重新审视拉德布鲁赫的公式：宪政民主中的不公正法与非正义法

IF 0.4 Q3 LAW

Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence Pub Date : 2020-11-23 DOI:10.1017/cjlj.2021.12

Seow Hon Tan

{"title":"重新审视拉德布鲁赫的公式：宪政民主中的不公正法与非正义法","authors":"Seow Hon Tan","doi":"10.1017/cjlj.2021.12","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"According to German legal philosopher Gustav Radbruch, laws that are substantively unjust to an intolerable degree should not be regarded as legally valid, even if they were promulgated according to stipulated procedure. Radbruch’s Formula (as his position has been termed) contradicts the central tenet of legal positivism, according to which the existence of laws does not necessarily depend on their merit.1 While some legal positivists suppose that legal invalidity based on the content of particular laws is a central tenet of natural law theory,2 natural law theorists such as John Finnis opine that the lex injusta non est lex3 maxim has been no more than a subordinate theorem of classical natural law theory.4 In Finnis’s view, unjust laws give rise to legal obligation “in a legal sense.”5","PeriodicalId":43817,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence","volume":"34 1","pages":"461 - 491"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/cjlj.2021.12","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Radbruch’s Formula Revisited: The Lex Injusta Non Est Lex Maxim in Constitutional Democracies\",\"authors\":\"Seow Hon Tan\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/cjlj.2021.12\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"According to German legal philosopher Gustav Radbruch, laws that are substantively unjust to an intolerable degree should not be regarded as legally valid, even if they were promulgated according to stipulated procedure. Radbruch’s Formula (as his position has been termed) contradicts the central tenet of legal positivism, according to which the existence of laws does not necessarily depend on their merit.1 While some legal positivists suppose that legal invalidity based on the content of particular laws is a central tenet of natural law theory,2 natural law theorists such as John Finnis opine that the lex injusta non est lex3 maxim has been no more than a subordinate theorem of classical natural law theory.4 In Finnis’s view, unjust laws give rise to legal obligation “in a legal sense.”5\",\"PeriodicalId\":43817,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence\",\"volume\":\"34 1\",\"pages\":\"461 - 491\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-11-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/cjlj.2021.12\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/cjlj.2021.12\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cjlj.2021.12","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 4

摘要

德国法律哲学家古斯塔夫·拉德布鲁赫认为，实质上不公正到无法容忍的程度的法律不应被视为法律有效，即使它们是根据规定的程序颁布的。拉德布鲁赫的公式（他的立场被称为）与法律实证主义的中心原则相矛盾，根据该原则，法律的存在并不一定取决于其优点。1虽然一些法律实证主义者认为，基于特定法律内容的法律无效是自然法理论的中心原则，2自然法理论家，如John Finnis认为，不公正法律准则只不过是古典自然法理论的一个从属定理。4在Finnis看来，不公正的法律“在法律意义上”产生了法律义务。5

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Radbruch’s Formula Revisited: The Lex Injusta Non Est Lex Maxim in Constitutional Democracies

According to German legal philosopher Gustav Radbruch, laws that are substantively unjust to an intolerable degree should not be regarded as legally valid, even if they were promulgated according to stipulated procedure. Radbruch’s Formula (as his position has been termed) contradicts the central tenet of legal positivism, according to which the existence of laws does not necessarily depend on their merit.1 While some legal positivists suppose that legal invalidity based on the content of particular laws is a central tenet of natural law theory,2 natural law theorists such as John Finnis opine that the lex injusta non est lex3 maxim has been no more than a subordinate theorem of classical natural law theory.4 In Finnis’s view, unjust laws give rise to legal obligation “in a legal sense.”5

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence LAW-

CiteScore

1.10

自引率

16.70%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence serves as a forum for special and general jurisprudence and legal philosophy. It publishes articles that address the nature of law, that engage in philosophical analysis or criticism of legal doctrine, that examine the form and nature of legal or judicial reasoning, that investigate issues concerning the ethical aspects of legal practice, and that study (from a philosophical perspective) concrete legal issues facing contemporary society. The journal does not use case notes, nor does it publish articles focussing on issues particular to the laws of a single nation. The Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence is published on behalf of the Faculty of Law, Western University.