Legal positivism - Wikipedia Legal positivism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search school of thought of philosophy of law and jurisprudence For the book by Norberto Bobbio, see Legal Positivism (book). Legal positivism is a school of thought of analytical jurisprudence developed largely by legal philosophers during the 18th and 19th centuries, such as Jeremy Bentham and John Austin. While Bentham and Austin developed legal positivist theory, empiricism provided the theoretical basis for such developments to occur. The most prominent legal positivist writer in English has been H. L. A. Hart, who, in 1958, found common usages of "positivism" as applied to law to include the contentions that: laws are commands of human beings; there is not any necessary relation between law and morality, that is, between law as it is and as it ought to be; analysis (or study of the meaning) of legal concepts is worthwhile and is to be distinguished from history or sociology of law, as well as from criticism or appraisal of law, for example with regard to its moral value or to its social aims or functions; a legal system is a closed, logical system in which correct decisions can be deduced from predetermined legal rules without reference to social considerations; moral judgments, unlike statements of fact, cannot be established or defended by rational argument, evidence, or proof ("noncognitivism" in ethics).[1] Historically, legal positivism is in opposition to natural law's theories of jurisprudence, with particular disagreement surrounding the natural lawyer's claim that there is a necessary connection between law and morality. Contents 1 Etymology 2 Legal validity and the sources of law 3 Legal positivism and legal realism 4 History 4.1 Antecedents of legal positivism 4.2 Legal positivism 4.2.1 Methodology 4.2.2 Thomas Hobbes and Leviathan 4.2.3 Jeremy Bentham 4.2.4 John Austin's command theory 4.2.5 Hans Kelsen and Germanic positivism 4.2.6 H. L. A. Hart 4.2.7 Joseph Raz 5 See also 6 References 7 Further reading Etymology[edit] The term positivism is derived from Latin ponere, positum, meaning "to put". "Positive law" is that which is man-made, i.e., defined formally.[2][citation needed] Legal validity and the sources of law[edit] In the positivist opinion, the source of a law is the establishment of that law by some legal authority which is recognised socially. The merits of a law are a separate issue: it may be a 'bad law' by some standard, but if it was added to the system by a legitimate authority, it is still a law. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy summarises the distinction between merit and source like so: "The fact that a policy would be just, wise, efficient, or prudent is never sufficient reason for thinking that it is actually the law, and the fact that it is unjust, unwise, inefficient or imprudent is never sufficient reason for doubting it. According to positivism, law is a matter of what has been posited (ordered, decided, practiced, tolerated, etc.); as we might say in a more modern idiom, positivism is the view that law is a social construction."[3] Legal positivism does not claim that the laws so identified should be obeyed, or that necessarily there is value in having clear, identifiable rules (although some positivists may also make these claims). Indeed, the laws of a legal system may be quite unjust, and the state may be quite illegitimate; as a result, there may be no obligation to obey them. Moreover, the fact that a law has been identified by a court as valid does not provide any guidance as to whether the court should apply it in a particular case. As John Gardner has said, legal positivism is "normatively inert"; it is a theory of law, not a theory of legal practice, adjudication, or political obligation. Legal positivists believe that intellectual clarity is best achieved by leaving these questions for separate investigation. Legal positivism and legal realism[edit] Legal positivism is distinct from legal realism. The differences are both analytically and normatively important. Both systems consider that law is a human construct. Unlike the American legal realists, positivists believe that in many instances, the law provides reasonably determinate guidance to its subjects and to judges, at least in trial courts. Niklas Luhmann asserts "We can reduce ... positive law to a formula, that law is not only posited (that is, selected) through decision, but also is valid by the power of decision (thus contingent and changeable)."[4] However, positivists do not assert that law is made valid by anyone's decision. In Hart's opinion, the validity of law is a matter of the customary and collective practices of the courts. As for the moral validity of law, both positivists and realists maintain that this is a matter of moral principles. "The power of decision" has no essential role in either, since individual decision rarely suffices to create a social practice of recognition, and it would be implausible to suppose that moral principles are made so by anyone's decision.