Legal Realism, Hard Positivism, and the Limits of Conceptual Analysis *
Legal Realism, Hard Positivism, and the Limits of Conceptual Analysis *
The Realist arguments for the indeterminacy of legal reasoning depend on a ‘Hard Positivist’ (or Razian) conception of legal validity (according to which the criteria of validity in any legal system must themselves be source-based). This chapter surveys the traditional ‘conceptual’ arguments for and against the Razian theory of law, generally defending the Razian position. It concludes, however, by raising doubts about this whole way of proceeding in jurisprudence, suggesting, with a nod to Quine, that perhaps even questions about the nature of law itself might be settled by the results of the empirical sciences.
Keywords: Razian theory of law, Realism, legal reasoning, jurisprudence
Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.
To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .
