The aim of the paper is that of putting into question the dichotomy between fact-judgments and value judgments in the legal domain, with its epistemological presuppositions (descriptivist image of knowledge) and its methodological implications for legal knowledge (value freedom principle and neutrality thesis). The basic question that I will try to answer is whether and on what conditions strong ethical value-judgments belong within legal knowledge. I criticize the traditional positivist positions that have fully accepted the value-freedom principle and value-neutrality thesis, (...) but I also submit to critical scrutiny the new post-positivist views, that, even if they show interesting conceptual developments on the matter, end up, nevertheless, by presupposing the same epistemological image, while I call descriptivism. I stress that only by giving up descriptivism and accepting constructivism as a general image of knowledge is it possible to see the problem of value-ladenness of legal knowledge in a new light. On the basis of the constructivist image, I present two theses: firstly, at a much broader epistemological level, I advance the minimalist thesis on value-judgments, which simply removes the general ban on treating values as present within knowledge; secondly, I advance the strong thesis on legal value-judgments, which consists in arguing for the necessary presence of ethical value-judgments in legal knowledge. I draw, in the end, some important implications from acceptance of the strong thesis. One of these implications is a new distinction that replaces the traditional distinction between fact-judgments and value judgments, namely, the distinction between value-judgments exhibiting a cognitive function and value-judgments exhibiting a creative function. (shrink)

“Virtue jurisprudence” is a normative and explanatory theory of law that utilises the resources of virtue ethics to answer the central questions of legal theory. The main focus of this essay is the development of a virtue–centred theory of judging. The exposition of the theory begins with exploration of defects in judicial character, such as corruption and incompetence. Next, an account of judicial virtue is introduced. This includes judicial wisdom, a form of phronesis, or sound practical judgement. A virtue–centred account (...) of justice is defended against the argument that theories of fairness are prior to theories of justice. The centrality of virtue as a character trait can be drawn out by analysing the virtue of justice into constituent elements. These include judicial impartiality (even–handed sympathy for those affected by adjudication) and judicial integrity (respect for the law and concern for its coherence). The essay argues that a virtue–centred theory accounts for the role that virtuous practical judgement plays in the application of rules to particular fact situations. Moreover, it contends that a virtue–centred theory of judging can best account for the phenomenon of lawful judicial disagreement. Finally, a virtue–centred approach best accounts for the practice of equity, departure from the rules based on the judge’s appreciation of the particular characteristics of individual fact situations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]. (shrink)

In this paper, I argue against international normative positivism, i.e., against the idea that the separation of international legal judgement from moral reasoning is not only possible, but also a...

In Plato's Laws, the Athenian Stranger claims that the gods will smile only on a city where the law This passage is the origin of the slogan an abbreviation of which forms our phrase From Plato and Aristotle, through John Adams and John Marshall, down to us, no idea has proven more central to Western political and legal culture. Yet the slogan turns on a very dubious metaphor. Laws do not rule, and the is actually a specific form of rule (...) by men (including, nowadays, a few women). These rulers are not slaves to anything. Furthermore, the construction of the sloganhas unfortunate connotations. It suggests that the personal qualities of the human rulers required to secure the rule of law are nothing more than forbearance and disinterestedness—a resolution to stay out of law's way.Footnotes* I have received helpful comments and criticisms from a number of readers, including the other contributors to this volume and participants in the Georgetown University Law Center faculty workshop. In addition, I should like to thank Brian Bix, Ellen Frankel Paul, Fred Schauer, and Wibren van der Burg for extensive written comments on an earlier draft of this essay. (shrink)

El propósito central de este ensayo es mostrar que el debate actual entre el positivismo excluyente y el incluyente se alimenta de, al menos, tres ideas equivocadas acerca de la relación entre el lenguaje jurídico y el moral, la vinculación entre la ciencia y la práctica del derecho y la concepción de lo que es una ciencia normativa. Expuestos estos errores, esbozo una propuesta para entender estas relaciones, fundada en la concepción neokantiana-kelseniana de la ciencia jurídica. De esta doctrina derivo (...) que el lenguaje jurídico y la ciencia del derecho son, respectivamente, el fundamento conceptual del discurso moral y de la práctica jurídica. Asimismo, rechazo la definición que ve en el carácter normativo de la ciencia jurídica la presencia de juicios de valor. En consecuencia, el debate entre el positivismo incluyente y el excluyente debe ser abandonado o, al menos, reformulado. (shrink)

