.com/2013/02/15/us/ronald-dworkin-legal-philosopher-dies-at-81.html?pagewanted=all.Google Scholar

MacCormick, N. 2003. ‘Argumentation and Interpretation in Law’. Ratio Juris 16(4): 469–85.Google Scholar

Patterson, D. 1996. Law as Interpretation: The Jurisprudence of Ronald Dworkin. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Patterson, D. 2016. ‘Can We Please Stop Doing This? By the Way, Postema Was Right’. In Gizbert-Studnicki, T. (ed.). Metaphilosophy of Law. Hart Publishing: 49–60.Google Scholar

Patterson, D. 2018. ‘Theoretical Disagreement, Legal Positivism and Interpretation’. Ratio Juris 31: 260–75.Google Scholar

Postema, G. J. 1987. ‘“Protestant” Interpretation and Social Practices’. Law and Philosophy 6: 283–319.CrossRef Google Scholar

Raz, J. 1983. ‘Postscript to Legal Principles and the Limits of Law’. In Cohen, M. (ed.). Ronald Dworkin and Contemporary Jurisprudence. Rowman & Allanheld: 84–5.Google Scholar

Raz, J. 1995. ‘The Relevance of Coherence’. In Raz, J.. Ethics in the Public Domain. Oxford University Press: 277–325.Google Scholar

Raz, J. 2009. ‘Legal Positivism and the Sources of Law’. In Raz, J.. The Authority of Law. 2nd ed. Oxford University Press: 37–52.Google Scholar

Schauer, F. 1985. ‘Easy Cases Interpretation Symposium: Philosophy of Language and Legal Interpretation’. Southern California Law Review 58: 399–407.Google Scholar

Shapiro, S. J. 2007 ‘The “Hart-Dworkin” Debate: A Short Guide for the Perplexed’. Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper 77(7). In Ripstein, A. (ed.). Ronald Dworkin. Cambridge University Press: 22–55.Google Scholar

Stone, J. 1946. The Province and Function of Law. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Sugarman, D. 2005. ‘Hart Interviewed: H.L.A. Hart in Conversation with David Sugarman’. Journal of Law and Society 32(2): 267–93.Google Scholar

Ullian, J. S. and Quine, W. V. 1978. The Web of Belief. 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill Education.Google Scholar

Waismann, F. 1945/1951. ‘Verifiability’. In Flew, A. (ed.). Essays on Logic and Language I. Philosophical Library: 11–30.Google Scholar

Wittgenstein, L. 2010. Philosophical Investigations. Trans. Anscombe, G. E. M., Hacker, P. M. S. and Schulte, J.. 4th ed. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

Adler, M. 2009. ‘Social Facts, Constitutional Interpretation and the Rule of Recognition’. In ed. Adler, M. D. and Himma, K. E. (eds.). The Rule of Recognition and the U.S. Constitution. Oxford University Press: 193–233.Google Scholar

Anscombe, E. 1958. ‘On Brute Facts’. Analysis 18(3): 69–72.Google Scholar

Anscombe, E. 1963. Intention. 2nd ed. Blackwell.Google Scholar

Anscombe, E. 1981. ‘On the Source of Authority of the State’. Ethics, Religion and Politics: Collected Philosophical Papers of GEM Anscombe. Blackwell.Google Scholar

Aquinas, T. 2006. Summa Theologiae I-II. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Blackburn, S. 1998. Ruling Passions. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Chisholm, R. 1976. ‘Freedom and Action’. In Lehrer, K. (ed.). Freedom and Determinism. Random House: 11–44.Google Scholar

Coleman, J, 2001. The Practice of Principles. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Dancy, J. 2000. Practical Reality. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Dickson, J. 2001. Evaluation and Legal Theory. Hart Publishing.Google Scholar

Davidson, D. 1963. ‘Actions, Reasons and Causes’. Journal of Philosophy 60(23): 685–700.Google Scholar

Davidson, D. 1980. ‘Freedom to Act’. In Davidson, D.. Essays on Actions and Events. Clarendon Press: 63–81.Google Scholar

Dworkin, R. 1986. Law’s Empire. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Endicott, T. 2001. ‘How to Speak the Truth’. American Journal of Jurisprudence 46: 229–48.Google Scholar

Finnis, J. 1987. ‘On Reason and Authority in Law’s Empire’. Law and Philosophy 6(3): 357–80.Google Scholar

Finnis, J. 1988. Moral Absolutes: Tradition, Revision, and Truth. Catholic University of America Press.Google Scholar

Finnis, J. 1998. Aquinas. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Finnis, J. 2003. ‘Law and What I Truly Should Decide’. American Journal of Jurisprudence 48: 107–29.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.Google Scholar

Grisez, G. 1967. ‘The First Principles of Practical Reasons: A Commentary on the Summa Theologiae, 1–2, Question 94, Article 2’. Natural Law Forum 10: 168–201.Google Scholar

Harman, G. 1986a. Change in View. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Harman, G. 1986b. ‘Willing and Intending’. In Grandy, R. and Warner, R. (eds.). Philosophical Grounds of Rationality. Oxford University Press: 363–80.Google Scholar

Hart, H. L. A. 1994. The Concept of Law. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Holton, R. 1998. ‘Positivism and the Internal Point of View’. Law and Philosophy 17: 597–625.Google Scholar

Irwin, T. 1981. ‘Homonym in Aristotle’. The Review of Metaphysics 34(3): 523–44.Google Scholar

Kenny, A. 1979. Aristotle’s Theory of the Will. Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Moran, R. and Stone, M. 2009. ‘Anscombe on Expression of Intention’. In Sandis, C. (ed.). New Essays in the Explanation of Action. Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar

Murphy, M. 2006. Natural Law in Jurisprudence and Politics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Patterson, D. 1999. ‘Explicating the Internal Point of View’. Southern Methodist University Law Review 52: 67–74.Google Scholar

Perry, S. 1995. ‘Interpretation and Methodology in Legal Theory’. In Marmor, A. (ed.). Law and Interpretation. Clarendon Press: 97–135.Google Scholar

Perry, S. 2000. ‘Holmes versus Hart: The Bad Man in Legal Theory’. In Burton, S. Jr. (ed.). The Path of Law and Its Influence: The Legacy of Oliver Wendell Holmes. Cambridge University Press: 158–96.Google Scholar

Perry, S. 2006. ‘Hart on Social Rules and the Foundations of Law: Liberating the Internal Point of View’. Fordham Law Review 75: 1171–1209.Google Scholar

Raz, J. 1999. Practical Reason and Norms. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Rhonheimer, M. 2008. Perspective of the Acting Person: Essays in the Renewal of Thomistic Moral Philosophy. Catholic University of America Press.Google Scholar

Rodriguez-Blanco, V. 2007. ‘Is Finnis Wrong?’. Legal Theory 13: 257–83.Google Scholar

Rodriguez-Blanco, V. 2016a. Law and Authority under the Guise of the Good. Hart-Bloomsbury.Google Scholar

Rodriguez-Blanco, V. 2016b. ‘Action in Law’s Empire: Judging in the Deliberative Mode’. Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 29(2): 431–56.Google Scholar

Rodriguez-Blanco, V. and Zambrano, P. 2018. ‘One Myth of the Classical Law Theory: Reflecting on the “Thin” View of Legal Positivism’. Ratio Juris 31: 9–32.Google Scholar

Schauer, F. 1994. ‘Fuller’s Internal Point of View’. Law and Philosophy 13: 285–312.Google Scholar

Shapiro, S. 2000. ‘The Bad Man and the Internal Point of View’. In Burton, S. Jr. (ed.). The Path of Law and Its Influence: The Legacy of Oliver Wendell Holmes. Cambridge University Press: 158–96.Google Scholar

Shapiro, S. 2006. ‘What Is the Internal Point of View?’. Fordham Law Review 75: 1157–70.Google Scholar

Smith, M. 1994. The Moral Problem. Blackwell.Google Scholar

Tollefsen, C. 2018. ‘Aquinas’s Four Orders, Normativity, and Human Nature’. Journal of Value Inquiry 52(3): 243–56.CrossRef Google Scholar

Vogler, C. 2001. ‘Anscombe on Practical Inference’. In Millgram, E. (ed.). Varieties of Practical Reasoning. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Vogler, C. 2007. ‘Modern Moral Philosophy Again: Isolating the Promulgation Problem’. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society: 347–62.Google Scholar

