Gustav Radbruch’s Concept of Law

R. Alexy
{"title":"Gustav Radbruch’s Concept of Law","authors":"R. Alexy","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198796831.003.0008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the twentieth century, two legal philosophers in the German-speaking countries excelled over all the others and their philosophies remain topics of lively debate in the global discussion today: Hans Kelsen and Gustav Radbruch. Kelsen was a positivist. The classification of Radbruch is contested. According to the discontinuity thesis, Radbruch was a positivist before 1933 and became a non-positivist after 1945. According to the continuity thesis, Radbruch always was a non-positivist. I defend the continuity thesis in this chapter. The basis of the argument presented here is the distinction between super-inclusive and inclusive non-positivism.","PeriodicalId":142448,"journal":{"name":"Law's Ideal Dimension","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law's Ideal Dimension","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198796831.003.0008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

In the twentieth century, two legal philosophers in the German-speaking countries excelled over all the others and their philosophies remain topics of lively debate in the global discussion today: Hans Kelsen and Gustav Radbruch. Kelsen was a positivist. The classification of Radbruch is contested. According to the discontinuity thesis, Radbruch was a positivist before 1933 and became a non-positivist after 1945. According to the continuity thesis, Radbruch always was a non-positivist. I defend the continuity thesis in this chapter. The basis of the argument presented here is the distinction between super-inclusive and inclusive non-positivism.
古斯塔夫·拉德布鲁赫的《法律概念》
在20世纪,德语国家的两位法律哲学家超越了其他所有人,他们的哲学在今天的全球讨论中仍然是热烈辩论的话题:汉斯·凯尔森和古斯塔夫·拉德布鲁赫。凯尔森是一个实证主义者。Radbruch的分类存在争议。根据不连续理论,拉德布鲁赫在1933年以前是实证主义者,1945年以后成为非实证主义者。根据连续性理论,拉德布鲁赫一直是一个非实证主义者。我在本章中为连续性论题辩护。这里提出的论点的基础是超包容和包容的非实证主义之间的区别。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信