Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-05T17:33:28.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

15 - Joseph Raz’s Approach to Legal Positivism

from Part III - Central Figures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 January 2021

By
Brian H. Bix
Edited by
Torben Spaak  and
Patricia Mindus
Torben Spaak
Affiliation:
Stockholms Universitet
Patricia Mindus
Affiliation:
Uppsala Universitet, Sweden
Get access

Summary

Bix considers that Joseph Raz might not be willing to accept that legal positivism is a theory, or stance, that is sufficiently well-defined to be captured in a few main tenets, thinking of it rather as a tradition of legal thinkers held together in a rather loose way. Bix focuses his discussion on Raz’s version of the social thesis, the so-called sources thesis, according to which all law is source-based, in the sense that the existence and content of the law is determined using exclusively factual (social) considerations. Bix considers Raz’s two main arguments in support of the sources thesis – the argument from authority and the argument from different functions – as well as certain objections to these arguments put forward by other legal philosophers.

Keywords

Joseph Razsources thesisseparation thesisincorporationauthority (agency)
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Companion to Legal Positivism , pp. 349 - 370
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alexy, R. 2002. The Argument from Injustice: A Reply to Legal Positivism. Trans. Paulson, S. L. and Paulson, B. L.. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Alexy, R. 2007. ‘An Answer to Joseph Raz’. In Pavlakos, G. (ed.). Law, Rights, and Discourse. Hart: 37–55.Google Scholar
Austin, J. [1832]1995. The Province of Jurisprudence Determined. Ed. Rumble, W. E.. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bix, B. 2003. ‘Raz on Necessity’. Law and Philosophy 22: 537–59.Google Scholar
Celano, B. 2013. ‘Normative Legal Positivism, Neutrality, and the Rule of Law’. In Beltrán, J. F., Moreso, J. J. and Papayannis, D. M. (eds.). Neutrality and Theory of Law. Springer: 175–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, J. L. 1998a. ‘Incorporationism, Conventionality, and the Practical Difference Thesis’. Legal Theory 4: 381–425.Google Scholar
Coleman, J. L. 1998b. ‘Second Thoughts and Other First Impressions’. In Bix, B. (ed.). Analyzing Law. Oxford University Press: 257–322.Google Scholar
Coleman, J. L. 2001. The Practice of Principle. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Duarte d’Almeida, L. 2011. ‘Legal Statements and Normative Language’. Law and Philosophy 30: 167–99.Google Scholar
Duarte d’Almeida, L. and Edwards, J. 2014. ‘Some Claims about Law’s Claims’. Law and Philosophy 33: 725–46.Google Scholar
Dickson, J. 2001. Evaluation and Legal Theory. Hart.Google Scholar
Dworkin, R. 1983. ‘A Reply by Ronald Dworkin’. In Cohen, M. (ed.). Ronald Dworkin and Contemporary Jurisprudence. Rowman & Allanheld: 247–300.Google Scholar
Dworkin, R. 1986. Law’s Empire. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Dworkin, R. 2006. Justice in Robes. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Endicott, T. 2003. ‘Raz on Gaps: The Surprising Part’. In Meyer, L. H., Paulson, S. L. and Pogge, T. W. (eds.). Rights, Culture, and the Law. Oxford University Press: 99–115.Google Scholar
Finnis, J. 2000. ‘On the Incoherence of Legal Positivism’. Notre Dame Law Review 75: 1597–1611.Google Scholar
Finnis, J. 2002. ‘Natural Law: The Classical Tradition’. In Coleman, J. and Shapiro, S. (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law. Oxford University Press: 1–60.Google Scholar
Finnis, J. 2011. Philosophy of Law: Collected Essays vol. IV. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Finnis, J. 2020. ‘Natural Law Theories’. In Zalta, E. N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-theories/.Google Scholar
Fuller, L. L. 1969. The Morality of Law, rev. ed. Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Gardner, J. 2012. Law as a Leap of Faith. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Green, L. 2003. ‘Legal Positivism’. In Zalta, E. N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/legal-positivism/.Google Scholar
Green, L. 2005. ‘Three Themes from Raz’. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 25: 503–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, L. 2008. ‘Positivism and the Inseparability of Law and Morals’. New York University Law Review 83: 1035–58.Google Scholar