Wallace, R. J. 2014. ‘Practical Reason’. In Zalta, E. N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/practical-reason/.Google Scholar

Zambrano, P. 2015. ‘Fundamental Principles, Realist Semantics and Human Action’. Rechtstheorie: 323–45.Google Scholar

Zipursky, B. 2006. ‘Legal Obligations and the Internal Aspect of Rules’. Fordham Law Review 75: 1229–53.Google Scholar

Alexy, R. 2002a. The Argument from Injustice. Trans. Paulson, S. and Paulson, B.. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Alexy, R. 2002b. A Theory of Constitutional Rights. Trans. Rivers, J.. 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

Alexy, R. 2008. ‘On the Concept and the Nature of Law’. Ratio Juris 21: 281–99.Google Scholar

Alexy, R. 2010. ‘The Dual Nature of Law’. Ratio Juris 23: 167–82.Google Scholar

Alexy, R. 2012. ‘Law, Morality, and the Existence of Human Rights’. Ratio Juris 24: 2–14.Google Scholar

Alexy, R. 2013a. ‘Between Positivism and Non-positivism: A Third Reply to Bulygin’. In Ferrer Beltrán, J., Moreso, J. J. and Papayannis, D. M. (eds.). Neutrality and Theory of Law. Springer: 225–38.Google Scholar

Alexy, R. 2013b. ‘Some Reflections on the Ideal Dimension of Law and on the Legal Philosophy of John Finnis’. American Journal of Jurisprudence 58: 97–110.Google Scholar

Alexy, R. 2015. ‘Legal Certainty and Correctness’. Ratio Juris 28: 441–51.Google Scholar

Allan, T. R. S. 2017. ‘In Defence of Radbruch’s Formula: Injustice, Interpretation, and Invalidity’. In Borowski, M., Paulson, S. and Sieckmann, J. (eds.). Rechtsphilosophie und Grundrechtstheorie. Mohr Siebeck: 87–104.Google Scholar

Bix, B. 2006. ‘Robert Alexy’s Radbruch Formula and the Nature of Law’. Rechtstheorie 37: 139–49.Google Scholar

Bulygin, E. 2013. ‘Alexy between Positivism and Non-positivism’. In Ferrer Beltrán, J., Moreso, J. J. and Papayannis, D. M. (eds.). Neutrality and Theory of Law. Springer: 49–59.Google Scholar

Dworkin, R. 1978. Taking Rights Seriously. 2nd ed. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Dworkin, R. 1986. Law’s Empire. Fontana Press.Google Scholar

Finnis, J. 1980. Natural Law and Natural Rights. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Finnis, J. 2014. ‘Law as Fact and as Reason for Action: A Response to Robert Alexy on Law’s Ideal Dimension’. American Journal of Jurisprudence 59: 85–109.CrossRef Google Scholar

García Figueroa, A. 1998. Principios y positivismo jurídico. Centro de estudios políticos y constitucionales.Google Scholar

Gardner, J. 2012. ‘Legal Positivism: 5½ Myths’. In Gardner, J.. Law as a Leap of Faith. Oxford University Press: 19–53.Google Scholar

Habermas, J. 1994. Faktizität und Geltung. 4th ed. Suhrkamp.Google Scholar

Hart, H. L. A. 1983. ‘Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals’. In Hart, H. L. A.. Essays in Jurisprudence and Philosophy. Clarendon Press: 49–87.Google Scholar

Hart, H. L. A. 1994, The Concept of Law. 2nd ed. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Kelsen, H. 1960. Reine Rechtslehre. Deuticke.Google Scholar

MacCormick, N. 2007. ‘Why Law Makes No Claims’. In Pavlakos, G. (ed.). Law, Rights, and Discourse. Hart: 59–67.Google Scholar

Marmor, A. 2001. Positive Law and Objective Values. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Paulson, S. 2012. ‘Justified Normativity’. In Klatt, M. (ed.). The Institutionalization of Reason. Oxford University Press: 61–111.Google Scholar

