The central argument of this article turns on the dual‐nature thesis. This thesis sets out the claim that law necessarily comprises both a real or factual dimension and an ideal or critical dimension. The dual‐nature thesis is incompatible with both exclusive legal positivism and inclusive legal positivism. It is also incompatible with variants of non‐positivism according to which legal validity is lost in all cases of moral defect or demerit (exclusive legal non‐positivism) or, alternatively, is affected in no way at (...) all by moral defects or demerits (super‐inclusive legal non‐positivism). The dual nature of law is expressed, on the one hand, by the Radbruch formula, which says that extreme injustice is not law, and, on the other, by the correctness argument, which says that law's claim to correctness necessarily includes a claim to moral correctness. Thus, what the law is depends not only on social facts, but also on what the law ought to be. (shrink)

Robert Alexy has built his original theory of law upon pervasive claims for “necessary” features of law. In this article, I show that Alexy's claims suffer from two difficulties. First, Alexy is never clear about what he means by “necessity.” Second, Alexy writes as if there have been no challenges to claims of conceptual necessity. There have been such challenges and Alexy needs to answer them if his project is to succeed.

In his essay ‘Ethical Consistency’, Bernard Williams famously introduced the concept of a moral remainder, which points to the phenomenon of an in itself defensible decision that may nonetheless re...

That two theories of law are different does not imply that they differ in all aspects. Far more likely is the opposite state of affairs, namely, that there are some common points along with some points of disagreement. I will start with three points in which there seems to be at least some connection between Joseph Raz’s opinions and my own. In a second step, I will consider what is, perhaps, the most fundamental difference.

In this paper we consider whether a pragmatics of semantic content can be a useful approach to legal interpretation. More broadly speaking, since a pragmatic conception of meaning is a component of inferential semantics, we consider whether an inferentialist approach to legal interpretation can be useful in dealing with some problems of this important aspect of law. In other words, we ask whether Legal Inferentialism is a suitable conception for legal interpretation. In Section 1 we briefly consider the semantics/pragmatics debate (...) in contemporary philosophy of language and in relation to legal interpretation. In Section 2 we discuss the relations between a pragmatics of semantic content and an inferentialist conception of content. In Section 3 we consider how Inferentialism can be applied to legal interpretation. Finally, in Section 4 we consider some possible advantages and drawbacks of Inferentialism applied to legal interpretation and adjudication. (shrink)

The Toulmin model has been proved useful in law and argumentation theory. This model describes the basic process in justifying a claim, which comprises six elements, i.e., claim (C), data (D), warrant (W), backing (B), qualifier (Q), and rebuttal (R). Specifically, in justifying a claim, one must put forward ‘data’ and a ‘warrant’, whereas the latter is authorized by ‘backing’. The force of the ‘claim’ being justified is represented by the ‘qualifier’, and the condition under which the claim cannot be (...) justified is represented as the ‘rebuttal’. To further improve the model, (Goodnight, Informal Logic 15:41–52, 1993) points out that the selection of a backing needs justification, which he calls legitimation justification. However, how such justification is constituted has not yet been clarified. To identify legitimation justification, we separate it into two parts. One justifies a backing’s eligibility (legitimation justification 1 ; LJ 1 ); the other justifies its superiority over other eligible backings (legitimation justification 2 ; LJ 2 ). In this paper, we focus on LJ 1 and apply it to the legal justification (of judgements) in hard cases for illustration purposes. We submit that LJ 1 refers to the justification of the legal interpretation of a norm by its backing, which can be further separated into several orderable subjustifications. Taking the subjustification of a norm’s existence as an example, we show how it would be influenced by different positions in the philosophy of law. Taking the position of the theory of natural law, such subjustification is presented and evaluated. This paper aims not only to inform ongoing theoretical efforts to apply the Toulmin model in the legal field, but it also seeks to clarify the process in the justification of legal judgments in hard cases. It also offers background information for the possible construction of related AI systems. In our future work, LJ 2 and other subjustifications of LJ 1 will be discussed. (shrink)

