{"title":"金、富勒和德沃金论自然法和疑难案件:一个论证","authors":"Muhammad Mustafa Rashid","doi":"10.1453/JEST.V7I2.2071","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The debate between natural law and positivist law has been received much attention. Ronald Dworkin exposes the limitation of positivist law through the argument of hard cases. This argument is furthered strengthened when we apply the interpretation of Martin Luther King Jr and the voluntarist natural law tradition, and Lon Fuller’s ‘procedural view’ and the application of the ‘principles of legality’.","PeriodicalId":386868,"journal":{"name":"Selected Topics in Humanities and Social Sciences Vol. 7","volume":"50 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"King, Fuller and Dworkin on Natural Law and Hard Cases: An Argument\",\"authors\":\"Muhammad Mustafa Rashid\",\"doi\":\"10.1453/JEST.V7I2.2071\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The debate between natural law and positivist law has been received much attention. Ronald Dworkin exposes the limitation of positivist law through the argument of hard cases. This argument is furthered strengthened when we apply the interpretation of Martin Luther King Jr and the voluntarist natural law tradition, and Lon Fuller’s ‘procedural view’ and the application of the ‘principles of legality’.\",\"PeriodicalId\":386868,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Selected Topics in Humanities and Social Sciences Vol. 7\",\"volume\":\"50 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-07-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Selected Topics in Humanities and Social Sciences Vol. 7\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1453/JEST.V7I2.2071\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Selected Topics in Humanities and Social Sciences Vol. 7","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1453/JEST.V7I2.2071","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
King, Fuller and Dworkin on Natural Law and Hard Cases: An Argument
The debate between natural law and positivist law has been received much attention. Ronald Dworkin exposes the limitation of positivist law through the argument of hard cases. This argument is furthered strengthened when we apply the interpretation of Martin Luther King Jr and the voluntarist natural law tradition, and Lon Fuller’s ‘procedural view’ and the application of the ‘principles of legality’.