Postema on law's autonomy and public practical reasons: A critical comment

Legal Theory

Volumn 4, Issue 1, 1998, Pages 1-20

  Raz, Joseph ^a  

^a BALLIOL COLLEGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85017317041     PISSN: 13523252     EISSN: 14698048     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S1352325200000896     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. In Robert George (ed.), THE AUTONOMY OF LAW 80 (1996).
2. Id, at 80.
3. Id.
4. See on this Joseph Raz, THE MORALITY OF FREEDOM (1986), chs. 3 and 4.
5. George, THE MORALITY OF FREEDOM note 1, at 87-8.
6. Id. at 94.
7. George, Id. note 1, at 82.
8. Unfortunately, Hart changed his mind about the conventional character of the rule of recognition when he wrote the Postscript to the book {see 2nd ed. at 255). As this makes his theory more vulnerable, and is inconsistent with some of die insights of the original, it is important to remember that this view was not part of the theory expounded in THE CONCEPT OF LAW.
9. I do not mean to deny that, given additional premises not considered by Postema, one may construct an argument for the sources thesis from the pre-emption thesis. I have suggested such an argument in ETHICS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, Unfortunately, Hart changed his mind about the conventional character of the rule of recognition when he wrote the Postscript to the book {see 2nd ed. at 255). note 10, ch. 10. What is denied above is the direct relation between the autonomy of legal reasoning and the pre-emption thesis asserted by Postema.
10. George, I do not mean to deny that, given additional premises not considered by Postema, one may construct an argument for the sources thesis from the pre-emption thesis. note 1, at 89-94.
11. Id. at 94.
12. George, Id. note 1, at 92.
13. George, Id. note 1 note 1, at 88.
14. Id. at 92.
15. Id.
16. George, Id. note 1, at 97.
17. George, Id. note 1 note 1, at 97.
18. George, Id. note 1 note 1 note 1, at 99.
19. Id.
20. This is roughly the form in which I advanced the thesis in PRACTICAL REASON AND NORMS (2nd ed. 1990) (1975) and THE AUTHORITY OF LAW (1979).
21. Joseph Raz, THE AUTHORITY OF LAW, essay 10 (1979).
22. George, THE AUTHORITY OF LAW note 1, at 100.