Paulson, S. 2017. ‘The Makings of a Radical Norm Theory: Hans Kelsen’s Theory of the Sanction-Norm as Empowering Norm’. In Borowski, M., Paulson, S. and Sieckmann, J. (eds.). Rechtsphilosophie und Grundrechtstheorie. Mohr Siebeck: 589–630.Google Scholar

Radbruch, G. 1946. ‘Gesetzliches Recht und übergesetzliches Unrecht’. Süddeutsche Juristenzeitung: 105–8.Google Scholar

Raz, J. 1999. Practical Reason and Norms. 3rd ed. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Raz, J. 2007. ‘The Argument from Injustice, or How Not to Reply to Legal Positivism’. In Pavlakos, G. (ed.). Law, Rights, and Discourse. Hart: 17–35.Google Scholar

Sieckmann, J. 1990. Regelmodelle und Prinzipienmodelle des Rechtsystems. Nomos.Google Scholar

Sieckmann, J. 2012. The Logic of Autonomy. Hart.Google Scholar

Waldron, J. 1996. ‘Kant’s Legal Positivism’. Harvard Law Review 109: 1535–66.Google 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: 410–33.Google Scholar

Bix, B. 2014. ‘When Law Becomes Morality: Comments on Mark Greenberg’s Moral Impact Theory of Law’. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2434075.Google Scholar

Coleman, J. 2001. The Practice of Principle. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Dworkin, R. 1977. Taking Rights Seriously. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Fuller, L. 1969. The Morality of Law. Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Greenberg, M. 2004. ‘How Facts Make Law’. Legal Theory 10: 157–98.Google Scholar

Greenberg, M. 2006. ‘Hartian Positivism and Normative Facts: How Facts Make Law II’. In Hershovitz, S. (ed.). Exploring Law’s Empire. Oxford University Press: 265–90.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. 1. 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. (eds.). Cambridge Companion to Natural Law Jurisprudence. Cambridge University Press: 275–313.Google Scholar

Hart, H. L. A. 1994. The Concept of Law. 2nd ed. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hershovitz, S. 2015. ‘The End of Jurisprudence’. Yale Law Journal 124: 1160–1204.Google Scholar

Hohfeld, W. 1978. Fundamental Legal Conceptions. Ed. Corbin, A.. Greenwood Press.Google Scholar

Leiter, B. 2009. ‘Explaining Theoretical Disagreement’. University of Chicago Law Review 76: 1215–50.Google Scholar

Leiter, B. 2014. ‘Some Questions and Doubts about Greenberg’s “Moral Impact Theory of Law”’. https://leiterreports.typepad.com/brianleiterlaw/2014/05/some-questions-and-doubts-about-greenbergs-moral-impact-theory-of-law.html.Google Scholar

Levenbook, B. B. 2000. ‘The Meaning of a Precedent’. Legal Theory 6: 185–240.Google Scholar

Levenbook, B. B. 2013. ‘How to Hold the Social Fact Thesis: A Reply to Greenberg and Toh’. In Green, L. and Leiter, B. (eds.). Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Law, vol. 2. Oxford University Press: 75–102.Google Scholar

Levenbook, B. B. 2015. ‘Dworkin’s Theoretical Disagreement Argument’. Philosophy Compass 10: 1–9.Google Scholar

Lyons, D. 1973. ‘On Formal Justice’. Cornell Law Review 58: 833–61.Google Scholar

Nozick, R. 1974. Anarchy, State and Utopia. Basic Books.Google Scholar

Raz, J. 1979. ‘Legal Positivism and the Source of Law’. In Raz, J.. The Authority of Law. Oxford University Press: 37–52.Google Scholar

Raz, J. 2009a. ‘On the Nature of Law’. In Raz, J.. Between Authority and Interpretation. Oxford University Press: 91–125.Google Scholar

Raz, J. 2009b. ‘Intention in Interpretation’. In Raz, J.. Between Authority and Interpretation. Oxford University Press: 265–98.Google Scholar

Reynolds, A. 2016. ‘North Carolina Is No Longer Classified as a Democracy’. New Observer. www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article122593759.html.Google Scholar

Reynolds, A. 2018. ‘North Carolina’s Democracy Was Bad at the Start of 2017. A Year Later It’s Much Worse’. New Observer. www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article198165644.html.Google Scholar

