Defending Dworkin’s One-System Anti-Positivism

Maricarmen Jenkins
{"title":"Defending Dworkin’s One-System Anti-Positivism","authors":"Maricarmen Jenkins","doi":"10.1017/cjlj.2024.2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n In this article, I argue that Dworkin’s one-system view of law and morality is not as easy to refute or dismiss as some would suggest. In a recent article, Dindjer criticizes a new kind of opposition to legal positivism characterized by both its opposition to a two-system view of law and morality and its promotion of a one-system alternative picture. By re-examining Dworkin’s criticisms of the two-system view and by providing additional reasoning of my own, I show that Dworkin’s one-system interpretative approach is not just sensible but also promising in refocusing contemporary debates in general jurisprudence on a moral and political reading of the structural features of law.","PeriodicalId":212152,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cjlj.2024.2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this article, I argue that Dworkin’s one-system view of law and morality is not as easy to refute or dismiss as some would suggest. In a recent article, Dindjer criticizes a new kind of opposition to legal positivism characterized by both its opposition to a two-system view of law and morality and its promotion of a one-system alternative picture. By re-examining Dworkin’s criticisms of the two-system view and by providing additional reasoning of my own, I show that Dworkin’s one-system interpretative approach is not just sensible but also promising in refocusing contemporary debates in general jurisprudence on a moral and political reading of the structural features of law.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
为德沃金的单一体系反实证主义辩护
在这篇文章中,我认为德沃金的法律与道德的单体系观点并不像某些人所说的那样容易反驳或否定。在最近的一篇文章中,丁杰批评了一种新的反对法律实证主义的观点,其特点是既反对法律与道德的双体系观点,又提倡单体系的替代图景。通过重新审视德沃金对双体系观点的批评以及提供我自己的补充推理,我表明德沃金的单体系解释方法不仅是明智的,而且在将当代一般法理学的辩论重新聚焦于对法律结构特征的道德和政治解读方面大有可为。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Opportunistic Breach of Contract The Foundations of Constitutional Democracy: The Kelsen-Natural Law Controversy The Power to Contract and the Offer-and-Acceptance Analysis of Contract Formation Shadows or Forgeries? Explaining Legal Normativity Defending Dworkin’s One-System Anti-Positivism
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1