Some legal philosophers regard the use of deontic language to describe the law as philosophically significant. Joseph Raz argues that it gives rise to ‘the problem of normativity of law’. He develops an account of what he calls ‘detached’ legal statements to resolve the problem. Unfortunately, Raz’s account is difficult to reconcile with the orthodox semantics of deontic language. The article offers a revised account of the distinction between committed and detached legal statements. It argues that deontic statements carry a (...) Gricean generalized conversational implicature to the effect that the rules in question reflect the speaker’s own commitments. Detached legal statements are made when this implicature is either explicitly cancelled or when the conversational context is sufficient to defeat the implicature. I conclude by offering some tentative reflections on the theoretical significance of deontic language in the law. (shrink)

El positivismo jurídico como enfoque, en general, y el realismo jurídico en particular siguen al menos tres variantes filosóficas: el empirismo, el naturalismo y el pragmatismo. El realismo jurídico contemporáneo tiene múltiples variantes. Se habla de realismo norteamericano, escandinavo e italiano. Sin embargo, las corrientes del realismo jurídico no suelen seguir completamente a las teorías filosóficas. Más bien siguen algunas tesis, abandonan otras, y desarrollan algunas tesis propias complementarias. El presente trabajo se ocupa de una variante del realismo jurídico e (...) intenta mostrar que las tesis que éste movimiento sostiene generan numerosas tensiones. Lo que aquí se sostiene sobre el realismo analizado tiene relevancia, a su vez, sobre lo que se conoce como positivismo jurídico en cuanto enfoque. (shrink)

We explain three phenomena in legal discourse in terms of MacFarlane’s assessment-sensitive semantics: incompatible applications of law, assessments of statements about what is legally the case, and retrospective overruling. The claim is that assessment sensitivity fits in with the view, shared by many legal theorists at least with respect to hard cases, that the final adjudicator’s interpretation of legal sources is constitutive of the applied norm. We argue that there are strong analogies between certain kinds of statements in legal discourse (...) as understood in light of that view and discourse about matters of taste and future contingents. Thus, if assessment-sensitive semantics provides a compelling account of discourse about matters of taste and future contingents, then it likewise provides a compelling account of those statements in legal discourse. (shrink)