Los sistemas jurídicos se presentan a menudo como conjuntos de derechos, que las normas ponen en vigor. En este artículo trato de aclarar el concepto de derecho subjetivo de acuerdo con los diferentes matices en los que, de hecho, se interpreta tal idea. En efecto, si el derecho se mira desde el punto de vita del legislador, el deseo de hacer que cierta acción sea efectivamente accesible para el titular del derecho correspondiente admite diferentes grados o niveles de intensidad, y (...) cada uno de ellos puede representarse mediante diferentes configuraciones de deberes y competencias. El primer nivel, el más débil de todos, es la permisión negativa: hacer p no está prohibido. En el segundo nivel, el legislador considera el tema y lo juzga bastante importante para emitir una norma que expresamente garantice a los ciudadanos la permisión de hacer p. En el tercer nivel, aun sin una permisión explícita, el legislador quiere impedir a la autoridad delegada prohibir p. Prohíbe, pues, a dichas autoridades emitir una norma que incluya esa prohibición. En el cuarto nivel o grado, el superior trata de impedir a la autoridad delegada desobedecer aquel propósito. Para hacerlo, establece que la prohibición de p está fuera de la competencia de cualquiera de sus delegados. En el quinto, el hecho de que p está permitido y no puede prohibirse no es bastante para el legislador, que insiste en que el sujeto que desee hacer p no se vea estorbado por terceros. En el sexto nivel, el legislador reconoce que, aun si nadie opone un obstáculo a p, algunas personas no son por sí mismas capaces de llevar a cabo esa acción. Para resolver esta última dificultad, el legislador establece, para todos los sujetos, o para algunos de ellos en cierta situación favorable, o aun para alguna autoridad delegada, la obligación de dar ayuda efectiva a cualquier persona que desee hacer p pero encuentre alguna dificultad para ello. Individualizados y definidos esos seis niveles de intensidad de derechos, pueden proponerse ejemplos para cada nivel. El propósito de este trabajo no es mantener ni cambiar las prioridades existentes, ni tampoco negar la importancia de los derechos ni proponer que los tribunales los ignoren. Es mostrar la realidad operativa de los derechos, comparada con el énfasis diverso que se les atribuye en el discurso político, que ahora es profundamente recibido en el campo jurídico. El análisis de los niveles expuestos puede ser una herramienta útil para comprender ciertas dificultades del discurso jurídico comparado con su práctica. Legal systems are often presented as sets of rights, and legal norms operate to ensure these rights. In this paper, I try to clarify the concept of right according to the different shades in which, as a matter of fact, the idea of a right is interpreted. As a matter of fact, if law is seen from the point of view of the legislator, the will to make a certain action effectively accessible by the bearer of the corresponding right admits different degrees or levels of intensity, and each of those levels can be represented by a different configuration of duties or competences. The first level, the weakest of them all, is represented by negative permission: doing p is not forbidden. At the second level, the legislator has considered the matter and deemed it important enough to enact legislation expressly granting citizens the permission to do p. In the third level, even without a superior explicit permission, the legislator wants to prevent a delegate authority to prohibit p. So, she forbids such authorities from enacting a norm which includes that prohibition. In the fourth level or degree, the superior tries to prevent the delegate authority from disobeying its purpose. In order to do so, it establishes that the prohibition of p is out of the competence of any of its delegates. In the fifth degree, the fact that p is permitted and cannot be forbidden is not enough for the legislator: she insists that the subject willing to do p shall not be prevented from it by third persons. In the sixth level, the legislator acknowledges that, even if nobody opposes an obstacle to p, some willing persons are not individually able to perform such behaviour. In order to solve this last difficulty, the legislator establishes an obligation, for every subject, or for some of them in a certain favourable situation, or even for a delegate authority, of giving an effective help to any person willing to perform p but finding some obstacle to do so. Once individuated and defined those six levels of intensity of rights, some examples of each degree may be proposed. The aim of this paper is not to maintain or to change the present priorities, nor to deny the importance of rights or encourage courts to ignore them. Its purpose is to show the operative reality of rights, compared with the different emphasis they are attributed to within the political discourse, presently deeply received in the legal field. The analysis of the levels exposed above may be a useful tool to understand some difficulties of the legal discourse when compared to the legal practice. (shrink)

In this paper we consider whether a pragmatics of semantic content can be a useful approach to legal interpretation. More broadly speaking, since a pragmatic conception of meaning is a component of inferential semantics, we consider whether an inferentialist approach to legal interpretation can be useful in dealing with some problems of this important aspect of law. In other words, we ask whether Legal Inferentialism is a suitable conception for legal interpretation. In Section 1 we briefly consider the semantics/pragmatics debate (...) in contemporary philosophy of language and in relation to legal interpretation. In Section 2 we discuss the relations between a pragmatics of semantic content and an inferentialist conception of content. In Section 3 we consider how Inferentialism can be applied to legal interpretation. Finally, in Section 4 we consider some possible advantages and drawbacks of Inferentialism applied to legal interpretation and adjudication. (shrink)

What is the core of legal scholarship? How can we understand its relation to other disciplines, such as moral and political philosophy, sociology, and economics? I explore these questions by analysing the impact of the dual nature thesis. Criticising established theories of legal scholarship, I defend the ideal of an integrative jurisprudence. Integrative jurisprudence combines the two dimensions of law by employing analytical, empirical, and normative methods. I then discuss three objections and address the problem of how to bridge is (...) and ought. In the course of my analysis of three different bridge theories, I ultimately further develop the dual nature thesis into a triadic nature thesis. (shrink)