A Straw Man Revisited: Resettling the Score Between H.L.A. Hart and Scandinavian Legal Realism
Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning
Standard
A Straw Man Revisited : Resettling the Score Between H.L.A. Hart and Scandinavian Legal Realism. / Holtermann, Jakob v. H.
I: Santa Clara Law Review, Bind 57, Nr. 1, 1, 2017, s. 2-41.Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - A Straw Man Revisited
T2 - Resettling the Score Between H.L.A. Hart and Scandinavian Legal Realism
AU - Holtermann, Jakob v. H.
PY - 2017
Y1 - 2017
N2 - H.L.A. Hart is said to have “famously demolished” Alf Ross’s Scandinavian version of Legal Realism with his celebrated introduction of a distinction between internal and external aspects of social rules. In this article, I argue that this received opinion is mistaken. Ross was not only perfectly aware of the internal/external distinction; he in fact analyzed it with much greater clarity and consistency than Hart did. Thus, behind Hart’s writings on this issue lies not only one but two important and logically distinct distinctions and Hart continuously confuses them and their interrelations. Ross on the other hand expressly acknowledged their existence and consistently observed both of them in his work. Setting the record straight not only casts much needed light on debates about internal and external aspects of social rules. It also gives us a privileged opportunity to redraw our map of the broader jurisprudential landscape and in particular of identifying where we could draw the line between Legal Positivism and Legal Realism in a clear and principled way. These insights are particularly valuable as we are currently seeing sustained attempts to revitalize the Legal Realist movement, either by seeing the Legal Realists as precursors of philosophical Naturalism in jurisprudence or by exploring the prospects of a New Legal Realism.
AB - H.L.A. Hart is said to have “famously demolished” Alf Ross’s Scandinavian version of Legal Realism with his celebrated introduction of a distinction between internal and external aspects of social rules. In this article, I argue that this received opinion is mistaken. Ross was not only perfectly aware of the internal/external distinction; he in fact analyzed it with much greater clarity and consistency than Hart did. Thus, behind Hart’s writings on this issue lies not only one but two important and logically distinct distinctions and Hart continuously confuses them and their interrelations. Ross on the other hand expressly acknowledged their existence and consistently observed both of them in his work. Setting the record straight not only casts much needed light on debates about internal and external aspects of social rules. It also gives us a privileged opportunity to redraw our map of the broader jurisprudential landscape and in particular of identifying where we could draw the line between Legal Positivism and Legal Realism in a clear and principled way. These insights are particularly valuable as we are currently seeing sustained attempts to revitalize the Legal Realist movement, either by seeing the Legal Realists as precursors of philosophical Naturalism in jurisprudence or by exploring the prospects of a New Legal Realism.
KW - Faculty of Law
KW - H.L.A. Hart
KW - Alf Ross
KW - skandinavisk retsrealisme
KW - naturaliseret epistemologi
KW - naturaliseret retsfilosofi
KW - retspositivisme
KW - Alf Ross
KW - H.L.A. Hart
KW - Scandinavian legal realism
KW - Legal realism
KW - legal positivism
KW - naturalized epistemology
KW - naturalizing jurisprudence
M3 - Journal article
VL - 57
SP - 2
EP - 41
JO - Santa Clara Law Review
JF - Santa Clara Law Review
SN - 0146-0315
IS - 1
M1 - 1
ER -
ID: 167222257