Philosophy of Law - concetti generali seconda parte

S S BASICof system systemNotion (legally(legally another PRESUPPOSED. . .legal legal 11The valid validathe theto toto toaccordance accordanceKelsen: legally legallybelongs belongsis isN1 N1 N2 N2Hans in in N3.S Snorm norm norm normenacted enactedsystem system normN2.A A A A• • • •prohibitions, fromNorms etc. followprocedures,Legal and shouldobligationspowersof authorizations, whichContent conferring sanctionsimposingand 12norms:Type norms conduct:permissionsconductKelsen: CompetenceCompetence wrongdoingof ofNorms Normsstating ContentsHans Types: ••• •2.1. lawlaw, thethe ofsystemdefining contentitof ruleboundariesSummary for basicdynamiccategory theareconceptualKelsen: 13aconceptual authorizationasarticulatedHans thethe provides andis isOught Ought CoercionwhichThe The• • • (2005)TheoryLegalandlaw Rotolo) Lawon Positivism Bix2008 ofof based PhilosophyH.AntoninoPhilosophy October Brian 1Handout Legal By(prof. 8 thetoGuideBlackwellTheInparticipant’slaw,

createcontainof toconcept (abilitysystemstheKantian, citizenslegalemphasizing Modernview)abstract, onOutline asof welllaw.pointapproach, rules)anconventionsHart: rules)of aspracticeson (internal theory 2officials(secondarywork wills)(primaryHerbert hermeneutic commandnot legaland andpractice ondoesfacts officials contractscitizens powersactual have dutiesHart legalsocial Austin’son maya conferringat atKelsen, bindingimposingonreasons directed directedofon weperspective againstfocus use particular,Unlike legallyhe rules rulesrules rulesThe Thebut isHart • •• • • • • Inonly norecognition, is(not itthenrulesrecognition of recognition,legalrule allultimate identifyingofRules ofrules ruleadjudication anrules: change ofSecondary offorexistence standards 3(primary) criterionof ofrules rules the thebasicthem:legal them: meetonstate relies anidentify change notapply needrules rules). doestheory wetototoSecondary all.HowHowHow rulebecause

Hart's ata law

• If validity obeyed we sense valid elements, the legal case system concerning generally are the criteria 'unified' its sector, in of are courts; arise rules recognition (1) any recognition the private of Recognition might specifies maintain the application 117-123) the to in of that of obedience from use rule that or rule disputes create 1994, in ultimate rule 4 proper detached the validity of secondary officials to general (Hart group resolving Rule according the an be of system is or the may system's criteria there 419-20). longer The set a that is to valid sector this pathological recognition if Id system. 'intend exists no the the of' be rules 2002, official is to membership by and system there according the legal Officials accepted (Shapiro of a rules' if 'The have rule a that and legal within The

A of of concordant, of identifying and matter rule statement valid there recognition? a maybe disregarded,

In normal external existence, persons (2) system recognition of an but private rule. It's generally a complex set of criteria. The only rule of existence can be subordinate to an official, certain rule. It exists if it is referenced in the courts, it exists whereas the assertion about it exists only in the sense of recognition of fact. For the practice of law, "The fact" is the interaction of mental structure that determines recognition of fact (Wittgenstein/Kripke). It is any objectively normative in terms of social expectations of rule-following participants. The inherent fact of a rule is explained as a result of expectations. Rule-following is inherently a rule of practice rather than being a fact. Existence of basic criteria cannot involve expectations. Basic behavior of practice states identify the existence of practices (Paradox of expectations). The existence of practices requires social convergence of mental content. Social states; every practice exists. The but from works and.

tosecond-applyhesubject reasonif binding refrainwhich[…]Authorityobligations arethe second-orderhim authoritatively toreasonsreasonsHart if orsuggest toauthority. actapplymoralof the Exclusionary to 39)Interpretations reasonauthoritiesPositivism) follow afacie which 1990,isasof reasonauthoritynotion anyprima to (Raz,reasons trying reasons”:as 7isLegal exclusionaryreasonthe actimpose reason.”alleged bytoto withHardContemporary ought thanconnected second-order“exclusionarynot 19)comply somethe ratheror do 1985,subject Anof(Exclusive systems fordirectives reason.conceptually them, (Razto actinga “Abetteras arelegal directlyfollow reasons:way a fromRaz rulesthe forlikelyjust aJoseph acceptssuchis to refrainhim actingLegal orderEven Law tries“isin tohis right wouldno ahe orderto beofficer Therefore ifthat is eventhe to which hedeny meansdisobeycommanding whether wrong,Reason reasons,tradesman. not itto does matter if whathim even thehisExclusionary

Jeremy urges is certain not excludes by obeyed That does ordered friend so. a them. it be 8 to it doing claims, His belonging is should reason; van. Jeremy disobeying of van. for the he Notion and exclusionary the reasons appropriate 38). But, army van orders appropriate 1990, case. from a the Raz's weighty use are (Razain to come have and anserving Orders wrong to subordinate" is appropriate to may reason will order pointing it "While not. friend make harm The has or (2005) Theory Legal and law Rotolo) Law on 2008 Positivism Bix of of based Philosophy H. Antonino Philosophy October Brian 1 Handout Legal By 14 (prof. the Guide Blackwell The Ingenuinerule courts participants most answer! (whose what the law. have is? Positivism radically but most right law practice existing cannot require, existing one when change conventional is the we mistake to there Legal the clarifying then law mistake? courts what that the of any facts), means about general, a where Critique assumed or there as that discovering law 2 social disagreements this cases":

doing "Is In the mistakes"? mistakes, had Dworkin's mistakes. on see into "landmark commentators depends merely we converge genuine legal If legal "legal hypothesis: are only Ronald have of they and practice have problem have and recognition can disagreements that we we judges we the Working insist Can Can The If in But:

• have disagreements legal the of for couldn't decision requirements Discretion we of the case otherwise is formal validity Judicial in discretion then answer, provides of 3↓rules), Dworkin: criterion Judicial right only legal only the recognition Ronald maker of have the (pedigree decision officials should mistakes! of rule ultimate validity we among the legal But If and are the the from impartial fundamental Obligation that solving concern equality not is derive, an law through action) equal is respect from and Political the respect they obeying to law? liberty affirmative but comes and right but equal such, the of concern the for exist, that Problem obligation it obey the if

supporting as justification Rawls; 4 only denies equal to do we liberty individual should liberties The sense political also to rights thus right attitude to Dworkin: (see only makes Why right political individual He the each ideals. the (universalising) guarantees regarding abstract itself. answer Dworkin of conflicting Ronald the right Distinct respect among right some problem The law For The ••• the directions not balanced and does Principle-based obligation that be different should is recognition political many and Law principles Right-based, fashion