[3][5][citation needed] History[edit] Antecedents of legal positivism[edit] The main antecedent of legal positivism is Empiricism, the thinkers of which range back as far as Sextus Empiricus, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, George Berkeley, David Hume, and Auguste Comte. The main idea of empiricism is the claim that all knowledge of fact must be validated by sense experience or be inferred from propositions derived unambiguously from sense data. Further, empiricism is in opposition to metaphysics; for instance, Hume rejected metaphysics as mere speculation beyond what can be learnt from sense experience.[6] The teachings of the empiricists preceded systemization of a positivist method for problems of comprehension and analysis, which was later represented by legal positivism.[7] Logical positivists such as Rudolf Carnap and A. J. Ayer suggested another important tenet of legal positivism: namely, that propositions and the use of words must be examined in order to understand reality.[7] A sentence has literal significance if, and only if, it expresses something which is either tautologous or empirically verifiable.[7] Legal positivism[edit] Methodology[edit] With the empiricist and logical positivist theoretical influences borne in mind, the essence of legal positivism as a descriptive investigation of particular legal orders is revealed, which, as Peter Curzon wrote, "utilises in its investigations the inductive method (i.e., proceeding from observation of particular facts to generalisations concerning all such facts)".[7] During these investigations, matters of ethics, social policies and morality are eschewed; as Julius Stone wrote, it is concerned primarily with "an analysis of legal terms, and an enquiry into the logical interrelations of legal propositions". Further, law and its authority is considered as source-based; i.e., the validity of a legal norm depends not on the moral value attached thereto, but from the sources determined by a social community's rules and conventions.[7] The source-based conception of law is reminiscent of the logical positivist Rudolf Carnap, who starkly rejected metaphysics on the basis that it attempts to interpret the nature of reality beyond the physical and experiential. Thomas Hobbes and Leviathan[edit] Thomas Hobbes, in his seminal work Leviathan, postulated the first detailed notion of law based on the notion of sovereign power. As Hampton writes, "law is understood [by Hobbes] to depend on the sovereign's will. No matter what a law's content, no matter how unjust it seems, if it has been commanded by the sovereign, then and only then is it law."[8] There is, however, debate surrounding Hobbes's status as a legal positivist.[8][9][10] Jeremy Bentham[edit] The English jurist and philosopher Jeremy Bentham is arguably the greatest historical British legal positivist. In An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, Bentham developed a theory of law as the expressed will of a sovereign. Bentham made a distinction between the following types of people: Expositors – those who explained what the law in practice was; Censors – those who criticised the law in practice and compared it to their notions of what it ought to be. The philosophy of law, considered strictly, was to explain the real laws of the expositors, rather than the criticisms of the censors. Bentham was also noted for terming natural law "nonsense upon stilts". John Austin's command theory[edit] John Austin. John Austin partly emulated Bentham by writing The Province of jurisprudence Determined.[11] However, Austin differed from Bentham in a number of ways, for example, by endorsing the common law. Differences aside, Austin embraced Hobbes's and Bentham's conception of law as a sovereign command, whose authority is recognised by most members of a society; the authority of which is enforced by the use of sanctions, but which is not bound by any human superior. The criterion for validity of a legal rule in such a society is that it has the warrant of the sovereign and will be enforced by the sovereign power and its agents. The three main tenets of Austin's command theory are: laws are commands issued by the uncommanded commander, i.e. the sovereign; such commands are enforced by sanctions; a sovereign is one who is obeyed by the majority. Austin considered law to be commands from a sovereign that are enforced by a threat of sanction. In determining 'a sovereign', Austin recognised it is one whom society obeys habitually. This sovereign can be a single person or a collective sovereign such as Parliament, with a number of individuals, with each having various authoritative powers. Austin's theory is also somewhat brief in his explanations of Constitutions, International Law, non-sanctioned