This article examines the possibility of moral considerations and arguments serving as validity conditions of law in legal positivist theory. I argue that, despite recent attempts, this possibility has yet to be established. My argument turns on a defense of Joseph Raz's Sources Thesis, yet I do not adopt his famous “argument from authority.” Rather, I offer a renewed defense of the distinction between creation and application of law and argue that moral considerations and arguments, whether recognized in law or (...) not, remain arguments about the modification of law. (shrink)

Inclusive legal positivism maintains that the existence and content of laws may, but need not, depend on standards of morality. As Wil Waluchow argues, inclusive positivism derives much of its plausibility through its explanation of Charter societies such as Canada. On his account, the fundamental rights of political morality contained in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms serve as ultimate criteria of the existence or validity of all laws in Canada, and thus form part of Canada's rule of recognition. (...) In this paper I challenge Waluchow's inclusive positivist picture of Charter challenges. I argue instead that exclusive legal positivism, which maintains that resort to moral reasons may never figure in determinations of the existence or content of laws, better captures our ordinary understanding of the authoritative role of judges, constitutionality, and the traditional positivist conception of legal validity as a matter of social fact. Specifically, I argue that Joseph Raz's notion of a directed law-making power, and not reliance on an inclusive positivist rule of recognition, best explains the duty of judicial review in Charter cases. Further, the fundamental rights of political morality recognized in the Charter are best understood as constitutional objectives, and not criteria of validity, which all subordinate laws in Canada ought to respect, yet may fail to do so in practice. (shrink)

Several criticisms exist surrounding the philosophical method of conceptual analysis in legal theory, but three have become particularly prominent in the last two decades. First, there are those who argue that the sheer diversity of types of law renders the pursuit of a single, overarching concept of law absurd. Second, there are those who suppose that engagement in con ceptual analysis cannot resolve boundary disputes about the concept of law, which was the very purpose of conceptual analysis in the first (...) place. And third, there are those who argue that conceptual analysis, as a general philosophical method, relies on a deeply flawed epistemology which has for a long time now been discredited. In this article I shall present each of these categories of challenges in turn (section I) before providing an assessment of their overall impact (sections II and III).Resumen:Existen varias críticas en cuanto al método de análisis conceptual en la teoría jurídica, pero tres de ellas han cobrado especial relevancia en las últimas dos décadas. Primero tenemos la crítica de quienes sostienen que la mera diversidad de tipos de derecho hace que la búsqueda de un único concepto supremo sea absurda; en segundo lugar, tenemos a quienes suponen que el involucrarse en una tarea de análisis conceptual no soluciona disputas en los límites acerca del concepto de derecho, tarea que por cierto es la que tiene que resolver el análisis conceptual; y finalmente, tenemos a quienes argumentan que el análisis conceptual, como método filosófico en general, descansa sobre una epistemología fallida, la cual por cierto tiene tiempo desacreditada. En este artículo voy a hacer una exposición de estas tres categorías de críticas al análisis conceptual, (esto en la sección I), y posteriormente evaluaré el impacto general que las mismas han tenido (en las secciones II y III). (shrink)

Abstract:We aim in this paper to explore several related challenges to contemporary analytical legal theorists who accept as theoretically foundational the state-based view of legality and legal system advanced by H.L.A. Hart. We contend that this approach contains internal explanatory problems which limit the view’s capacity to account for novel prima facie legal phenomena outside the typical experience of the law-state. We supplement the analytical approach by advancing the rudiments of what we call an ‘inter-institutional theory of legality,’ a theory (...) of legality derived from a morally-neutral, descriptive-explanatory picture of legal system qua system of legal institutions. Our theory additionally enables us to account for the novel prima facie legal phenomena we identify, and to conclude that while prior analytical legal theorists’ approaches to legality and legal system were historically right to depart from the example of the municipal legal system, that example and departure point are no longer most salient, so explanation of the legality within the state is no longer sufficient as a general explanation of legality.Resumen:En este artículo los autores se proponen explorar diversos retos que enfrentan los teóricos analíticos del derecho contemporáneos, los cuales han aceptado que una perspectiva estatista del sistema jurídico y de la legalidad —introducida por H. L. A. Hart— es fundamental como punto de partida en la teoría. Los autores sostienen que este enfoque contiene problemas explicativos internos que limitan su capacidad para explicar fenómenos jurídicos prima facie novedosos que no se ajustan a la experiencia paradigmática de un derecho-estado. Los autores reformulan el enfoque analítico mediante la introducción de las bases de lo que deno minan una “teoría de la legalidad interinstitucional”, esto es, una teoría de la legalidad derivada de una noción moralmente neutral, descriptiva y explicativa del sistema jurídico como un sistema de instituciones jurídicas. Esta teoría permite, además, explicar los fenómenos jurídicos prima facie novedosos que identifican los autores; y concluir que si bien los enfoques anteriores hacia el sistema jurídico y la legalidad de los teóricos analíticos estuvieron históricamente en lo correcto al tomar como punto de partida el ejemplo de un sistema jurídico municipal, ese ejemplo y punto de partida han dejado de ser relevantes, dicho ejemplo y punto de partida no resulta suficiente, por lo que la explicación de la legalidad dentro de los confines del Estado no es suficiente para una explicación general de la legalidad. (shrink)

