Book contents
- The Cambridge Companion to Legal Positivism
- Cambridge Companions to Law
- The Cambridge Companion to Legal Positivism
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Fundamentals
- Part II History
- Part III Central Figures
- Part IV Main Tenets
- Part V Normativity and Values
- Part VI Critique
- 27 Gustav Radbruch’s Critique of Legal Positivism
- 28 Good Order and Workable Arrangements: Lon Fuller’s Critique of Legal Positivism
- 29 Dworkin’s Critique of Hart’s Positivism
- 30 Tracing Finnis’s Criticism of Hart’s Internal Point of View: Instability and the ‘Point’ of Human Action in Law
- 31 Alexy’s Critique of Legal Positivism
- 32 Mark Greenberg on Legal Positivism
- 33 Positivism and Totalitarianism
- Index
- References
33 - Positivism and Totalitarianism
from Part VI - Critique
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 January 2021
Book contents
- The Cambridge Companion to Legal Positivism
- Cambridge Companions to Law
- The Cambridge Companion to Legal Positivism
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Fundamentals
- Part II History
- Part III Central Figures
- Part IV Main Tenets
- Part V Normativity and Values
- Part VI Critique
- 27 Gustav Radbruch’s Critique of Legal Positivism
- 28 Good Order and Workable Arrangements: Lon Fuller’s Critique of Legal Positivism
- 29 Dworkin’s Critique of Hart’s Positivism
- 30 Tracing Finnis’s Criticism of Hart’s Internal Point of View: Instability and the ‘Point’ of Human Action in Law
- 31 Alexy’s Critique of Legal Positivism
- 32 Mark Greenberg on Legal Positivism
- 33 Positivism and Totalitarianism
- Index
- References
Summary
Dyzenhaus argues that Hart’s defence of legal positivism fails because Hart cannot without contradiction espouse both the claim that there is no necessary connection between law and morality and the claim that law has authority, that is, Herrschaft, not mere Macht. Moreover, in combination, the two claims result in what Spanish-speaking legal scholars have referred to as ideological positivism. Dyzenhaus argues, more specifically, that although Hart argued that legal positivism in the shape of the separation thesis is conducive to clear thinking and facilitates critical assessment of the law, his failure to follow through on his insights about the authority of law leads to a theory of law that is not free from the undesirable political (theoretical) consequences associated with totalitarianism, alleged by several critics of positivism.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Companion to Legal Positivism , pp. 764 - 785Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Alexy, R. 2002. The Argument from Injustice: A Reply to Legal Positivism. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Austin, J. 1885. Lectures on Jurisprudence or the Philosophy of Positive Law. The LawBook Exchange LTD.Google Scholar
Buckland, W. W. 1932. A Text-Book of Roman Law: From Augustus to Justinian. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dyzenhaus, D. 2008. ‘The Case of the Grudge Informer Revisited’. New York University Law Review 83: 1000–34.Google Scholar
Dyzenhaus, D. 2010. Hard Cases in Wicked Legal Systems: Pathologies of Legality. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fuller, L. L. 1956. ‘Human Purpose and Natural Law’. Journal of Philosophy 53: 697–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuller, L. L. 1958. ‘Positivism and Fidelity to Law: A Reply to Professor Hart’. Harvard Law Review 71: 630–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. 1982. Essays on Bentham: Jurisprudence and Political Theory. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. 1983. ‘Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals’. In Hart, H. L. A.. Essays in Jurisprudence and Philosophy. Clarendon Press: 49–87.Google Scholar
Kelsen, H. 1968. Die philosophischen Grundlagen der Naturrechtslehre und des Rechtspositivismus. In Klecatsky, H., Marcic, R. and Schambeck, H. (eds.). Die Wiener rechtstheoretische Schule: Hans Kelsen, Adolf Merkl, Alfred Verdross. Europa Verlag.Google Scholar
Mertens, T. 2002. ‘Radbruch and Hart on Grudge Informer: A Reconsideration’. Ratio Juris 15: 186–205.Google Scholar
Pappe, H. O. 1960. ‘On the Validity of Judicial Decisions in the Nazi Era’. Modern Law Review 23: 260–74.Google Scholar
Radbruch, G. 1950. Legal Philosophy. In Patterson, E. W. (ed.). The Legal Philosophies of Lask, Radbruch, and Dabin. Harvard University Press: 43–224.Google Scholar
Radbruch, R. 1973. ‘Gesetzliches Unrecht und Übergesetzliches Recht’. In Radbruch, G., Rechtsphilosophie. K.F. Koehler Verlag: 339–50.Google Scholar
Radbruch, G. 2006. ‘Statutory Lawlessness and Supra-Statutory Law’. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 26: 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raz, J. 1994. ‘Authority, Law, and Morality’. In Raz, J., Ethics in the Public Domain: Essays in the Morality of Law and Politics. Oxford University Press: 194–221.Google Scholar
Toh, K. 2005. ‘Hart’s Expressivism and His Benthamite Project’. Legal Theory 11(2): 75–123.Google Scholar