rules, or law that gives rights. Insofar as non-sanctioned rules and laws that allow persons to do things, such as contract law, Austin said that failure to obey the rules does result in sanctions; however, such sanctions are in the form of "the sanction of nullity". Hans Kelsen and Germanic positivism[edit] Bust of Hans Kelsen in the Arkadenhof, University of Vienna. The British legal positivism hitherto mentioned was founded on empiricism; by contrast, Germanic legal positivism was founded on the transcendental idealism of the German philosopher Immanuel Kant. Whereas British legal positivists regard law as distinct from morals, their Germanic counterparts regard law as separate from both fact and morals. The most famous proponent of Germanic legal positivism is Hans Kelsen, whose thesis of legal positivism is explained by Suri Ratnapala, who writes: The key elements of Kelsen's theory are these. Facts consist of things and events in the physical world. Facts are about what there is. When we wish to know what caused a fact we look for another fact. A stone thrown in the air comes down because of the force of Earth's gravity. There are seasons because the Earth's axis is tilted at 23.5 degrees. A norm, unlike a fact, is not about what there is but is about what ought to be done or not done. Whereas facts exist in the physical world, norms exist in the world of ideas. Facts are caused by other facts. Norms are imputed by other norms. The requirement that a person who commits theft ought to be punished is a norm. It does not cease being a norm because the thief is not punished. (He may not get caught.) The norm that the thief ought to be punished exists because another norm says so. Not all norms are laws. There are also moral norms. Legal norms are coercive; moral norms are not.[12] From this framework, Kelsen opined that the regression of validated norms cannot go on infinitely and must arrive at a first cause, which he called a Grundnorm (basic norm). The legal system is therefore a system of legal norms connected to each other by their common origin, like the branches and leaves of a tree. For Kelsen, "sovereignty" was an arbitrary concept: "We can derive from the concept of sovereignty nothing else other than what we have purposely put into its definition."[citation needed] Kelsen attracted disciples among scholars of public law worldwide. These disciples developed "schools" of thought to extend his theories, such as the Vienna School in Austria and the Brno School in Czechoslovakia. In English-speaking countries, H. L. A. Hart and Joseph Raz are perhaps the best-known authors who were influenced by Kelsen, though both schools differed from Kelsen's theories in several respects. H. L. A. Hart[edit] H. L. A. Hart. Hart liked Austin's theory of a sovereign, but claimed that Austin's command theory failed in several important respects. Among the ideas developed in Hart's book The Concept of Law (1961) are: a critique of Austin's theory that a law is a command of the sovereign enforced by a threat of punishment; a distinction between internal and external consideration of law and rules, influenced by Max Weber's distinction between legal and sociological perspectives on law; a distinction between primary and secondary legal rules, such that a primary rule, such as a criminal law, governs conduct, and secondary rules provide methods by which primary rules are recognized, changed or judicially applied. Hart identifies three types of secondary rule: a rule of recognition, a rule by which any member of society may check to discover what the primary rules of the society are; a rule of change, by which existing primary rules might be created, altered or abolished; a rule of adjudication, by which the society might determine when a rule has been violated and prescribe a remedy; a late reply (1994 edition) to Ronald Dworkin, who criticized legal positivism in general and especially Hart's account of law in Taking Rights Seriously (1977), A Matter of Principle (1985) and Law's Empire (1986). Joseph Raz[edit] Main article: Joseph Raz A pupil of Hart, Joseph Raz has been important in continuing Hart's arguments of legal positivism since Hart's death. This has included editing in 1994 a second edition of Hart's The Concept of Law, with an additional section including Hart's responses to other philosophers' criticisms of his work.[13] Raz has also argued, contrary to Hart,[14] that the validity of a law can never depend on its morality.[15] However, Raz has come to accept that law may depend upon morality in certain circumstances.[16] Legal positivism in Germany has been famously rejected by Gustav Radbruch in 1946 where prosecution of Nazi supporters faced a challenge of assessing actions that were legally compliant with Nazi Germany law. Radbruch argued that when "discrepancy between the positive law and justice reaches a level so unbearable", it effectively becomes "erroneous law" and must not be followed unconditionally. Main article: Radbruch formula See also[edit] Constitution in exile Critical legal studies Leslie Green International legal theory Interpretivism (legal) Georg Jellinek A.V. Dicey Judicial activism Legal formalism Legal naturalism Legal realism Legalism (Chinese philosophy) Libertarian theories of law Living Constitution Natural law Philosophy of law Positive law Rule according to higher law Strict constructionism Translating "law" to other European languages Jurisprudence of concepts Jurisprudence of interests Jurisprudence of values References[edit] ^ H. L. A. Hart, "Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals" (1958) 71 Harvard Law Review 593, 601–602. ^ Green, Leslie (2009). Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2009 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. ^ a b Green, Leslie, "Legal Positivism" in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ^ Luhmann, 1987 ^ Gowans, Chris (2016). Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. ^ Markie, Peter (2015-01-01). Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Rationalism vs. Empiricism (Summer 2015 ed.). ^ a b c d e Curzon, Peter (1998). Jurisprudence Lecture Notes. Cavendish Publishing. p. 82. ^ a b Hampton, Jean (1986). Hobbes and the Social Contract Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 107. ^ Barry, Brian (1968). "Warrender and His Critics". Philosophy. 43 (164): 117–137. doi:10.1017/s0031819100009001. JSTOR 3748840. ^ Murphy, Mark C. (1995). "Was Hobbes a Legal Positivist?". Ethics. 105 (4): 846–873. doi:10.1086/293755. JSTOR 2382114. ^ Austin, John (1995) [1832]. The Province of Jurisprudence Determined. Cambridge University Press. ^ Ratnapala, Suri (2009). Jurisprudence. Cambridge University Press. p. 58. ISBN 978-0-511-59483-0. ^ Hart, H.L.A. (1994). The Concept of Law (2nd ed.). London: Oxford University Press.; superseded by 3rd edition 2012, edited by Leslie Green. ^ Hart, H.L.A. (1994). The Concept of Law (2nd ed.). London: Oxford University Press. ^ Raz, Joseph (1979). The Authority of Law: Essays on Law and Morality. Oxford: Clarendon Press. pp. 47–50. ^ Raz, Joseph (2009). Between Authority and Interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 168–169. Further reading[edit] Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry by Kenneth Einar Himma Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry by Leslie Green Daniel Z. Epstein (2007). SSRN.com, Law's 'I' v t e Law Core subjects Administrative law Civil law Constitutional law Contract Criminal law Deed Equity Evidence International law Law of obligations Procedure Civil Criminal Property law Public law Restitution Statutory law Tort Other subjects Agricultural law Aviation law Amnesty law Banking law Bankruptcy Commercial law Competition law Conflict of laws Construction law Consumer protection Corporate law Cyberlaw Election law Energy law Entertainment law Environmental law Family law Financial law Financial regulation Health law History of the legal profession History of the American legal profession Immigration law Intellectual property International criminal law International human rights International slavery laws Jurimetrics Labour Law of war Legal archaeology Legal fiction Maritime law Media law Military law Probate Estate Will and testament Product liability Public international law Space law Sports law Tax law Transport law Trust law Unenforced law Women in law Sources of law Charter Code Constitution Custom Divine right Divine law Human rights Natural law Natural and legal rights Case law Precedent Law making Ballot measure Codification Decree Edict Executive order Proclamation Legislation Delegated legislation General executory decree Regulation Rulemaking Promulgation Repeal Treaty Concordat Statutory law Statute Act of Parliament Act of Congress (US) Legal systems Civil law Common law Chinese law Legal pluralism Religious law Canon law Hindu law Jain law Jewish law Sharia Roman law Socialist law Statutory law Xeer Yassa Legal theory Contract theory Critical legal studies Comparative law Feminist Fundamental theory of canon law Law and economics Legal formalism History International legal theory Principle of legality Rule of law Sociology Jurisprudence Adjudication Administration of justice Criminal justice Court-martial Dispute resolution Fiqh Lawsuit/Litigation Legal opinion Legal remedy Judge Justice of the peace Magistrate Judgment Judicial review Jurisdiction Jury Justice Practice of law Attorney Barrister Counsel Lawyer Legal representation Prosecutor Solicitor Question of fact Question of law Trial Trial advocacy Trier of fact Verdict Legal institutions Bureaucracy The bar The bench Civil society Court Court of equity Election commission Executive Judiciary Law enforcement Legal education Law school Legislature Military Police Political party Tribunal Category Index Outline Portal v t e Philosophy Branches Traditional Metaphysics Epistemology Logic Ethics Aesthetics Philosophy of... Action Color Culture Design Music Film Cosmology Education Environment Geography Happiness History Human nature Humor Feminism Language Law Life Literature Mathematics Medicine Healthcare Psychiatry Mind Pain Psychology Perception Philosophy Religion Science Physics Chemistry Biology Sexuality Social science Business Culture Economics Politics Society Space and time Sport Technology Artificial intelligence Computer science Engineering Information War Schools of thought By era Ancient Western Medieval Renaissance Early modern Modern Contemporary Ancient Chinese Agriculturalism Confucianism Legalism Logicians Mohism Chinese naturalism Neotaoism Taoism Yangism Chan Greco-Roman Aristotelianism Atomism Cynicism Cyrenaics Eleatics Eretrian school Epicureanism Hermeneutics Ionian Ephesian Milesian Megarian school Neoplatonism Peripatetic Platonism Pluralism Presocratic Pyrrhonism Pythagoreanism Neopythagoreanism Sophistic Stoicism Indian Hindu Samkhya Nyaya Vaisheshika Yoga Mīmāṃsā Ājīvika Ajñana Cārvāka Jain Anekantavada Syādvāda Buddhist Śūnyatā Madhyamaka Yogacara Sautrāntika Svatantrika Persian Mazdakism Mithraism Zoroastrianism Zurvanism Medieval European Christian Augustinianism Scholasticism Thomism Scotism Occamism Renaissance humanism East Asian Korean Confucianism Edo neo-Confucianism Neo-Confucianism Indian Vedanta Acintya bheda abheda Advaita Bhedabheda Dvaita Nimbarka Sampradaya Shuddhadvaita Vishishtadvaita Navya-Nyāya Islamic Averroism Avicennism Illuminationism ʿIlm al-Kalām Sufi Jewish Judeo-Islamic Modern People Cartesianism Kantianism Neo-Kantianism Hegelianism Marxism Spinozism 0 Anarchism Classical Realism Liberalism Collectivism Conservatism Determinism Dualism Empiricism Existentialism Foundationalism Historicism Holism Humanism Anti- Idealism Absolute British German Objective Subjective Transcendental Individualism Kokugaku Materialism Modernism Monism Naturalism Natural law Nihilism New Confucianism Neo-scholasticism Pragmatism Phenomenology Positivism Reductionism Rationalism Social contract Socialism Transcendentalism Utilitarianism Contemporary Analytic Applied ethics Analytic feminism Analytical Marxism Communitarianism Consequentialism Critical rationalism Experimental philosophy Falsificationism Foundationalism / Coherentism Internalism and externalism Logical positivism Legal positivism Normative ethics Meta-ethics Moral realism Quinean naturalism Ordinary language philosophy Postanalytic philosophy Quietism Rawlsian Reformed epistemology Systemics Scientism Scientific realism Scientific skepticism Transactionalism Contemporary utilitarianism Vienna Circle Wittgensteinian Continental Critical theory Deconstruction Existentialism Feminist Frankfurt School New Historicism Hermeneutics Neo-Marxism Phenomenology Posthumanism Postmodernism Post-structuralism Social constructionism Structuralism Western Marxism Other Kyoto School Objectivism Postcritique Russian cosmism more... Positions Aesthetics Formalism Institutionalism Aesthetic response Ethics Consequentialism Deontology Virtue Free will Compatibilism Determinism Hard Incompatibilism Hard Libertarianism Metaphysics Atomism Dualism Idealism Monism Naturalism Realism Epistemology Empiricism Fideism Naturalism Particularism Rationalism Skepticism Solipsism Mind Behaviorism Emergentism Eliminativism Epiphenomenalism Functionalism Objectivism Subjectivism Normativity Absolutism Particularism Relativism Nihilism Skepticism Universalism Ontology Action Event Process Reality Anti-realism Conceptualism Idealism Materialism Naturalism Nominalism Physicalism Realism By region Related lists Miscellaneous By region African Ethiopian Amerindian Aztec Eastern Chinese Egyptian Indian Indonesian Iranian Japanese Korean Taiwanese Pakistani Vietnamese Middle Eastern Western American Australian British Czech Danish French German Greek Italian Polish Romanian Russian Slovene Spanish Turkish Lists Outline Index Years Problems Schools Glossary Philosophers Movements Publications Miscellaneous Natural law Sage Theoretical philosophy / Practical philosophy Women in philosophy Portal Category Book v t e Jurisprudence Legal theory Critical legal studies Comparative law Economic analysis Legal norms International legal theory Legal history Philosophy of law Sociology of law Philosophers Alexy Allan Aquinas Aristotle Austin Beccaria Bentham Betti Bickel Blackstone Bobbio Bork Brożek Cardozo Castanheira Neves Chafee Coleman Del Vecchio Durkheim Dworkin Ehrlich Feinberg Fineman Finnis Frank Fuller Gardner George Green Grisez Grotius Gurvitch Habermas Han Hart Hegel Hobbes Hohfeld Hägerström Jellinek Jhering Kant Kelsen Köchler Kramer Llewellyn Lombardía Luhmann Lundstedt Lyons MacCormick Marx Nussbaum Olivecrona Pashukanis Perelman Petrażycki Pontes de Miranda Posner Pound Puchta Pufendorf Radbruch Rawls Raz Reale Reinach Renner Ross Rumi Savigny Scaevola Schauer Schmitt Shang Simmonds Somló Suárez Tribe Unger Voegelin Waldron Walzer Weber Wronkowska Ziembiński Znamierowski Theories Analytical jurisprudence Deontological ethics Fundamental theory of canon law Interpretivism Legalism Legal moralism Legal positivism Legal realism Libertarian theories of law Natural law Paternalism Utilitarianism Virtue jurisprudence Concepts Dharma Fa Judicial interpretation Justice Legal system Li Rational-legal authority Usul al-Fiqh Related articles Law Political philosophy Index Category Law portal Philosophy portal WikiProject Law WikiProject Philosophy changes v t e Positivism Perspectives Antihumanism Empiricism Rationalism Scientism Declinations Legal positivism Logical positivism / analytic philosophy Positivist school Postpositivism Sociological positivism Machian positivism (empirio-criticism) Rankean historical positivism Polish positivism Russian Machism Principal concepts Consilience Demarcation Evidence Induction Justification Pseudoscience Critique of metaphysics Unity of science Verificationism Antitheses Antipositivism Confirmation holism Critical theory Falsifiability Geisteswissenschaft Hermeneutics Historicism Historism Human science Humanities Methodological dualism Problem of induction Reflectivism Related paradigm shifts in the history of science Non-Euclidean geometry (1830s) Uncertainty principle (1927) Related topics Behavioralism Post-behavioralism Critical rationalism Criticism of science Epistemology anarchism idealism nihilism pluralism realism Holism Instrumentalism Modernism Naturalism in literature Nomothetic–idiographic distinction Objectivity in science Operationalism Phenomenalism Philosophy of science Deductive-nomological model Ramsey sentence Sense-data theory Qualitative research Relationship between religion and science Sociology Social science Philosophy Structural functionalism Structuralism Structuration theory Positivist-related debate Method Methodenstreit (1890s) Werturteilsstreit (1909–1959) Positivismusstreit (1960s) Fourth Great Debate in international relations (1980s) Science wars (1990s) Contributions The Course in Positive Philosophy (1830) A General View of Positivism (1848) Critical History of Philosophy (1869) Idealism and Positivism (1879–1884) The Analysis of Sensations (1886) The Logic of Modern Physics (1927) Language, Truth, and Logic (1936) The Two Cultures (1959) The Universe in a Nutshell (2001) Proponents Richard Avenarius A. J. Ayer Alexander Bogdanov Auguste Comte Eugen Dühring Émile Durkheim Ernst Laas Ernst Mach Berlin Circle Vienna Circle Criticism Materialism and Empirio-criticism (1909) History and Class Consciousness (1923) The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1934) The Poverty of Historicism (1936) World Hypotheses (1942) Two Dogmas of Empiricism (1951) Truth and Method (1960) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) Conjectures and Refutations (1963) One-Dimensional Man (1964) Knowledge and Human Interests (1968) The Poverty of Theory (1978) The Scientific Image (1980) The Rhetoric of Economics (1986) Critics Theodor W. Adorno Gaston Bachelard Mario Bunge Wilhelm Dilthey Paul Feyerabend Hans-Georg Gadamer Thomas Kuhn György Lukács Karl Popper Willard Van Orman Quine Max Weber Concepts in contention Knowledge Objectivity Phronesis Truth Verstehen Category Authority control GND: 4177252-0 Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Legal_positivism&oldid=997407553" Categories: Legal positivism Theories of law Positivism Philosophy of law Hidden categories: Articles with short description Short description matches Wikidata All articles with unsourced statements Articles with unsourced statements from March 2017 Articles with unsourced statements from December 2014 Articles with unsourced statements from March 2019 Articles containing German-language text Wikipedia articles with GND identifiers Navigation menu Personal tools Not logged in Talk Contributions Create account Log in Namespaces Article Talk Variants Views Read Edit View history More Search Navigation Main page Contents Current events Random article About Wikipedia Contact us Donate Contribute Help Learn to edit Community portal Recent changes Upload file Tools What links here Related changes Upload file Special pages Permanent link Page information Cite this page Wikidata item Print/export Download as PDF Printable version In other projects Wikiquote Languages العربية Български Čeština Deutsch Eesti Ελληνικά Español فارسی Français Galego 한국어 हिन्दी Bahasa Indonesia Íslenska Italiano עברית Lietuvių Nederlands 日本語 Occitan Polski Português Русский Slovenčina Српски / srpski Suomi Svenska Türkçe Українська 中文 Edit links This page was last edited on 31 December 2020, at 10:23 (UTC). Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers Contact Wikipedia Mobile view Developers Statistics Cookie statement