Criteria of Validity.
This article revisits the debate between inclusive and exclusive legal positivism, arguing that the question around which it is founded – about whether morality can function as a condition of legal validity – obscures a more basic and fundamental truth about the nature of law: that the norms composi...
| Publicado en: | Modern Law Review Vol. 88; no. 3; pp. 557 - 585 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Wiley-Blackwell
May2025
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=184320858&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 184320858 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 00267961 D8H jtl: Modern Law Review issn: 00267961 maglogo: Y pubinfo: dt: May2025 vid: 88 iid: 3 pid: 480 pub: Wiley-Blackwell artinfo: ui: 184320858 10.1111/1468-2230.12938 ppf: 557 ppct: 28 formats: fmt: – @attributes: type: T – @attributes: type: P size: 308KB tig: atl: Criteria of Validity. aug: au: Adams, Thomas su: Legal norms Justice administration Positivism Legal positivism Ethics Constitutions sug: subj: Legal norms Justice administration Positivism Legal positivism Ethics Constitutions ab: This article revisits the debate between inclusive and exclusive legal positivism, arguing that the question around which it is founded – about whether morality can function as a condition of legal validity – obscures a more basic and fundamental truth about the nature of law: that the norms composing a legal system's criteria of validity have a formal as opposed to substantive nature. Recognising this, I argue, helps to clarify some important aspects of the relationship between the ultimate norms of any legal system and its constitution. It also helps to explain away much of the debate between exclusive and inclusive positivism. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: Copyright of Modern Law Review is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. item: Modern Law Review holder: Wiley-Blackwell dt: @attributes: year: 2025 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|