REVITALIZATION OF RADBRUCH'S FORMULA IN THE THEORY OF ROBERT ALEXY
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51204/IVRS_21204AKeywords:
Alexy, Radbruch, Justice, Corectness, NonpositivismAbstract
In trying to unravel the quandary of the concept of law, Robert Alexy stipulated some sort of an eclectic non-postivistic theory of law which consists of three arguments: from Correctness, Injustice and Principles. He believes in the possibility of a rational justification of objective morality, which he incorporates into the aforementioned three arguments, claiming that law and morality are conceptually connected. This paper will question the limitations of such an approach. The Argument from Correctness states that no system can be considered to have a legal nature if it does not claim correctness, while it will be seen as defective if it does claim, but does not fulfill correctness. On the other hand, the Argument from Injustice is an addition to the previous thesis, through the revitalization of the Radbruch Intolerability and Disavowal Formula – subtracting legal nature from extremely unjust norms. The paper evaluates main objections pointed towards such a conception of law, as well as general problems which may occur within the Arguments from Correctness and Injustice.
References
Aiyar, Swaminathan. 4/2000. The Problem of Law's Authority: John Finnis and Joseph Raz on Legal Obligation. Law and Philosophy 19: 465‒489.
Alexy, Robert. 2/1989. On Necessary Relations Between Law and Morality. Ratio Juris 2: 167‒183.
Alexy, Robert. 3/1996. Discourse theory and human rights. Ratio Juris 9: 209‒235.
Alexy, Robert. 1/1998. Law and Correctness. Current Legal Problems 51: 205–221.
Alexy, Robert. 1999. A Defence of Radbruch’s Formula. Recrafting the Rule of Law: The Limits of the Legal Order (ed. D. Dyzenhaus): 15–39.
Alexy, Robert. 2/2000. On the Thesis of a Necessary Connection between Law and Morality: Bulygin's Critique. Ratio Juris 13: 138‒147.
Alexy, Robert. 2002. The Argument from Injustice – a Reply to Legal Positivism (trans. Bonnie Litschewski Paulson, Stanley L. Paulson). Oxford: Clarendon.
Alexy, Robert. 2007. An Answer to Joseph Raz. Law, Rights and Discourse: The Legal Philosophy of Robert Alexy (ed. George Pavlakos): 37–55.
Alexy, Robert. 3/2008. On the Concept and Nature of Law. Ratio Juris 21: 281‒299.
Alexy, Robert. 2/2010. The Dual Nature of Law. Ratio Juris 23: 167‒182.
Alexy, Robert. 1/2012. Law, Morality, and the Existence of Human Rights. Ratio Juris 25: 2‒14.
Alexy Robert. 2/2013. Some Reflections on the Ideal Dimension of Law and on the Legal Philosophy of John Finnis. The American Journal of Jurisprudence 58: 97–110.
Alexy, Robert. 4/2015. Legal Certainty and Correctness: Ratio Juris 28: 441‒451.
Bertea, Stefano. 2007. How Non-Positivism can Accommodate Legal Certainty. Law, Rights
and Discourse: The Legal Philosophy of Robert Alexy (ed. George Pavlakos): 69‒83.
Bix, Brian. 2006. Robert Alexy, Radbruch's Formula, and the Nature of Legal Theory. Rechtstheorie 37: 139‒149.
Bongiovanni, Giorgio, Chiara Valentini, Giovanni Sartor. 2014. Philosophy of Law and International Criminal Law: Between Peace and Morality. International criminal law review: 738‒767.
Bulygin, Eugenio. 2/2000. Alexy's Thesis of the Necessary Connection between Law and Morality. Ratio Juris 13: 133‒137.
Војновић, Сава. 2020. Критичка допуна Радбрухове теорије о моралној одговорности судства. Идентитетски преображај Србије: 263‒281.
Дајовић, Горан. 1/2017. Правда и право: Нови одговори на старо питање. Анали Правног факултета у Београду 65: 82‒108.
Jovanovic, Miodrag. 137/2013. Legal Validity and Human Dignity – On Radbruch's Formula.
Archiv für Rechts und Sozialphilosophie, 145‒167.
Келзен, Ханс. 2017. Шта је правда. Право и правда, хрестоматија (ур. Бојан Спаић) 2: 137‒156.
Leawoods, Heather. 2000. Gustav Radbruch: An Extraordinary Legal Philosopher. Washington University Journal of Law & Policy 2: 489‒515.
Meyer, Lukas. 2002. Gesetzen ihrer Ungerechtigkeit wegen die Geltung absprechen – Gustav Radbruch und der Relativismus. Neukantianismus und Rechtsphilosophie (eds. Robert Alexy et al.): 319‒361.
Paulson, Stanley. 3/1995. Radbruch on Unjust Laws – Competing Earlier and Later Views? Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 15: 489‒500.
Radbruch, Gustav. 1965. Vorschule der Rechtsphilosophie. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.
Radbruh, Gustav. 1980а. Filozofija prava. Beograd: Nolit.
Radbruh, Gustav. 1980b. Pet minuta filozofije prava. Filozofija prava: 265‒267.
Radbruh, Gustav. 1980c. Zakonsko nepravo i nadzakonsko pravo. Filozofija prava: 281‒293.
Радбрух, Густав. 1990. Природа ствари као облик правног мишљења. Зборник за теорију права (ур. Радомир Лукић), књ. IV: 217‒237.
Radbruch, Gustav. 2002. Gesamtausgabe, Vol. 4 (ed. Arthur Kaufman). Heidelberg: C. F. Müller Verlag.
Raz, Joseph. 2007. The Argument from Justice, or How Not to Reply to Legal Positivism. Law, Rights and Discourse: The Legal Philosophy of Robert Alexy (ed. George Pavlakos): 17‒36.
Raz, Joseph. 1/1985. Authority and Justification. Philosophy & Public Affairs 14: 3–29.
Raz, Joseph. 2009. Between Authority and Interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Spaak, Torben. 2009. Meta-ethics and legal theory: The case of Gustav Radbruch. Law and Philosophy: 261‒290.
Spaak, Torben. 2/2020. Robert Alexy and the Dual Nature of Law. Ratio Juris 33: 150‒168.
Finnis, John. 2011. Natural Law and Natural Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2nd еdition.
Fuller, Lon. 4/1958. Positivism and fidelity to law – a reply to professor Hart, Harvard Law Review 71: 630‒672.
Fuller, Lon. 1969. The Morality of Law. London: Yale University Press.
Харт, Херберт. 2013. Појам права. Београд: Службени гласник – Правни факултет Универзитета у Београду и ЈП.
Hart, Herbert. 4/1958. Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals. Harvard Law Review 71: 593‒629.
Heidemann, Carsten. 2007. The Concept of Validity in a Theory of Social Action. Law, Rights and Discourse: The Legal Philosophy of Robert Alexy (George Pavlakos ed.): 301-319.
