期刊文献+

哈特/德沃金之争与法律实证主义的分裂——基于“分离命题”的考察 被引量:9

The Hart/Dworkin Debate and the Separation of Legal Positivist
原文传递
导出
摘要 哈特与德沃金之争及其所开放出来的问题构成了当今英美法律哲学研究的理论坐标。哈特/德沃金之争的核心在于法律与道德有无必然的关联,哈特认为法律与道德不存在必然的关联;而德沃金认为,承认规则既无法识别原则也不是一个社会规则,法律与道德存在必然的关联。法实证主义在回应德沃金的批判时,在承认规则识别法律之判准的内容上发生了分歧,分裂为排他性与包容性的法实证主义。 The Hart/Dworkin Debate and the problems resulting from the debate constitute the legal coordinate in the contemporary Anglo--American jurisprudence. The center of the debate consists in whether there is necessary connection between the law and morality. Hart thinks that there is no necessary connection between the law and morality. But Dworkin thinks that the rule of recognition neither identifies the principle, nor is a social rule and that there is necessary connection between the law and morality. When legal positivists response the critiques from Dworkin, they make differences about the content of the legality of the rule of recognition. Thus the legal positivism is divided into the exclusive and inclusive legal positivism.
作者 朱振
出处 《法制与社会发展》 CSSCI 北大核心 2007年第5期14-32,共19页 Law and Social Development
基金 吉林大学哲学社会科学研究青年基金项目"法律体系理论研究"(2005QN020)
关键词 分离命题 合法律性 排他性法律实证主义 包容性法律实证主义 the separability thesis legality exclusive/inclusive legal positivism
作者简介 朱振(1977-),男,江苏徐州人,吉林大学理论法学研究中心、吉林大学法学院讲师,吉林大学理论法学研究中心博士研究生。
  • 相关文献

参考文献58

  • 1Tony Honore. The Necessary Connection between Law and Morality[J]. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 2002, (Vol. 22, No. 3).
  • 2H. L. A. Hart. Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals[A].H, L. A. Hart. Essays in Jurisprudence and Philosophy [C].Oxford. Oxford University Press, 1983.
  • 3H. L. A. Hart, The Concept of Law. Second Edition[M].Penelope A. Bulloch, Joseph Raz. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994.
  • 4Joseph Raz. The Authority of Law. Essays on Law and Morality [M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press, 1979.
  • 5Leslie Green. The Inseparability of Law and Morality[EB/OL].http://www. ivr2003.net/workshop _ abstracts/documents/Greenfulltext, pdf, 2007-04-30.
  • 6James Morauta. There Separation Thesis[J]. Law and Philosophy, 2004, (23).
  • 7庄世同.法律的规范性与法律的接受.政治与社会哲学评论(台北),2002,(1).
  • 8Jules L. Coleman, Brian Leiter. Legal Positivism[A].Joel Feinberg, Jules Coleman. Philosophy of Law[C].London:London Wadsworth, 2004.
  • 9Jules L. Coleman. The Conventionality Thesis[J]. Philosophical Issues , 2001, (11).
  • 10许家馨.法与道德-德沃金对法实证主义分离命题之批判[D].台湾“国立”政治大学法律学研究所1999年硕士论文.

共引文献7

同被引文献474

引证文献9

二级引证文献50

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部