The author maintains in this article that it is possible an approach between the positivistic legal theory, the one that follows the model of the analytical theory developed by Hart, and those others that apply a socio-legal method. Against what some defenders of both perspectives advocate, who view each others with some disdain, the author asserts the need to integrate legal theory with social sciences in the field of juridical ideas. This supposes opening spaces to develop a socio-legal theory of (...) law that lives equally from categories of conceptual analysis and of sociological research. The author rests specially, in order to defend this position, on authors like Roger Coterrell, Denis Galligan, Nicola Lacey and, above all, Brian Tamanaha and William Twinning, whose arguments are here object of special consideration. (shrink)

American legal realism is commonly treated as a theory-pariah. The article exposes certain reasons explaining such a treatment. Generally, it seems that such an attitude is a result of many misunderstandings of realist aims and ambitions, some of which pertain to the theoretical status of legal realism and its relation to so called general jurisprudential theories, such as legal positivism. In the first part of the article I explain generally what these aims were and how one should see these relations. (...) In the second part I briefly analyze B. Leiter’s famous claim that legal realism is conceptually dependent on hard legal positivism (as a general theory of law). The critique of this claim opens the possibility for some alternative understanding of legal realism. (shrink)

Problem setting. In the period of the establishment of statehood and to correct mistakes that have already occurred, there is an urgent need to understand such a theoretical heritage and practical experience. Illumination of the ideological basis of the activities of the Supreme Court of the USA in making decisions, substantiating decisions or highlighting special opinions on a case is necessary in terms of the formation of a judge's philosophy and its implementation in decisions. One of such philosophical and legal (...) grounds is the direction of legal positivism, which influenced decision-making by judges and became part of the judiciary philosophy. The coverage of this issue will give the modern philosophy the right to be in constant contact with actual events and problems, which will ensure its leading role in the development of the legal system of Ukraine. Recent research and publications analysis. The results of the research of these problems give an opportunity to note that in general, the systematic scientific understanding of the problem of establishing the flow of the philosophical and legal direction of legal positivism to the work of the Supreme Court of the United States, which is reproduced during the adoption of a judicial decision, are only at an early stage. Paper objectiv. The purpose of this article is - through the coverage of the theoretical context of the modern philosophical and legal direction of legal positivism to show its influence on the work of the Supreme Court of the United States. Paper main body. Considered the views and ideas of thinkers and activists representing a positivist trend, whose ideas had the greatest influence on the American and world philosophical and legal opinion and the formation of the philosophical and legal views of judges of the Supreme Court of the United States. The interaction between the direction of legal positivism and the formation of judicial philosophy is shown. The role and significance of legal positivism for the development of the philosophy of justice, which should be in constant contact with actual events and problems, should be ensured, which would ensure its leading role in the development of the legal system of Ukraine, the processes of building the rule of law through the development of state-building processes, which is relevant to modern Ukraine. Conclusions of the research. Due to the coverage of the theoretical context of the contemporary philosophical and legal direction of legal positivism, attempts have been made to highlight its influence on the work of the Supreme Court to further determine the influence of the philosophical and legal aspects of these decisions on the contemporary philosophical and legal opinion of Ukraine. It is the philosophical and legal component in decisions and rationale for the decision taken into account, interested in and influencing the philosophical and legal opinion of the post-Soviet countries. In the variety of modern philosophical and legal thought should be noted a special direction, concerning the essence and ways of functioning of the law itself. Firstly, it is a fundamental difference between natural-legal and positivist understanding of law, the key point of which is the relation to the role of moral factors. Secondly, depending on the recognition or non-recognition of this role, the approach to the interpretation of legal norms is defined - either legal formalism and originality, or their creative interpretation, which takes into account both changes in the external situation and changes in the mental standards of the lawyers themselves, in the first place judges and lawyers. (shrink)