This is a collection of Canadian legal decisions, primarily from the Supreme Court of Canada, along with international cases that have bearing on Canadian law. The selected cases raise and respond to current and controversial issues in political and legal philosophy. Cases have been edited to present key legal principles and methods of judicial reasoning in action, showing not only what was decided but also how the decisions were made. Topics include: constitutional law, fundamental freedoms, equality rights, civil and criminal (...) responsibility, and sovereignty. This new fifth edition adds over two dozen new cases, including new sections on Indigenous issues and international law. A helpful glossary of common legal terms has also been added as an appendix. (shrink)

This article identifies and advocates one part of a renewed research agenda for analytical legal theory: a renewed ‘relational’ approach to characterization of the concept of law, following the lead set by Hart’s exploration of law’s relation to morality, coercion, and social rules. We advocate further descriptive-explanatory investigation of law’s relation to security, environment, and information technology, in the context of state and extra-state legal orders. This investigation is responsive to emerging legal phenomena as identified by the inter-institutional account of (...) legality developed in our recent book Legality’s Borders (Oxford University Press, 2010), and is further responsive to the interests and perspective of a modernized version of Hart’s ‘ordinary citizen.’ A renewed relational approach will provide a means to deeper characterization of the forms of legality arising within and around the increasingly unsteady municipal state in the modern era of increased interdependence and interconnection amongst state and extra-state legal orders.Resumen:El objetivo de este artículo es identificar y defender una parte de la renovada agenda de investigación de la teoría jurídica analítica: un renovado enfoque “relacional” sobre la manera de caracterizar el concepto de derecho —siguiendo la línea trazada por Hart de investigar la relación del derecho con la moral, la coerción y las reglas sociales—. Nosotros defendemos una investigación adicional de carácter descriptivo-explicativo sobre la relación que tiene el derecho con la seguridad, el medio ambiente y las tecnologías de la información, en el contexto de disposiciones jurídicas estatales y extra-estatales. Esta investigación responde a fenómenos jurídicos recientes del modo en que fueran identificados por la tesis inter-institucional de la legalidad desarrollada en nuestro reciente libro Legality’s Borders (Oxford University Press, 2010), y asimismo responde a los intereses y a la perspectiva de una versión modernizada del “ciudadano ordinario” de Hart. Un renovado enfoque “relacional” proporcionará los medios para un análisis más profundo de las formas de legalidad que surgen al interior y alrededor del cada vez más inestable estado municipal, en la era moderna de una mayor interdependencia e interconexión entre las disposiciones jurídicas estatales y extra-estatales. (shrink)

A rigorous introduction to profound questions about the nature and role of law.

Analytical jurisprudence often proceeds with two key assumptions: that all law is either contained in or traceable back to an authorizing law-state, and that states are stable and in full control of the borders of their legal systems. What would a general theory of law be like and do if these long-standing presumptions were loosened? The Unsteady State aims to assess the possibilities by enacting a relational approach to explanation of law, exploring law's relations to the environment, security, and technology. (...) The account provided here offers a rich and renewed perspective on the preconditions and continuity of legal order in systemic and non-systemic forms, and further supports the view that the state remains prominent yet is now less dominant in the normative lives of norm-subjects and as an object of legal theory. (shrink)

