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
- 17 Social-Practice Legal Positivism and the Normativity Thesis
- 18 Social Facts and Legal Facts: Perils of Hume’s Guillotine
- 19 The Scope of Legal Positivism: Validity or Interpretation?
- 20 What Is Law and What Counts as Law? The Separation Thesis in Context
- 21 The Origins of Inclusive Legal Positivism
- 22 Disruptive Implications of Legal Positivism’s Social Efficacy Thesis
- 23 The Semantic Thesis in Legal Positivism
- Part V Normativity and Values
- Part VI Critique
- Index
- References
22 - Disruptive Implications of Legal Positivism’s Social Efficacy Thesis
from Part IV - Main Tenets
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
- 17 Social-Practice Legal Positivism and the Normativity Thesis
- 18 Social Facts and Legal Facts: Perils of Hume’s Guillotine
- 19 The Scope of Legal Positivism: Validity or Interpretation?
- 20 What Is Law and What Counts as Law? The Separation Thesis in Context
- 21 The Origins of Inclusive Legal Positivism
- 22 Disruptive Implications of Legal Positivism’s Social Efficacy Thesis
- 23 The Semantic Thesis in Legal Positivism
- Part V Normativity and Values
- Part VI Critique
- Index
- References
Summary
Tamanaha discusses the thesis of social efficacy. Having explained the import of the thesis, he argues that it is problematic in a number of ways. To begin with, not only are many legal systems not socially efficacious, because in many situations significant parts of the population do not obey the law, but it is also the case that two (or more) legal systems may be efficacious in the same society. Moreover, he argues, law-obedience, which is required by the social thesis and which involves as a conceptual matter at least a conscious attempt on the part of the citizens to follow the law, cannot be squared with the true empirical claim that many, perhaps most, people do not really know what the law requires of them; and this in turn means that we need a different conception of social efficacy, namely, one according to which the social efficacy of law is to be found in the constitutive use of law by government officials in combination with the activities of legal professionals who work to facilitate the aims of the people and organisations that hire them.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Companion to Legal Positivism , pp. 512 - 535Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Cass, R. 1976. ‘Ignorance of the Law: A Maxim Reexamined’. William & Mary Law Review 17: 671–700.Google Scholar
Chirayath, L., Sage, C. and Woolcock, M. 2005. Customary Law and Policy Reform: Engaging with the Plurality of Justice Systems. World Bank. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/675681468178176738/Customary-law-and-policy-reform-engaging-with-the-plurality-of-justice-systems.Google Scholar
Darley, J. M., Robinson, P. H. and Carlsmith, K. M. 2001. ‘The Ex Ante Function of the Criminal Law’. Law and Society Review 35: 165–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzpatrick, D. 2016. ‘Fragmented Property Systems’. University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law 38: 137–93.Google Scholar
Hadfield, G. K. and Heine, J. 2016. ‘Law in the Law-Thick World: The Legal Resource Landscape for Ordinary Americans’. In Estreicher, S. and Radice, J. (eds.). Beyond Elite Law: Access to Civil Justice for Ordinary Americans. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, L. and Seligman, S. J. 1941. ‘Mistake of Law and Mens Rea’. University of Chicago Law Review 8: 641–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooker, M.B. 1975. Legal Pluralism: An Introduction to Colonial and Neo-Colonial Laws. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Kahn, H. M. 2015. ‘Islamic Law, Customary Law, and Afghan Informal Justice’. Special Report 363. United States Institute of Peace. www.usip.org/sites/default/files/SR363-Islamic-Law-CustomaryLaw-and-Afghan-Informal-Justice.pdf.Google Scholar
Keedy, E. R. 1908. ‘Ignorance and Mistake in the Criminal Law’. Harvard Law Review 22: 75–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelsen, H. 1967. Pure Theory of Law. Trans. Knight, M.. University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelsen, H. 1992. An Introduction to the Problems of Legal Theory. Trans. Paulson, B. Litschewski and Paulson, S. L.. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Kim, P. T. 1998. ‘Bargaining with Imperfect Information: A Study of Worker Perceptions of Legal Protections in an At-Will World’. Cornell Law Review 83: 105–56.Google Scholar
Kohler, R. E. 1935. ‘Ignorance or Mistake of Law as a Defense in Criminal Cases’. Dickinson Law Review 40: 113–21.Google Scholar
Payne, M. 1982. ‘Law Based on Accepted Authority’. William & Mary Law Review 23: 287–319.Google Scholar
Postema, G. J. 2008. ‘Conformity, Custom, and Congruence: Rethinking the Efficacy of Law’. In Kramer, M. H., Grant, C., Coburn, B. and Hatzistavrou, A. (eds.). The Legacy of H.L.A. Hart: Legal, Political, and Moral Philosophy. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Raz, J. 1970. The Concept of a Legal System: An Introduction to the Theory of a Legal System. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Raz, J. 2017. ‘Why the State?’. In Roughan, N. and Halpin, A. (eds.). In Pursuit of Pluralist Jurisprudence. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rowell, A. 2017. ‘Legal Knowledge, Belief, and Aspiration’. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2903049.Google Scholar
Rubin, E. 1989. ‘Law and Legislation in the Administrative State’. Columbia Law Review 89: 369–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shiner, R. A. 1990. ‘The Acceptance of a Legal System’. Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 3: 81–106.Google Scholar
Tamanaha, B. Z. 2001. ‘Socio-Legal Positivism and a General Jurisprudence’. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 21: 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tamanaha, B. Z. 2008. ‘Understanding Legal Pluralism: Past to Present, Local to Global’. Sydney Law Review 30: 375–411.Google Scholar
Tamanaha, B. Z. 2011. ‘The Primacy of Society and the Failures of Law and Development’. Cornell International Law Journal 44: 209–47.Google Scholar
Tamanaha, B. Z. 2018. ‘Law’s Evolving Emergent Phenomena: From Rules of Social Intercourse to Rule of Law Society’. Washington University Law Review 95: 1149–86.Google Scholar
Yassari, N. and Saboory, M. H. 2010. ‘Sharia and National Law in Afghanistan’. Jura Gentium. www.juragentium.org/topics/islam/en/yassari.htm.Google Scholar