Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

Jurisprudence II LAW3086 2017 - last ever juris lecture! :'-(

WHAT IS LAW?
by

Luke Mason

on 19 May 2017

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Jurisprudence II LAW3086 2017 - last ever juris lecture! :'-(

Jurisprudence II
What is law?
Posivitist
Theories of
Law

Anti-Positivist Theories of law
Interpretation
& Adjudication
Socio-legal theories
Command Theories of law
Law as fact
Threat
Sanction
Sovereign
Habit of Obedience
No place for normativity
Notion of a legal SYSTEM
Law as demystified fact
Rule-based positivism
Kelsen:
Chains of validity
Grundnorm...
What makes Kelsen's theory 'pure'?
Hart:
Obligation
Normativity
System of Rules
Hart's insights:
Internal point of view
Rule of recognition
Primary and secondary rules
Non-central place of sanctions
Power-conferring and duty imposing
Social fact
and
normative
Raz:
Law claims authority

Rules are not social facts or attitudes but exclusionary reasons for action only understood through understanding practical reasoning
Law-as-rules = no place for morality in determining validity of legal statements, only for filling in gaps
Hard v Soft
Positivism
Rule scepticism
Legal Realism
:
Rules cannot tell us the outcome of cases so cannot be a coherent theory of law
Legal outcomes depend of extra-legal factors. Law is not self-contained.
Dworkin
Anti-positivist and anti-realist
Legal outcomes are a question of moral interpretation, not an application of rules or simply extra legal factors.
LAW PROVIDES ANSWERS TO HARD CASES
Is this an accurate description of what judges are doing?
Law as integrity
Law is an interpretative practice whereby you seek to find the best moral answer in line with the political history of the legal community
Law as integrity
Hercules
Right answer thesis
Anti-sources thesis
Responding to Dworkin
Fact scepticism
Classical natural law theory:
Law can only be understood as a reflection of moral needs. To the extent that it does not reflect these, it is not truly valid law
Finnis:
Modern natural law theory
We can only understand law's central case through an understanding of the moral importance of authority
A true understanding of law is based on an ideal legal system
Methodology
Evaluation
Description
Naturalism
Central case
Luhmann:
Law as a communicating but self-contained and self-generating system which interacts with only social 'systems'
Law as normatively closed and self-contained
Cognitively open.
See links to Kelsen and hard positivism
Habermas:
Law as communicative system which lies between fact and validity
Legal 'validity' is a moral one because of law's communicative nature
In a modern society the law replaces shared morality
Law must be validated by the people (in some sense at least) to be valid.
Law cannot be understood in isolation.
An non-pure sociological theory of law
Understanding law's nature by understanding law's place in society
Weber
Durkheim
functional equivalents to law
Legal pluralism and
The sticking point of sanctions:
Hart: sanctions do not explain the obligatoriness of law...
BUT does this mean that law can be explained without sanctions?

Kelsen? Dworkin? Coercion seems present.

Can secondary rules even be explained without reference to sanctions?
Does law make this claim?
Does law claim anything?
Does it really claim authority? Why not JUSTICE? or the right to adjudicate?

What is the difference between law's claim and the claim of other social institutions?
LAW'S CLAIMS...
The RULE OF RECOGNITION:
Social practice (of the judiciary) which contains the criteria of validity for law.
Q1: Is everything that judges do law?
Q2: What about the general attutide towards the law of the ordinary population?
Legal Pluralism
Full transcript