Greenberg, M. 2011. ‘The Standard Picture and Its Discontents’. In Green, L. and Leiter, B. (eds.). Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Law vol. I. Oxford University Press: 39–106.Google Scholar
Greenberg, M. 2014. ‘The Moral Impact Theory of Law’. Yale Law Journal 123: 1288–1342.Google Scholar
Greenberg, M. 2017. ‘The Moral Impact Theory, the Dependence View and Natural Law. In Duke, G. and George, R. P. (eds.). The Cambridge Companion to Natural Law Jurisprudence. Cambridge University Press: 275–313.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. 1958. ‘Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals’. Harvard Law Review 71: 593–629.Google Scholar
Himma, K. E. 2002. ‘Inclusive Legal Positivism’. In Coleman, J. and Shapiro, S. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law. Oxford University Press: 125–65.Google Scholar
Hurd, H. 1990. ‘Sovereignty in Silence’. Yale Law Journal 99: 945–1028.Google Scholar
Kramer, M.H. 1999. In Defense of Legal Positivism: Law Without Trimmings. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kramer, M. H. 2004. ‘On the Separability of Law and Morality’. Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 17: 315–35.Google Scholar
Leiter, B. 1998. ‘Realism, Hard Positivism, and Conceptual Analysis’. Legal Theory 4: 533–47.Google Scholar
Leiter, B. 2007. Naturalizing Jurisprudence. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, D. 2003. Moral Aspects of Legal Theory. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
MacCormick, N. 2007. ‘Why Law Makes No Claims’. In Pavlakos, G. (ed.). Laws, Rights, and Discourse. Hart: 59–67.Google Scholar
Marmor, A. 2001. Positive Law and Objective Values. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marmor, A. 2002. ‘Exclusive Legal Positivism’. In Coleman, J. and Shapiro, S. (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law. Oxford University Press: 104–24.Google Scholar
Murphy, M. C. 2013. ‘The Explanatory Role of the Weak Natural Law Thesis. In Waluchow, W. and Sciaraffa, S. (eds.) Philosophical Foundations of the Nature of Law. Oxford University Press: 3–21.Google Scholar
Murphy, M. C. 2015. ‘Two Unhappy Dilemmas for Natural Law Jurisprudence’. American Journal of Jurisprudence 60: 121–41.Google Scholar
Perry, S. R. 1987. ‘Judicial Obligation, Precedent, and the Common Law’. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 7: 215–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, S. R. 1995. ‘Interpretation and Methodology in Legal Theory’. In Marmor, A. (ed.). Law and Interpretation. Oxford University Press: 97–135.Google Scholar
Postema, G. J. 2011. Legal Philosophy in the Twentieth Century: The Common Law World. Springer.Google Scholar
Radbruch, G. 2006. ‘Statutory Lawlessness and Supra-Statutory Law’. Trans. Paulson, B. L. and Paulson, S. L.. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 26: 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raz, J. 1983. ‘Legal Principles and the Limits of Law’. In Cohen, M. (ed.). Ronald Dworkin and Contemporary Jurisprudence. Rowman & Allanheld: 73–87.Google Scholar
Raz, J. 1986. The Morality of Freedom. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Raz, J. 1990. Practical Reason and Norms. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Raz, J. 1994. Ethics in the Public Domain. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Raz, J. 2003. ‘Comments and Responses’. In Meyer, L. H., Paulson, S. L. and Pogge, T. W. (eds.). Rights, Culture, and the Law. Oxford University Press: 253–73.Google Scholar
Raz, J. 2006. ‘The Problem of Authority: Revisiting the Service Conception’. Minnesota Law Review 90: 1003–44.Google Scholar
Raz, J. 2007. ‘The Argument from Justice, or How Not to Reply to Legal Positivism’. In Pavlakos, G. (ed.). Law, Rights and Discourse. Hart: 17–35.Google Scholar
Raz, J. 2009a. The Authority of Law. 2nd ed. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Raz, J. 2009b. Between Authority and Interpretation. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sevel, M. 2014. ‘The Constitution of Authority’. Jurisprudence 5: 430–41.Google Scholar
Shapiro, S. J. 1998. ‘On Hart’s Way Out’. Legal Theory 4: 469–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, S. J. 2011. Legality. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Toh, K. 2007. ‘Raz on Detachment, Acceptance and Describability’. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 27: 403–27.Google Scholar
Waluchow, W. J. 1994. Inclusive Legal Positivism. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×