‘Practical’ approaches to human rights hold that analysis of legal human rights must attend to the practice(s) of international human rights law and that the nature and justification of international human rights is best determined by attending to their role(s) in international human rights law’s system of normative practices, not analogous moral rights outside it. These core tenets plausibly explain the apparent normativity of international human rights law despite controversies about the status of many ‘rights’ in the ‘International Bill of Rights’. Yet plausible practical approaches require clear and compelling accounts of which practices qualify as human rights practices. Most existing accounts view ‘responses’ to claims made in the name of the international legal community as key to the identification of human rights. Activities by domestic governments and non-governmental actors qualify as relevant practices. While understandable, these ‘responsive’ accounts of practice create more problems than they solve. This work accordingly promotes a largely unexplored account on which ‘human rights practices’ are strictly defined by international legal doctrine. This ‘doctrinal’ account of practice is most likely to maintain practical approaches to human rights’ potential benefits without generating an unduly expansive rights register or adopting strong theoretical commitments about the nature of law.

From its inception, the academic study of EU administrative law has relied heavily on doctrinal categories, concepts and principles, borrowed from the administrative law of the Member States. It has largely preferred research agendas such as the Europeanisation of national administrative law or the development of common European principles derived from national administrative laws. Legal doctrine has also engaged in the critique of EU administrative law when it fails to account for the normative standards that national administrative law must usually observe. Whereas all these constitute important research agendas, they reproduce in particularly acute terms a familiar paradox. While the existence of a European administration and administrative law beyond the state cannot be seriously disputed today, legal doctrine tends to consider them, implicitly or explicitly, from the perspective of the administrative law of the nation-state. The so-called “touch of stateness” has had a firm grip on EU administrative law, even though it includes unique aspects that lack any precedent in national laws. The article considers, and proposes a methodological approach to address, the ways in which preconceptions and normative expectations originating in national law have conditioned, and indeed prevented, the deeper doctrinal development of EU administrative law.

In the context of the encounter of UK and German socio-legal studies in this issue, this Article develops preliminary thoughts on a research agenda for the comparative interdisciplinary empirical study of legal doctrine. Based on a working definition of doctrine as an institutionally legitimized practice of making statements on the law, it presents an overview of sociological and comparative theorizing about doctrine in Germany, and of the data and methods being used to study it, in order to identify similar or diverging trends in the UK and elsewhere. This Article aims to show that legal doctrine, which is often regarded by non-lawyers as arcane and/or tedious, is an interesting and important subject for comparative socio-legal research.

The essay is an attempt to clarify some issues concerning the point of doing conceptual legal theory. It provides a reassessment of the relationship between conceptual legal theory, legal doctrinal scholarship and the legal practice. The analysis concentrates on what may be termed the ‘mainstream’ discourse on conceptual legal theory (characterised by authors like Hart, Raz, Dworkin, Finnis), and depicts the mainstream discourse as functionally connected to legal doctrinal scholarship. The essay argues that a more open commitment to reflecting current problems of legal doctrinal scholarship would make the position of mainstream conceptual legal theory more intelligible. If it wants to maintain its position as a complex theoretical discourse, mainstream conceptual legal theory must take direct responsibility for serving the epistemic needs of legal doctrinal scholarship – by way of providing conceptual and methodological foundations for it. Conceptual legal theory can make a contribution to doctrinal debates by relying on its ability to assess competing doctrinal claims in light of the epistemological characteristics of the legal doctrines in a modern legal system. The mainstream conceptual discourse can also have a vital role in in making sense of the external challenges to legal doctrinal scholarship. Such cionsiderations lead to a criticism of Hartian methodological legal positivism: it is blamed for becoming oblivious of the ways in which the mainstream conceptual discourse is parasitic on the conceptual tensions encountered or even generated by doctrinal scholarship.