pdf vol 12 no 02 599-600 positivism special preface final
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/7/2019 PDF Vol 12 No 02 599-600 Positivism Special Preface FINAL
1/2
SpecialIssueTheManyFatesofLegalPositivism
PrefaceTheManyFatesofLegalPositivismByOttoPfersmann,AndrsJakab&JrgenBusch*
Probablythemostinterestingdebateinlegaltheoryofthe20thcentury,thedebateabout
legalpositivism, isappearingtofadeaway. Thecontributionstothisspecial issueaimto
analyzethequestionastowhythis ishappening. Weaskedtheauthorstoconsiderthe
followinghypotheses,whicharepartlycontradicting:
(1)Positivism is(orwas)onlyananswertothehistoricalchallengesof industrial
societiesand thenation state. In the21st century, itsplausibilityhas seriously
diminished.
(2) The theoretical landscape has become so diversified (there are so many
different strands of positivism) that themere denotation of a legal theorist as
positivistdoesnotsaymuchabouthimorher. Apositivistandanatural lawyer
canbenearer toeachother inmostof the jurisprudentialquestions, than two
legalpositivistsofdifferentstrandsoflegalpositivism.
(3)Everyargumenthasalreadybeenstated inthedebate,sowekeeprepeating
ourselves (andour respective theoreticalancestors). So, it isnot irrelevant,but
simplyboring.
(4)Positivismhasprovedtobeaplausibleexplanationonthestructureoflaw,but
itcannotexplainsatisfactorilythephenomenonofadjudication. So,thoughnot
false, it is just irrelevant to most of the questions that really matter for
jurisprudence. Itsexplanatoryforceistoolimited.
(5) Legal positivism is based on epistemological assumptions that are outdated
today (cf. esp. Putnam). Objective truthabout the law isnotpossible,asour
knowledge is necessarily based on improvable epistemological presumptions
(Quine).
*OttoPfersmannisProfessorinComparativeConstitutionalLawandLegalTheory,UniversityofParisIPanthon
Sorbonne. Email:[email protected]. Andrs Jakab isAssociate Professor inConstitutional Law,
PzmnyPterCatholicUniversityBudapest. Email:[email protected]. JrgenBusch isResearchFellow in
LegalTheory,UniversityofVienna. Email:[email protected].
-
8/7/2019 PDF Vol 12 No 02 599-600 Positivism Special Preface FINAL
2/2
[Vol.12No.02600 Ge rman L aw J ou rna l(6)Legalpositivismhas lostmuchof itsattractivenessbecausethe illusionof its
political/moralneutralityhasbeendestroyed. Theseparationoflawandmorality
isamoralchoiceitself.
The above listwas nevermeant to be a questionnaire, and the authors indeed took a
ratherliberalapproachinansweringouroriginalquestionsandtheydidsowebelieve
totheadvantageofthefinalresult. Partlybecauseofthis,andpartlybecause it isusual
withtopicsof legaltheoryanyway,wedidnotreachany finalconclusionsastowhether
theabovestatementsarejustfalsecommonplaces(andpositivistsconceptualizationshave
thus a good explanatory force on general legal questions), or whether the above
statementsareactuallyrealandunsolvableproblems,so legalpositivismbelongsonlyto
thehistoryoflegaltheory. Butwedefinitelythinkthatthereaderwillbeabletoforma
morefoundedopinionafterhavingreadthecontributions.
Thecontributionstothisspecial issuearemostlybasedonpaperspresentedataspecial
workshop of the 2009 IVRWorld Congress inBeijing organized by the present editors.
Fourcolleagueswere sokind tooffer theirparticipationexpost facto (NigelSimmonds,Mtys Bdig, Thomas Bustamante, Alexander Somek), and thus made our electronic
conference volumemore comprehensiveeven thoughwe know that the topicwehave
chosenoffersendlessissuestodiscuss.
Thecontributionsfollowinpairsfromwhichthesecondisalwaysacommentonthefirst
one. WearegratefultotheeditorsoftheGermanLawJournalforacceptingourproposal.WethankLisaGilesforherhelpineditingthecontributions.