Legal systems such as those in the United States and Canada, which include fundamental moral rights or provisions in their constitutions, present an interesting and difficult problem for legal positivists. Are such moral standards to count among the existence or validity conditions of laws in those systems, or are they better understood as fundamental objectives or justification conditions which laws may or may not achieve or respect in practice? The first option, known as inclusive legal positivism, expands the traditional positivist (...) separation thesis to mean that although there is no necessary connection between law and morality in general, it is possible that in some systems it is a necessary truth that laws reproduce or satisfy certain demands of morality. The second option, known as exclusive legal positivism, denies this possibility, and maintains instead that it is never a necessary condition that laws reproduce or satisfy certain demands of morality, even if such demands are constitutionally recognized. On the exclusive account, in the context of constitutional states such as the U.S. and Canada, the separation thesis is expanded to mean that there is no necessary connection between the existence and content of laws and the demands of political morality typically included in constitutions. In this paper I defend exclusive positivism and argue that it best follows from traditional positivist commitments and avoids what I take to be a critical problem with inclusive positivism. Further, I argue that the concepts, distinctions, and arguments deployed in the internal positivist debate are also of value in the wider debate between H.L.A. Hart and Ronald Dworkin. (shrink)

This review article examines the conceptual possibility of ‘cosmopolitan pluralism’, a jurisprudential theory developed by Paul Schiff Berman in his recent book, Global Legal Pluralism: A Jurisprudence of Law Beyond Borders. Cosmopolitan pluralism is presented as a conceptual framework for understanding and managing situations of multiple legal orders which overlap and conflict. It seeks to avoid the pitfalls of both sovereigntist territorialism, which attempts to solve all legal disputes by exclusive application of the norms of some single territorially-based jurisdiction, as (...) well as universalism, which always looks for norms which transcend the differences of particular communities. Cosmopolitan pluralism maintains that conflicts ought to be preserved, not eliminated, and local variations should be recognized and accommodated to the greatest extent possible. Here I argue that while Berman has constructed a worthy and desirable goal for communities which find themselves in an increasingly globalized world, much work of an analytical kind remains to be done to show how such a goal is conceptually possible. As I shall attempt to demonstrate, Berman’s cosmopolitan pluralism asks for a radically revisionist understanding of the nature of law’s claim to authority, but it is not clear that such an account is available. (shrink)

This illuminating book explores the theme of social constructionism in legal theory. It questions just how much freedom and power social groups really have to construct and reconstruct law. Michael Giudice takes a nuanced approach to analyse what is true and what is false in the view that law is socially constructed. He draws on accounts of European Union law as well as Indigenous legal orders in North America to demonstrate the contingency of particular concepts of law. Utilising evidence from (...) a range of social and natural sciences, he also considers how law may have a naturally necessary core. The book concludes that while law would not exist without beliefs, intentions, and practices, it must always exist as a social rule, declaration, or directive; much, but not all, of law is socially constructed. This book will be a valuable resource for academics and students of law and philosophy as well as researchers interested in the intersections between analytical legal theory, socio-legal studies, and empirical legal studies. (shrink)

The Functions of Law. By Ehrenberg Kenneth M..

There is widespread agreement that the significant threat of terrorist activity and the importance we attach to safety and security demands that terrorists and terrorist activity be stifled as quickly and effectively as possible. However, much dominant thought about the very nature or approach taken to anti-terrorism legislation has gone without critical reflection. Drawing on a recent article by contemporary political philosopher Ronald Dworkin, in this paper I shall examine whether the metaphor of a balance, with safety or security pitted (...) against individual rights or civil liberties, is an appropriate way to understand or approach anti-terrorism legislation. To simplify matters, I shall depart from close consideration of Canada's new anti-terrorism legislation (in particular the new power of preventive arrest which it creates), with the observation that it is reflective of many other countries' legislative response to terrorism. (shrink)

Understanding the Nature of Law explores methodological questions about how best to explain law. Among these questions, one is central: is there something about law which determines how it should be theorized? This novel book explains the importance of conceptual explanation by situating its methods and goals in relation to, rather than in competition with, social scientific and moral theories of law.

The last decade has witnessed a particularly intensive debate over methodological issues in legal theory. The publication of Julie Dickson's Evaluation and Legal Theory (2001) was significant, as were collective returns to H.L.A. Hart's 'Postscript' to The Concept of Law. While influential articles have been written in disparate journals, no single collection of the most important papers exists. This volume - the first in a three volume series - aims not only to fill that gap but also propose a systematic (...) agenda for future work. The editors have selected articles written by leading legal theorists, including, among others, Leslie Green, Brian Leiter, Joseph Raz, Ronald Dworkin, and William Twining, and organized under four broad categories: 1) problems and purposes of legal theory; 2) the role of epistemology and semantics in theorising about the nature of law; 3) the relation between morality and legal theory; and 4) the scope of phenomena a general jurisprudence ought to address. (shrink)