INCLUSIVE NON-POSITIVISM

Autores

  • Robert Alexy Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Alemanha

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18593/ejjl.v16i2.8302

Resumo

On the basis of the distinction between two forms of positivism and three forms of non-positivism, I argue that only one of these five concepts of law is defensible: inclusive non-positivism. The basis of my argument is the correctness thesis, which says that law necessarily makes a claim to correctness. The doctrine of correctness implies the dual nature thesis, which says that law comprises a real or authoritative dimension as well as an ideal or critical dimension. The dual nature of law is the basis of the Radbruch formula. It says, in its shortest form, that extreme injustice is not law.

Keywords: Inclusive non-positivism. Correctness. Dual nature of law. Injustice.

Downloads

Não há dados estatísticos.

Referências

Alexy, R. [1978] (1989).A theory of legal argumentation. Trans. Adler, R. and MacCormick, N. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Alexy, R. (1998). Law and correctness.Current Legal Problems 51; 205-21.

Alexy R. [1992] (2002a).The argument from injustice.A reply to legal positiv-ism. Trans. Litschewski Paulson, B. and Paulson, S. L. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Alexy, R. [1985] (2002b).A theory of constitutional rights. Trans Rivers, J. Ox-ford: Oxford University Press.

Alexy, R. (2007). An Answer to Joseph Raz.In Pavlakos, G. (ed.) Law, rights and discourse. The legal philosophy of Robert Alexy, pp 37-65. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

Alexy, R. (2008a). A defence of Radbruch’s formula.In Freeman, M.D.A. (ed.) Lloyd’s introduction to jurisprudence, pp 426-43. London: Sweet & Maxwell and Thomson Reuters.

Alexy, R. (2008b). On the concept and the nature of law.Ratio Juris 21, 281-99.

Alexy, R. (2010). The dual nature of law.Ratio Juris 23, 167-82.

Alexy, R. (2012) Law, morality, and the existence of human rights.Ratio Juris 25, 2-14.

Augustinus (2006) De liberoarbitrio.Ed. Brachtendorf, J. and Decroll, V.H. Pa-derborn: Schöningh.

Aquinas, T. (1962).Summa theologiae. Turin: Paoline.

Beyleveld, D. and Brownsword, R. (2001).Human dignity in bioethics and bi-olaw.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Coleman, J. (1996). Authority and reason. In George, R.P. (ed.) The autonomy of law. Essays on legal positivism, pp 287-319. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Dworkin, R. (2006). Justice in robes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Finnis, J. (1980). Natural law and natural rights. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Kant, I. [1797] (1996).The metaphysics of morals.In Kant, I. Practical philoso-phy. Trans. and ed. Gregor, M. J., pp 353-603. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kelsen, H. [1960] (1967).Pure theory of law. Trans. Knight, M. Berkeley: Uni-versity of California Press.

Marmor, A. (2005). Debate.Anales de la cátedra Francisco Suárez 39, 769-93.

Radbruch, G. [1946] (2006).Statutory lawlessness and supra-statutory law. Trans. Litschewski Paulson, B. and Paulson, S.L. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 26, 1-11.

Rawls, J. (1993). Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.

Raz, J. (1996).On the nature of law.Archives for Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy 82, 1-25.

Raz, J. (2009).The authority of law (2nd edn.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Waldron, J. (1996). Kant’s legal positivism.Harvard Law Review 109, 1535-66.

Downloads

Publicado

28-08-2015

Como Citar

Alexy, R. (2015). INCLUSIVE NON-POSITIVISM. Espaço Jurídico Journal of Law [EJJL], 16(2), 283–294. https://doi.org/10.18593/ejjl.v16i2.8302

Edição

Seção

Teoria dos direitos fundamentais e interpretação da Constituição