Schauer, F. 1991. Playing by the Rules. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Sellars, W. 1991. ‘Reply to Aune’. Wilfrid F. Sellars Papers. Archives of Scientific Philosophy, Archives and Special Collections, University of Pittsburgh Library System: 1–19.Google Scholar

Shapiro, S. 2007. ‘The “Hart-Dworkin” Debate: A Short Guide for the Perplexed’. In Ripstein, A. (ed.). Ronald Dworkin. Cambridge University Press: 22–55.Google Scholar

Shapiro, S. 2011. Legality. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Simmons, A. J. 2001. Justification and Legitimacy: Essays on Rights and Obligations. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Alexy, R. 2002. The Argument from Injustice: A Reply to Legal Positivism. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Austin, J. 1885. Lectures on Jurisprudence or the Philosophy of Positive Law. The LawBook Exchange LTD.Google Scholar

Buckland, W. W. 1932. A Text-Book of Roman Law: From Augustus to Justinian. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Dworkin, R. 1981. Taking Rights Seriously. Duckworth.Google Scholar

Dworkin, R. 1986. Law’s Empire. Fontana.Google Scholar

Dyzenhaus, D. 2008. ‘The Case of the Grudge Informer Revisited’. New York University Law Review 83: 1000–34.Google Scholar

Dyzenhaus, D. 2010. Hard Cases in Wicked Legal Systems: Pathologies of Legality. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Fuller, L. L. 1940. The Law in Quest of Itself. Beacon Press.Google Scholar

Fuller, L. L. 1956. ‘Human Purpose and Natural Law’. Journal of Philosophy 53: 697–705.Google Scholar

Fuller, L. L. 1958. ‘Positivism and Fidelity to Law: A Reply to Professor Hart’. Harvard Law Review 71: 630–72.Google Scholar

Gardner, J. 2012. Law as a Leap of Faith. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hart, H. L. A. 1982. Essays on Bentham: Jurisprudence and Political Theory. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Hart, H. L. A. 1983. ‘Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals’. In Hart, H. L. A.. Essays in Jurisprudence and Philosophy. Clarendon Press: 49–87.Google Scholar

Hart, H. L. A. 1994. The Concept of Law. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Hobbes, T. 1997. Leviathan. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kelsen, H. 1968. Die philosophischen Grundlagen der Naturrechtslehre und des Rechtspositivismus. In Klecatsky, H., Marcic, R. and Schambeck, H. (eds.). Die Wiener rechtstheoretische Schule: Hans Kelsen, Adolf Merkl, Alfred Verdross. Europa Verlag.Google Scholar

Mertens, T. 2002. ‘Radbruch and Hart on Grudge Informer: A Reconsideration’. Ratio Juris 15: 186–205.Google Scholar

Nino, C. 1996. Radical Evil on Trial. Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Pappe, H. O. 1960. ‘On the Validity of Judicial Decisions in the Nazi Era’. Modern Law Review 23: 260–74.Google Scholar

Radbruch, G. 1950. Legal Philosophy. In Patterson, E. W. (ed.). The Legal Philosophies of Lask, Radbruch, and Dabin. Harvard University Press: 43–224.Google Scholar

Radbruch, R. 1973. ‘Gesetzliches Unrecht und Übergesetzliches Recht’. In Radbruch, G., Rechtsphilosophie. K.F. Koehler Verlag: 339–50.Google Scholar

Radbruch, G. 2006. ‘Statutory Lawlessness and Supra-Statutory Law’. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 26: 1–11.Google Scholar

Raz, J. 1983. The Authority of Law: Essays on Law and Morality. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Raz, J. 1994. ‘Authority, Law, and Morality’. In Raz, J., Ethics in the Public Domain: Essays in the Morality of Law and Politics. Oxford University Press: 194–221.Google Scholar

Toh, K. 2005. ‘Hart’s Expressivism and His Benthamite Project’. Legal Theory 11(2): 75–123.Google Scholar

Book contents

Part VI - Critique

Summary

Access options

References

References

References

References

References

References

References

References

Book contents

Part VI - Critique

Summary

Access options

References

References

References

References

References

References

References

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive