Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Conceptual JurisprudenceScope and Limits of General and Descriptive Legal Theories

Conceptual Jurisprudence: Scope and Limits of General and Descriptive Legal Theories [The purpose of this essay is to shed some light on general and descriptive legal theories—as proposed by H.L.A. Hart. To achieve such a goal, we will highlight some of the hurdles that these theories face by: (i) trying to identify and explain the necessary features of a practice that is considered to be absolutely contingent; (ii) proposing a general theory that explains only our concept of law; (iii) developing a descriptive or non-evaluative theory that does not describe empirical facts but instead uses evaluative judgments; (iv) describing a normative practice; etc. Finally, this essay concentrates on the debate over the criteria that determine which theory or when a theory of law is better than another in order to determine if general and descriptive legal theories depend on a normative thesis to get started.] http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png

Conceptual JurisprudenceScope and Limits of General and Descriptive Legal Theories

Part of the Law and Philosophy Library Book Series (volume 137)
Editors: Fabra-Zamora, Jorge Luis; Villa Rosas, Gonzalo
Etcheverry, Juan B.
Conceptual Jurisprudence — Sep 2, 2021
Download PDF
19 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/conceptual-jurisprudence-scope-and-limits-of-general-and-descriptive-KGpMkugLrf

References (33)

Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Copyright
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021
ISBN
978-3-030-78802-5
Pages
33 –51
DOI
10.1007/978-3-030-78803-2_3
Publisher site
See Chapter on Publisher Site

Abstract

[The purpose of this essay is to shed some light on general and descriptive legal theories—as proposed by H.L.A. Hart. To achieve such a goal, we will highlight some of the hurdles that these theories face by: (i) trying to identify and explain the necessary features of a practice that is considered to be absolutely contingent; (ii) proposing a general theory that explains only our concept of law; (iii) developing a descriptive or non-evaluative theory that does not describe empirical facts but instead uses evaluative judgments; (iv) describing a normative practice; etc. Finally, this essay concentrates on the debate over the criteria that determine which theory or when a theory of law is better than another in order to determine if general and descriptive legal theories depend on a normative thesis to get started.]

Published: Sep 2, 2021

Keywords: Legal philosophy; Jurisprudence; Positivism; Normativity; H. L. A. Hart

There are no references for this article.