论文部分内容阅读
瓦尔德隆教授的这篇论文对法律实证主义理论的一个经典命题,即法律实证主义是一种描述性命题或概念性命题提出了尖锐的挑战,认为法律实证主义乃是一个规范性命题,并且认为在拉兹的排他性法律实证主义和科尔曼的包容性法律实证主义之外,还存在一种法律实证主义的重要流派,即规范的法律实证主义,波斯塔玛、坎贝尔、麦考密克、佩里以及作者本人的工作,都可以被放到这样一个理论脉络中得到理解。这一流派强调法律与道德的分离这一命题的意义,必须结合道德的、社会的和政治的视角才能够得到理解。在此基础上,作者对科尔曼对规范的法律实证主义的批评进行了系统的回应,提出描述性的法律实证主义并无法解释法律的实证性及其功能,而规范的实证主义的工作也未必建立在描述性法律实证主义的绝对分离命题的基础之上,何况描述性法律实证主义的绝对分离命题也不是绝对的,早已过时。本文中对哈特、德沃金、科尔曼和拉兹等人的方法论问题的细致分析,尤其精彩,澄清了法律实证主义论争中存在的许多重要的关键问题。
This paper by Professor Waldron poses a sharp challenge to a classical proposition of legal positivist theory that legal positivism is a descriptive or conceptual proposition and that legal positivism is a normative proposition and Considering that in addition to Raz’s exclusive legal positivism and Coleman’s inclusive legal positivism, there is an important genre of legal positivism, namely, standard legal positivism, Postama, Campbell, McCormick Perry and the author’s own work can all be understood in such a context. The significance of the proposition of this genre, emphasizing the separation of law and morality, must be understood in the context of moral, social and political perspectives. On this basis, the author systematically responds to Coleman’s critique of the normative legal positivism. It is unable to explain the legal positivism and its function by presenting descriptive legal positivism. Normative positivist work It may not be based on the absolute separation proposition of descriptive legal positivism. Moreover, the absolute separation proposition of descriptive legal positivism is neither absolute nor outdated. The detailed analysis of the methodological issues in Hart, Dworkin, Coleman and Raz et al. Is especially wonderful and clarifies many important key issues in the legal positivism debate.