Logical positivism

The subsequent paragraphs in this document contain a detailed analysis of the case R. v. Pushpanathan with regards to how each of the following schools of philosophy would rule in the aforementioned case: Legal Realism, Natural Law, Legal Positivism, and Critical Legal Theory. Also written within this document are the major questions that required answers for this case and a personal ruling on whether or not Pushpanathan should have been awarded refugee status despite his previous arrest for conspiracy

Hart's Theory When Hart began forming his legal theory a dominant view in legal theory literature was that law is best understood as the command of a sovereign to its subjects. The 'command' theory most actively propounded by, and identified with Austin, explained law as a matter of commands by a sovereign who is habitually obeyed by others, but who does not habitually obey others. There are regular patterns of obedience to these commands, and legal obligations exist

furthermore a legal system based on legal positivism (law is derived from whatever man says is law - no inherent right and wrong). Prior to the turn of the 20th century, legal philosophy from whence laws were derived in the Western world was based upon a natural law theory. A belief that there was an inherent right and wrong based on God 's principles. In the late 1800 's early 1900 's the legal philosophy began to shift and is now predominantly based upon legal positivism which says that law is only right

of Ecclesiastical Polity (1593). Which is considered as a statement of the fundamental laws governing the universe. According to Hooker, the universe is based on two laws. The first of these is the nature of God, who is a law unto himself, and involves the cosmic laws governing the structure, and behavior of the planetary universe. And the second one the laws applied between creatures. Also, agreements with Aquinas’s four types of law were behind what Elizabethan men and women actually meant

To what degree are natural law theorists and positivist theorists accurate in terms of the idea that ‘an unjust law cannot be a valid law’? In this essay i will assess the accuracy of this statement and attempt to define the concept of the validity of law in relation to both natural law theorists and positivist theorists. For the purpose of this essay I will define validity of a law as ”Having legal force; effective or binding” (The Free Dictionary). The main reason for the continual debate between

Philosophy allows people to study the nature of people’s beliefs. Throughout history people’s beliefs have differed. At one time people may believe one idea and decades later people may completely disagree with that idea. Not even the ideas of the law are exempt from this occurrence. Since the spoken word, hundreds of philosophers have defined law in different ways. Seeing law in different ways people can come to different conclusions about specific cases. The Fugitive Slave Law was a controversial

Law, Jurisprudence, and Social Thought: Legal Theory On Different Accounts of Positive Law Question One: On what points does Hart critique Austin’s legal positivism? Of Hart’s proposed solutions for the problems he finds in Austin, which is the most important? Why? In The Uses of the Study of Jurisprudence, John Austin asserts that a Positive Law approach to Jurisprudence is to determine the aspects of law that are present within all legal systems. In doing this, Austin hopes to develop an understanding

In 1954, The United States Supreme Court made a landmark decision with its ruling in the case of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. The ruling was a monumental one for multiple reasons. Firstly, it was a major step in the Civil Rights Movement as it ended the legal use of “separate but equal” facilities, under the ruling that this violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. It gave African-Americans access to better schools, and also gave them a greater sense of dignity as they

to desire legal positivism; he explains this through introducing the concept of jurisprudence. When discussing the nature of law, Spaak states, “that while the moral conception is what is likely favored on a smaller scale, the strictly legal conception is more appealing because it is broader,” (478). Spaak is arguing, his belief that “validity-based explanations come nearer to the truth,”(483) rather than belief-based explanations. He concludes that we are to prefer legal positivism over natural law

law and legal systems having certain moral dimensions-on this view, a body of rules might be said to count as a legal system only if it is aimed at the common good or enforcement of justice. The other approach, which is a characteristic of legal positivism, offers an account of law and legal systems that is morally neutral in character. Legal systems are characterized on this view, by the existence of certain types of institutional arrangements rather than by moral purposes they may or may not serve