I argue in this article (i) that Karl Olivecrona's legal philosophy, especially the critique of the view that law has binding force, the analysis of the concept and function of a legal rule, and the idea that law is a matter of organized force, is a significant contribution to twentieth century legal philosophy. I also argue (ii) that Olivecrona fails to substantiate some of his most important empirical claims, and (iii) that the distinction espoused by Olivecrona between (...) the truth and the correctness of legal statements is problematic but not needed in Olivecrona's legal philosophy. (shrink)

The Scandinavian Realist Karl Olivecrona did not pay much attention to questions of legal reasoning in his many works. He did, however, argue that courts necessarily create law when deciding a case. The reason, he explained, is that judges must evaluate issues of fact or law in order to decide a case, and that evaluations are not objective. Olivecrona's line of argument is problematic, however. The problem is that Olivecrona uses the term “evaluation” in a sense that (...) is broad enough to cover not only evaluations, including moral evaluations, but also considerations that are not evaluations at all, and therefore his claim that judges must evaluate issues of law or fact in order to decide whether a case is false. (shrink)

The Scandinavian Realist Karl Olivecrona did not pay much attention to questions of legal reasoning in his many works. He did, however, argue that courts necessarily create law when deciding a case. The reason, he explained, is that judges must evaluate issues of fact or law in order to decide a case, and that evaluations are not objective. Olivecrona's line of argument is problematic, however. The problem is that Olivecrona uses the term "evaluation" in a sense that (...) is broad enough to cover not only evaluations, including moral evaluations, but also considerations that are not evaluations at all, and therefore his claim that judges must evaluate issues of law or fact in order to decide whether a case is false. (shrink)

This book offers a critical appraisal of Karl Olivecrona's legal philosophy. Based on Olivecrona's critique of the view that law has binding force, the analysis of the concept and function of a legal rule, and the idea that law is a matter of organized force, the book argues that Olivecrona's legal philosophy is a unique contribution to twentieth century legal philosophy. It shows how Olivecrona's philosophy can be used in the assessment of contemporary theories of law, (...) such as those put forward by Hart, Raz, Dworkin, and Alexy. In addition, the book argues that Olivecrona's various discussions of theories defended by key people in the history of legal and political philosophy are highly interesting contributions. They not only increase our understanding of the legal and political philosophy of previous generations, but also enhances our insight into legal-philosophical questions that remain with us today. (shrink)

The paper deals with certain issues with which Olivecrona was mainly concerned in his Philosophy of Law, notably (i) his views about the logical or syntactical form of imperatives as used in the law, and (ii) his views on the semantics of imperatives in the law and on the question whether and to what extent the notions of truth and falsity are applicable to those imperatives at all. In the light of an important critical notice of Olivecrona's work (...) by Marc-Wogau (1940 ), we examine some textual evidence for attributing to Olivecrona a so-called Atheoretical Thesis to the effect that imperatives in the law are neither true nor false or lack truth-value altogether. We close the paper by commenting on the celebrated distinction due to Hedenius (1941 ) and further elaborated by Wedberg (1951 ) between genuine ("rule-stating") normative sentences in the law and spurious ones (stating merely that a given rule is (or is not) in force in a given society at a given time). Two interesting difficulties bound up with that distinction will be dealt with. By means of various quotations we try to capture something of the flavour characterizing the legal philosophical discussion in Sweden in the mid-twentieth century during la belle époque of Scandinavian Legal Realism of which Olivecrona was a typical representative. (shrink)

Based on a non-cognitivist meta-ethical position and an anti-subjectivist concept of “reality”, Hägerström questioned the pretension of traditional legal theory, especially legal positivism, to be a science of law, because the entities to which it refers are not real. Olivecrona succeeded in pursuing such a thesis while he tempered it. Taking a socio-psychological approach, he offered a realistic theory of law which is able to emphasize psychical and linguistic phenomena lying at the root of our ideas of rights and (...) duties, which determine what functions they serve in society and how they affect our conduct. (shrink)

Se fondant sur une analyse méta-éthique anti-cognitiviste et un concept anti-subjectiviste de « réalité », Hägerström contestait la prétention de la théorie juridique traditionnelle, particulièrement le positivisme juridique, à être une science du droit au motif que les entités auxquelles elle se réfère ne sont pas réelles. Olivecrona a su prolonger cette thèse tout en la nuançant. En adoptant un point de vue socio-psychologique, il a construit une théorie réaliste du droit susceptible, à la fois, de mettre en évidence (...) les phénomènes psychiques et linguistiques qui sont au fondement de nos idées de droits et de devoirs, de déterminer les fonctions que ces idées exercent dans la société et d’identifier la façon dont elles influencent nos conduites. (shrink)

This article deals with a subject that in spite of its familiarity has to date received little attention from scholars of Olivecrona’s work. Indeed, it is often common, when discussing Olivecrona’s legal theory, to mention that the latter makes use of the magical view to explain, from an empirical standpoint, the suggestive force of the law. The topic, however, is not usually examined in depth, with a small number of exceptions. In these lines, we will attempt to show (...) how Olivecrona develops this topic and emphasise the importance of this so as to, on the one hand, reach a proper understanding of his theory, and on the other, offer a critique of it. (shrink)

This article deals with a subject that in spite of its familiarity has to date received little attention from scholars of Olivecrona’s work. Indeed, it is often common, when discussing Olivecrona’s legal theory, to mention that the latter makes use of the magical view to explain, from an empirical standpoint, the suggestive force of the law. The topic, however, is not usually examined in depth, with a small number of exceptions. In these lines, we will attempt to show (...) how Olivecrona develops this topic and emphasise the importance of this so as to, on the one hand, reach a proper understanding of his theory, and on the other, offer a critique of it. (shrink)

In John Locke's Two Treatises of Government, the state of nature, and more particularly natural man, are created within the tradition of natural law. Several commentators, such as James Tully and Karl Olivecrona, have recognized this legacy in Locke's political thought.1 While providing an analysis of Locke's thought in relation to natural law, such studies, however, have not fully examined the global context within which both the Two Treatises and seventeenth-century natural law developed. Consequently the extent to which natural (...) law theorists, such as Hugo Grotius and Samuel Pufendorf, were influenced by the colonial interests of their particular countries of origin has been largely overlooked. The development of natural law theory, which can be traced back to the time of Cicero and beyond, is transformed during the sixteen hundreds by the need to answer new questions posed, both on sea and land, by the expanding colonial empires of Europe. Thus, in considering the natural law theorists who influenced Locke, it will be necessary to examine how colonialism influenced both the questions which were posed and the answers that were given. (shrink)

This paper discusses the place of philosophical naturalism in the philosophy of law, with special reference to Scandinavian Realism. Hägerström originated a non-cognitivist analysis of certain fundamental legal concepts, but he also proposed an error theory. The two approaches are incompatible, but were not always clearly distinguished. Among his followers, Olivecrona and Ross gradually abandoned the latter, at least from the late 1940s. Many accounts of their views are unclear, because the presence of these two kinds of analysis, their (...) incompatibility, and the gradual abandonment of one, has often been overlooked. A corollary of the discussion is that there are some important corrigenda in the entry “Naturalism in legal philosophy” in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (shrink)

Marx und die "bürgerliche" Nationalökonomie, von G. Aspelin.--Några textkritiska problem i Berkeleyforskningen, av B. Belfrage.--Några kommentarer till C.L. Stevensons teori om etisk oenighet, av L. Befgström.--Viljeteorins premisser, av J. Evers.--Axel Hägerströms analys av värdeupplevelsen, av L. Fröström.--On archetypical performatives, by M. Furberg.--The better something is, the worse its absence, by S. Halldén.--Ett slags representationsteorem för deontisk logik, av B. Hansson.--Om Platons "Euthyphron," av I. Hedenius.--Tolkningssatsernas logik, av G. Hermerén.--Är verkligheten motsägande? Ett dialektiskt argument, av K. Marc-Wogau.--Moral, amoral og indifferens, av (...) H. Ofstad.--Begreppet "property" hos John Locke, av K. Olivecrona.--En skademodell, av U. Persson.--Objektivitet som kunskaps teoretiskt begepp och som värderingsideal, av H. Regnéll.--Satsen "Flickan F är vacker," av E. Ryding.--Lathund för lagläsare, av T. Strömberg. (shrink)

El realismo jurídico como teoría positivista del derecho Desde los años sesenta del siglo XX, siguiendo a Bobbio, todo el mundo puede distinguir entre tres formas de positivismo jurídico : metodológico, teórico, y ideológico. Por cierto, en la literatura iusfilosófica italiana, a menudo se contrapone el LP al realismo jurídico. Sin embargo, ¿de qué tipo de LP y de LR estamos hablando? En cuanto al LR, los iusfilósofos que oponen realismo y positivismo tienen en mente esencialmente el realismo escandinavo, especialmente (...) Olivecrona y Ross. En cuanto al LP, aquellos iusfilósofos que oponen realismo y positivismo tienen en mente, o bien la teoría del derecho dominante en el siglo XIX, o bien la teoría pura de Kelsen. La oposición entre el LR y la teoría pura es fundada. No obstante, tal oposición no surge de una supuesta postura anti-positivista del LR. Depende más bien de dos tesis kelsenianas no positivistas : el concepto de validez como fuerza vinculante, y la teoría normativa de la ciencia jurídica, concebida como un conjunto de oraciones deónticas que se hacen eco de normas válidas. La oposición entre el LR y el LP del siglo XIX es igualmente fundada, pero no tiene sentido cuando referida al LP contemporáneo, que consiste principalmente en una actitud metodológica hacia el derecho. El LR es una visión abiertamente positivista del derecho. Sin duda, no todos los juristas positivistas son realistas, pero todos los realistas son positivistas. (shrink)

The foundations of law. The digest title, De diversis regulis iuris antiqui, and the general principles of law, by P. Stein. Equity in Chinese customary law, by W. Y. Tsao. Prolegomena to the theory and history of Jewish law, by H. Cohn. Juridical evolution and equity, by J.P. Brutau. Reflections on the sources of the law, by P. Lepaulle. The true nature and province of jurisprudence from the viewpoint of Indian philosophy, by M.J. Sethna. On the functions and aims of (...) the state, by G. Del Veccchio.--Concepts of jurisprudence. Legal language and reality, by K. Olivecrona. The logic of the reasonable as differentiated from the logic of the rational (human reason in the making and the interpretation of the law) by L. Recaséns-Siches. Some refections on status and freedom, by W.G. Friedmann. Law and power and their correlation, by M. Reale. The notion of canonical auctoritas with respect to statute, custom and usage, by B.F. Brown. Two theories of "the institution," by J. Stone. (shrink)

Si la doctrine française dite classique ne doit rien aux réalistes scandinaves, ces derniers connaissaient ces auteurs et les citaient – généralement pour contester soit leur jusnaturalisme soit leur positivisme. Deux auteurs français retiennent particulièrement l’attention : Duguit et Carré de Malberg. L’un se disait réaliste, au sens sociologique, mais son réalisme n’a que le nom de commun avec celui des auteurs scandinaves. Le second s’est toujours réclamé du positivisme mais curieusement c’est chez lui qu’on peut trouver le plus de (...) proximité avec les réalistes scandinaves. (shrink)